Responsible business conduct

Digitalisation andResponsible Business Conduct
Stocktaking of policies and initiatives

Please cite this paper as:
OECD (2020), Digitalisation and Responsible Business Conduct: Stocktaking of policies andinitiatives

This paper has been prepared by the OECD Centre for Responsible Business Conduct, under thesupervision of Tyler Gillard, Head of Due Diligence, and the overall guidance of Cristina Tébar Less,
Acting Head of the Centre. The team that drafted the paper comprised Rashad Abelson andMarjoleine Hennis. Consultants from Article One Advisors supported the research and Juliet
Lawal and Ariane Rota provided communications support.
This paper is part of the Centre's work on digitalisation with the financial support of the Netherlands.
This document is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views ofOECD member countries. This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without
prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers
and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

© OECD 2020

|3

Table of contents

Executive Summary

5

Introduction

7

1. Linking responsible business conduct and digitalisation

8

Relevance of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the digital economy
Preliminary observations from stocktaking of standards and initiatives
Observations on efforts by the OECD and other international organisations
Observations on government efforts
Observations on efforts of multi-stakeholder initiatives, industry, and other stakeholders
Conclusions and ways forward

8
10
11
12
13
14

2. International standards and initiatives

15

3. National, industry and stakeholder standards and initiatives

28

ANNEX: Mapping of standards and initiatives

34

OECD standards related to digitalisation(Re)use, access and governance of data
Digital security
The use of digital technologies
Policy making in view of the digital transformation
Taxation and digitalisation
International and regional initiatives regarding digitalisation

Methodology and Scope
Research Findings
State initiatives
Civil Society Initiatives
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives
Company initiatives

Artificial intelligence and social media initiatives by civil society organisations
Multi-Stakeholder artificial intelligence initiatives
Multi-Stakeholder social media initiatives

15
15
17
18
19
21
23

28
30
30
32
32
33

50
51
53

FiguresFigure 3.1. Total number of initiatives reviewed for this study
Figure 3.2. Overview of government AI strategies and RBC issues by theme
Figure 3.3. Assessment of government social media legislation related to RBC issues by theme
Figure 3.4 Assessment of government AI initiatives by type

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

29
30
30
31

4|
Figure 3.5 Overview of government social media initiatives by typeFigure 3.6 References to international standards in CSO publications
Figure 3.7 Overview of company initiatives governing social media and AI

31
32
33

Boxes
Box 1. Overview of digital technologies

9

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

|5

Executive Summary

The digital economy has had a profound impact on society, including the global business landscapeand market dynamics. New phenomena such as online platforms, social media, distributed ledger
technology (such as blockchain), big data and online service providers affect business models andour understanding of what a “business” is. It has changed the notion of the “multinational enterprise”
with the emergence of new forms of firms and industries operating internationally, such as the platform
economy, many of which were “born global” and are not linked to a specific country. Digitalisation has
a significant impact on the workplace, and has driven innovation in all sectors, but has also contributed
to the transformation and disruption of traditional industries.
The links between digitalisation and Responsible Business conduct (RBC) are manifold. New digital
tools can help firms accelerate their contribution to sustainable development, and enable businesses
to strengthen their efforts to meet standards of RBC. At the same time, digitalisation can also cause
business to violate human rights, or contribute to social and environmental harms in new ways. Thesechanges affect the specific roles and responsibilities of business and governments to promote andimplement RBC standards in a digital world. Governments are confronted with new opportunities andchallenges while promoting the implementation of RBC standards, including the OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises in a rapidly evolving and multi-disciplinary context.
A review of international standards and initiatives on digitalisation by international organisations andgovernments, as well as efforts by various stakeholders shows that a majority of standards andinitiatives seek to address, in some form, various RBC issues. They primarily focus on the conductof entities involved in the development or (mis)use of digital technologies, and their impacts onscience and technology, workers (including the future of work), consumers, and human rights(specifically privacy, freedom of expression, political participation, and discrimination at theworkplace). Considerations related to competition and taxation also feature heavily in the initiatives,
while few deal with environmental issues in depth.
RBC instruments, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, OECD due diligenceguidance, and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are relevant anduseful, in that they provide an overarching framework for business to categorise and frame theiradverse impacts in a systematic way. However, RBC instruments are not the driving force behind
new standards and initiatives that often tend to be very “issue focused” and sometimes “incident
driven”.
National-level Artificial Intelligence (AI) standards and initiatives largely focus on developing AI
strategies, rather than regulation, and economic opportunities are driving state AI policies andresearch investments. The dominant focus areas in strategies dealing with AI in relation to RBC arecompetition issues (43%), human rights, including privacy and discrimination in the workplace (43%),
labour market impacts, specifically on the future of work (41%) and consumer protection (39%).
Approximately 35% of the strategies also foresee some action on disclosure of AI systems by
developers or users.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT6|In relation to online platforms, the impacts of social media have received increased attention by
governments, triggering higher rates of legislation. Legislation has largely focused on content
moderation, especially around terrorist activity and the spread of false information. In some cases,
companies face criminal and financial penalties. A majority of social media regulation is motivated by
the risk of offline harm, respecting and enforcing existing laws on online platforms. 92% also connect
this issue to consumer interests, and foresee some element of disclosure around content moderation.
Labour issues only come up in around 21% of the regulations reviewed. Environmental and corruption
issues rarely feature.
Multi-stakeholder initiatives are playing a critical role in helping clarify specific RBC issues in relation
to digital technologies, and they support common action. Civil society is actively involved in defining
and promoting ethical principles for responsible development and the use of digital technologies.
While not consistent, many of the emerging principles reference some international RBC instruments.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

|7

Introduction

This paper was developed by the OECD Centre for Responsible Business Conduct as part of an
ongoing consideration of the links between the digitalisation of the global economy and responsible
business conduct (RBC). RBC encompasses a range of issues, including human rights abuses,
consumer protection, environmental degradation, taxation, and corruption among others, as
described in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNE Guidelines). 1
Given the broad scope and far reaching effects of digitalisation, the OECD Working Party on
Responsible Business Conduct (WPRBC) instructed the Secretariat to take stock of initiatives bygovernments and international organisations, as well as civil society, multi-stakeholder and businessled efforts linking RBC with digitalisation. These efforts include, for example, national strategies,
legislation, research, government and civil society recommendations, and industry-led and multistakeholder working groups. 2 The paper is structured as follows:
Section 1 discusses the links between RBC and digitalisation and summarises the key issues andfindings emerging from the stocktaking and analysis of current initiatives described in sections 2 and3. This section also seeks to explain the relevance of the MNE Guidelines for the development or useof digital technologies, and provides some initial general findings.
Section 2 provides a description of relevant international standards and initiatives related todigitalisation within the OECD and other international organisations, including at the regional level.
The section highlights OECD instruments and efforts in the field of digital technologies which are
underway or planned, and which touch upon the various areas covered by the MNE Guidelines. Given
the importance of supporting coherence within the OECD on this topic, this part of the report aims to
be relatively exhaustive in describing these standards and initiatives.
Section 3 contains an overview of selected national regulations, policies, instruments and initiatives
by civil society, and industry. It is non-exhaustive, and does not provide the same level of detail as
information contained in Section 2. Nonetheless, it seeks to capture some of the main developmentsin this field, and offers some preliminary analysis of those efforts in relation to RBC.
The Annex of the paper provides detailed information on all the standards and initiatives described in
Section 3.

1 OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises [http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidelines/; OECD/LEGAL/0144], referred to throughout

this note as the “MNE Guidelines” or simply the “Guidelines” where it is clear that it is the MNE Guidelines being referenced.
2 Although the development of distributed ledger technology (commonly referred to as ‘blockchain’) is relevant to digitalisation, this paper was
limited in scope to artificial intelligence and online platforms. For more information on linkages between blockchain and RBC, see the 2019
OECD RBC Centre paper Is there a role for blockchain in responsible supply chains?, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/is-there-a-role-forblockchain-in-responsible-supply-chains.htm.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT8|

1. Linking responsible business conduct
and digitalisation
Relevance of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the digital
economyThe digital economy has had a profound impact on society, including the global business landscapeand market dynamics. New phenomena such as online platforms, social media, distributed ledger
technology (such as blockchain), big data and online service providers affect business models andour understanding of what a “business” is. It has changed the notion of the “multinational enterprise”
with the emergence of new forms of firms and industries operating internationally, such as the platform
economy, many of which were “born global” and are not linked to a specific country. Digitalisation has
a significant impact on the workplace, and has driven innovation in all sectors, but has also contributed
to the transformation and disruption of traditional industries.
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNE Guidelines) are voluntary principles andstandards for RBC recommended by governments to business. They acknowledge and encourage
the positive contributions that business can make to economic, environmental and social
development, and also recognise that business activities can result in adverse impacts related toworkers, human rights, the environment, bribery, consumers and corporate governance. All the
specific adverse impacts are listed out in the various chapters of the MNE Guidelines. The MNE
Guidelines also represent a commitment by governments to protect the public interest and a
responsibility to provide an enabling framework for RBC.
The MNE Guidelines set out the expectation for businesses to act responsibly by conducting due
diligence on their operations and those of their supply chain, so that they can identify and addressrisks of causing, contributing, or being directly linked to negative impacts. The OECD Due Diligence
Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct provides practical support to enterprises on theimplementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by providing plain language
explanations of its due diligence recommendations and associated provisions. Implementing theserecommendations can help enterprises avoid and address adverse impacts related to workers, humanrights, the environment, bribery, consumers and corporate governance that may be associated with
their operations, supply chains and other business relationships. The OECD has also developed
sector specific guidance for carrying out supply chain due diligence in minerals, garment andfootwear, agriculture, as well as for institutional investors.
The links between digitalisation and RBC are manifold. New digital tools can help firms accelerate
their contribution to sustainable development, and enable businesses to strengthen their efforts tomeet standards of RBC (see Box 1). At the same time, digitalisation can cause business to violate
human rights, or contribute to social and environmental harms, in new ways. These changes affectthe specific roles and responsibilities of business and governments to promote and implement RBC
standards in a digital world. Governments and National Contact Points are confronted with newopportunities and challenges while promoting the implementation of RBC standards, including the
MNE Guidelines, in a rapidly evolving and multi-disciplinary context.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT|9The present report intends to provide Adherents with some preliminary information to support an
informed discussion about the application of the MNE Guidelines with respect to the development
and use of digital technologies.

Box 1. Overview of digital technologies
Digital technologies are electronic tools, systems, devices and resources that generate, store orprocess data. Well-known examples of their application include social media, online games, and mobile
phones. Digital technologies have considerably speeded up data transmissions, transforming the way
people communicate and work.
Digitalisation is understood as the use of digital technologies and data, as well as interconnection that
results in new activities, or changes to existing activities. Digital transformation refers to the economic
and societal effects of digitisation and digitalisation. 3
An important element of the digital transformation has been the emergence of new business models,such as online platforms. An online platform is “a digital service that facilitates interactions between
two or more distinct, but interdependent, sets of users (whether firms or individuals) who interact
through the service via the Internet, and for which generating and working with user data is an importantfeature that sets them apart from other businesses. 4 Online platforms include a range of services
available via the internet – including for example, online marketplaces (e.g. Etsy and E-Bay), searchengines (e.g. Google and Baidu), social media (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), app stores (e.g. Apple App
Store), communication services (e.g. WhatsApp and WeChat), payment systems (e.g. Venmo and
PayPal), and platforms supporting the gig economy (e.g. Uber and Task Rabbit), among others. Online
platforms have emerged rather recently and they operate within a relatively limited regulatory
framework.
Digital technologies have made Artificial Intelligence (AI) possible. An AI system is designed to havea machine accomplish a specific problem-solving or reasoning task. The system is based on thecollection of data through sensors. With the help of these data, it produces a model of the environment,
and with the help of algorithms it interprets this environment. 5 Thanks to increased storage capacity
and the possibility to analyse large quantities of data (big data), AI increasingly uses machine learning(defined below).
Machine Learning (ML) is a set of techniques that allow machines to learn in an automated manner
through patterns and inferences, rather than through explicit instructions from a human. This has led toa considerable increase of the potential of AI in making predictions and decisions. 6
For an introduction to AI and online platforms, and their implications for RBC, see the notes presented
at a workshop on 4 November 2019: AI - https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/RBC-and-artificialintelligence.pdf; Blockchain - https://www.oecd.org/finance/OECD-Blockchain-Primer.pdf; Online
platforms - https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/RBC-and-platform-companies.pdf.

3 OECD (2019), Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312012-en, p. 18

OECD (2019), An Introduction to Online Platforms and Their Role in the Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/53e5f593-en.
4

5 OECD (2019), Artificial Intelligence in Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https//doi.org/10.1787-en, p. 23
6 OECD (2019), Artificial Intelligence in Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https//doi.org/10.1787-en, p. 27

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT10 |RBC standards may be relevant for digitalisation in a number of ways. Business may use new digitaltechnologies for its own purposes, which in turn could have new or unforeseen adverse impacts on
matters covered by the MNE Guidelines. For example, companies using AI for monitoring the
productivity of their employees, or for gathering data of their clients or consumers.
RBC standards may also be relevant when businesses develop a digital technology, or make itavailable to others, including to other business or private individual users. An example are online
platforms and their responsibility vis-à-vis other users/consumers for violent content.
Finally, the use of digital technologies can improve and accelerate a business’s own efforts to meet
RBC standards. For example, AI, big data, and machine learning may support supply chain due
diligence by more efficiently identifying, prioritising, and tracking RBC risks. Blockchain can enhancedue diligence by creating higher transparency within global supply chains and by reducing fraud.
Depending on the use of the specific digital technology, the actors in the value chain may differ. 7 In
considering the implications of the MNE Guidelines for the “digital value chain”, it may be useful todistinguish the following actors: the developers of an application of digital technology; the vendors;
those that provide the necessary infrastructure (to make the technology available to others, like datacollection, internet hosts, transit providers, browsers and search engines); and the users or
consumers.

Preliminary observations from stocktaking of standards and initiatives
Given the limitations on resources and time, the stocktaking is not exhaustive, and varies in the levelof detail and analytical depth. As described above, whereas the stocktaking of OECD efforts seeks to
be exhaustive, stocktaking of efforts by governments and stakeholders are still high-level, due to thelarge and diverse range of policies, standards and initiatives that are emerging in this field.
Nonetheless, a number of initial, crosscutting observations may be useful.
•A vast majority of standards and initiatives on digitalisation seek to address, in some form,
various RBC issues. Primarily these issues surround the conduct of entities involved in thedevelopment or (mis)use of digital technologies, and their impacts on science and technology,
workers (including the future of work), consumers, and human rights (specifically privacy,
freedom of expression, political participation, and discrimination at the workplace).
Considerations related to competition and taxation also feature heavily in the initiatives
reviewed. While the digital transformation is considered to have impacts on the environment,with its high energy consumption on the one hand, and its potential to help entities better
manage environmental impacts on the other, most standards or initiatives reviewed are notdealing with these issues in depth, as they are not considered yet to be the most material
challenge of the digital transformation.

•

RBC instruments, such as the MNE Guidelines, OECD due diligence guidance, and the United
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, are not driving these processes
per se. For the most part, there is a notable absence of reference or use of RBC instruments
in existing digitalisation policies, standards or initiatives. Digitalisation policies and standards
are often dealing with very specific, and in some cases, new forms of adverse impacts thatare emerging, and tend to be very “issue focused” and sometimes “incident driven”.

7 See the OECD note on AI and RBC for an overview of seven use cases or patterns, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/RBC-and-artificial-intelligence.pdf.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 11
•

At the same time, RBC instruments, including the MNE Guidelines and OECD due diligenceguidance, do cover the issues dealt with by the digitalisation standards or initiatives at a
general level. RBC instruments are therefore relevant and useful, in that they provide an
overarching framework for business to categorise and frame their adverse impacts in asystematic way (e.g. along chapters of the Guidelines), and to undertake due diligence toidentify and address risks, including those related to digitalisation. The Guidelines and OECDdue diligence guidance have a proven record for enabling business to operationalise due
diligence in a variety of sectors and interactions with society. RBC instruments will likely
continue to be used by stakeholders as a key reference for the responsible development anduse of digital technologies, and National Contact Points may see an increase in specificinstances on these issues as a result. 8 However, given that RBC instruments do not yet
contain the level of specificity needed to be directly used in policy and practice, further
elaboration of what RBC instruments mean for governments and industry in the digitaltransformation could be particularly useful.

Specific observations in relation to efforts by different stakeholder groups are elaborated further
below.

Observations on efforts by the OECD and other international organisations
The stocktaking in Section 2 gives an overview of OECD standards and initiatives in the field ofdigitalisation to the extent that they are relevant for RBC. It examines more in detail the debate about
digitalisation in the OECD and in how far the use, misuse, and access to digital technologies iscovered, or in line with the principles of RBC.
Section 2 includes a review of OECD legal instruments in this space, and other relevant initiatives in
the OECD. In addition, it describes five standards and seven initiatives of other International
Organisations in this field. These cover a wide variety of issues, ranging from the very specific andtechnical, such as the Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology, to the more
broad, such as the Privacy Guidelines.
Since the 1980s, the OECD has adopted a number of standards that refer to digital technologies. For
the purposes of this report, they can be subdivided into the following groups: standards related to the(re)use, access and governance of data, such as the Privacy Guidelines; standards related to digital
security, such as the Security Guidelines; standards for the use of digital technologies, such as the
Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence; and standards for policy making in view of the digitaltransformation, such as the Recommendation of the Council on Consumer Protection in E-commerce.
Parallel to the developments in the OECD, other International Organisations have developed similar
or complementary standards. For example, the UN B-tech project seeks to cover a wide range ofhuman rights topics and enable business to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights when using new digital technologies. Given the alignment between the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights and the human rights chapter of the MNE Guidelines, itwill be useful to continue to engage with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights in this field.

8 So far, the number of cases with a digital component has been rather limited, with only one specific instance brought to an NCP in 2018, andone during the first 6 months of 2020. These specific instances both involved digital platforms, respectively Grupa OLX and AirBnB. See: Foran overview of specific instances see: https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/database/.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT12 |Observations on government efforts
Section 3 takes stock of government efforts on artificial intelligence (including national strategies,
legislation, research and government recommendations), and on social media and online platforms(including national strategies, legislation, and recommendations).
In relation to AI, some initial observations include:•

Governments are largely focused on developing AI strategies rather than regulation. Since
2015, countries increasingly include AI strategies in their national policies. This is particularly
the case in OECD countries and key partners. Regulation on artificial intelligence appears toremain minimal, with a clear concern from governments that they do not limit innovation withregulation that may place their country at a global disadvantage.

•

At the same time, governments are increasingly developing strategies to advance their own
efforts to create a conducive environment to innovation and digital transformation. Strategies
commonly focus on the future of work, research, and incentivising innovation and leadership.

•

Economic opportunities are driving state AI policies and research investments. Several states
designate how AI will help specific sectors of their economies, often including agriculture,industry, healthcare and smart cities. At the same time, most national strategies or policies on
AI address, in some form, the actual or potential impacts that artificial intelligence may haveon people, planet and society.

•

The dominant focus areas in strategies dealing with AI in relation to RBC are competition
issues, human rights, including privacy and discrimination in the workplace, labour market
impacts, specifically on the future of work and consumer protection. About 40% of thestrategies reviewed mention one or several of these elements. In addition, approximately 35%of the strategies reviewed also foresee some action on disclosure of AI systems by developers
or users.

In relation to online platforms:•

Europe is the most active region in terms of regulatory efforts. The General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) and the UK’s online safety initiative are paving the way for a more holistic
approach in protecting the users of online platforms and defining online platforms’
responsibilities.

•

The impacts of social media have received increased attention by governments, triggering
higher rates of legislation. Legislation has largely focused on content moderation, especiallyaround terrorist activity and the spread of false information. In some cases, companies facecriminal and financial penalties. A majority of social media regulation is motivated by the riskof offline harm, respecting and enforcing existing laws on online platforms.

•

Civil society and some governments have raised concerns that over-regulation will result in
infringements on the right to free expression. At the same time, governments and stakeholders
continue to acknowledge the need to identify and prevent terrorist, violent and extremist
content online. The Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Bill in Australia is a notable exampleof legislative efforts aimed at balancing these objectives.

•

Government and industry collaboration is considered to be fundamental to ensuring
competition in the digital economy. Particularly in this field, regulation risks lagging behind. Inorder to ensure “RBC by design”, i.e. the integration of RBC considerations in the technology
right from the beginning, governments will need to be closely engaged with the business sector
and other experts. Without tech-sector and stakeholder collaboration, governments may also
encounter significant pushback and fall behind in the global tech race.
DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 13
•

All of the regulations and standards reviewed address, in some form, human rights. 92% also
connect this issue to consumer interests, and foresee some element of disclosure aroundcontent moderation. Labour issues only come up in around 21% of the regulations reviewed.
Environmental and corruption issues rarely feature.

Observations on efforts of multi-stakeholder initiatives, industry, and other stakeholders
Section 3 also takes stock of numerous stakeholder standards and initiatives. In relation to multistakeholder efforts, the stocktaking reviews 24 multi-stakeholder initiatives and partnerships,
including partnerships with International Organisations. In addition, it covers 12 civil society-led
initiatives, which primarily focus on voluntary initiatives, whitepapers, civil society or academic
recommendations, ratings and rankings. In order to get insight into specific company behavior, it also
maps 12 company AI principles and guidelines, and 6 social media policies, including user
agreements and community standards.
Some initial observations include:•

Multi-stakeholder initiatives are playing a critical role in helping clarify specific RBC issues inrelation to digital technologies and support common action. For example, the Global Network
Initiative provides a framework of principles and oversight for the ICT industry to respect,
protect, and advance user rights to freedom of expression and privacy, in particular as it relates
to requests for information by governments. The Christchurch Call outlines commitments from
Governments and online service providers to address terrorist and violent extremist content
online, and to prevent the abuse of the internet as occurred in and after the Christchurch
attacks. The Partnership on AI primarily focuses on stakeholder engagement and dialogue
seeking to maximise the potential benefits of AI for as many people as possible.

•

Civil society is actively involved in defining and promoting ethical principles for responsible
development and use of digital technologies. While not consistently, many of the emerging
principles reference some international RBC instruments (mostly from the United Nations).
Leading efforts include the Santa Clara Principles, which call for transparency by social media
companies by publishing the numbers of removed posts, notifying users of content removal,
and providing opportunities for meaningful and timely appeals. The Toronto Declaration is ahuman rights-based framework that delineates the responsibilities of states and private actors
to prevent discrimination with AI/ML advancements. Ranking Digital Rights is the first public
tool to assess company performance on digital rights, seeking to trigger a ‘race to the top’.

•

Companies have developed detailed policies dealing with a wide range of RBC issues. For AI,
company policies tend to focus on transparency of AI systems, promotion of human values,
human control of technology, fairness and non-discrimination, safety and security,
accountability, and privacy. For online platforms, company policies tend to focus on mitigating
violence and criminal behaviour, safety, mitigating objectionable content, integrity andauthenticity, data collection, use, and security, sharing of data with third parties, user control,
accountability, and promotion of social welfare. Broad commitments to human rights areincluded in most company policies reviewed. A brief analysis of 12 company efforts showsthat while many companies have publicly committed to human rights, their due diligencecommitments largely focus on identifying and managing risk related to the above-mentioned
policy issues, rather than tracking effectiveness, public reporting, or supporting remediation.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT14 |Conclusions and ways forward
Given the wide-ranging RBC issues addressed in this stocktaking review, OECD RBC instruments
continue to be relevant. They can provide cross-sectoral frameworks for looking at these issues
holistically, and can help connect the dots between the different RBC issues. The broad scope of the
MNE Guidelines, covering all areas where business interacts with society, allows for addressing the
manifold impacts of digitalisation on society and to enhance the use of new technologies for actually
improving RBC and supply chain due diligence. OECD RBC instruments can also reinforce
cooperation between new types of companies involved in the digital transformation and thecompanies in the real economy that are already familiar with RBC instruments (and who areincreasingly making use of new forms of technology). Specifically, the MNE Guidelines and Due
Diligence Guidance enable business to systematically address the impacts of their activities in all of
their interactions with society. At the same time, it is clear from the review that policy-makers, National
Contact Points for RBC (NCPs), industry, workers and other stakeholders could benefit from further
work to integrate RBC standards and approaches into ongoing digitalisation efforts, and clarify theapplicability of RBC instruments to specific digital issues.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 15

2. International standards and initiatives

This section gives an overview of standards and initiatives at the OECD and other International
Organisations (IOs) in the field of digitalisation to the extent that they are relevant for RBC. It
specifically highlights the debate about digitalisation in the OECD and in how far the use, misuse, andaccess to use of digital technologies is covered or in line with RBC standards.

OECD standards related to digitalisation
Since the 1980s, the OECD has developed a number of standards that refer to digital technologies.
For the purposes of this report, they can be subdivided into the following groups: standards related tothe (re)use, access and governance of data; standards related to digital security; standards for theuse of digital technologies; and standards for policy making in view of the digital transformation. A
selection of the most important OECD standards and their links with RBC are discussed below.

(Re)use, access and governance of data
There are many different approaches to the governance of cross-border data flows, resulting fromdifferent policy objectives and cultural preferences 9. The OECD discussion reflects this. It has centredaround a search for a balance between the unlimited flow of data, freedom of expression and theneed to protect individuals (for example, against violent content on the web), and/or between the rightto privacy and innovation (for example, when using big data that considerably improve the diagnostics
of patients).
Since the mid-1970s, the OECD has played an important role in promoting respect for privacy as afundamental value and a condition for the free flow of personal data across borders. In 1980, theRecommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy andTransborder Flows of Personal Data (“Privacy Guidelines”) was adopted. It constituted the firstinternationally agreed-upon set of privacy principles.10 The Privacy Guidelines apply to personal datain the public or private sector which, because of their nature, the way there are processed, or thecontext in which they are used, pose a risk to privacy and individual liberties.
In addition to the Privacy Guidelines, references to the protection of data were included in the
Recommendation of the Council on Cross-Border Cooperation in the Enforcement of Laws
against Spam of 2006.11 This Recommendation can be seen as one of the forerunners of OECD
Recommendations on privacy protection and cross border data governance. It dealt with thechallenges of electronic communication and cross border information gathering and sharing, such as
the protection of personal information of individuals. Cross border co-operation, through the
9 Casalini, F. and J. López González (2019), “Trade and Cross-Border Data Flows”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 220, OECD Publishing,Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b2023a47-en

10 OECD, Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal

Data [OECD/LEGAL/0188]

11 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Cross-Border Cooperation in the Enforcement of Laws against Spam [OECD/LEGAL/0344]

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT16 |development of an effective international enforcement framework was regarded as a fundamental
element to overcome these challenges.
Data protection is also covered by the Recommendation of the Council on High-Level Principles on
Financial Consumer Protection, prepared by the Committee on Financial Markets of 2012.12 The
Recommendation explicitly mentions Responsible Business Conduct in relation to data governance.
It stipulates that financial services providers and authorised agents should work in the best interest of
their customers and be responsible for upholding financial consumer protection. It furthermore statesthat the protection of consumers’ financial and personal information should be done through“appropriate control and protection mechanisms…(that) should define the purpose for which the data
may be collected, processed, held, used and disclosed (especially to third parties). The mechanisms
should also acknowledge the rights of consumers to be informed about data-sharing, to access data
and to obtain the prompt correction and/or deletion of inaccurate, or unlawfully collected or processeddata”.
In 2013, the OECD revised the Privacy Guidelines.13 The revised text integrates aspects on privacy
law enforcement co-operation. An important addition to the Privacy Guidelines was the introductionof the concept of a privacy management programme as a means to promote and define organisational
responsibility for privacy protection (“implementing accountability”). In addition to that, the revised
Privacy Guidelines integrated safeguards based on privacy risk assessment. They reflect a risk-based
approach to notification in case of a security breach affecting personal data that put privacy andindividual liberties at risk.
In the same period, the Recommendation of the Council on Health Data Governance 14 wasadopted. This Recommendation aims to support a greater harmonisation among the health data
governance frameworks of Adherents with the objective to have more countries benefit from statisticaland research uses of data in which there is a public interest, and participate in multi-country statisticaland research projects, while protecting privacy and data security. It refers explicitly to the MNE
Guidelines.
Since 2018, the OECD is working, on the one hand towards new general principles and policy
recommendations for enhanced access to public data, and on the other hand, on the implementationof the Privacy Guidelines in the digital environment. In this context, the OECD has concluded that thedebate on data flows needs to be broadened from a focus on privacy and data protection, to an
analysis that includes also data governance challenges. This requires, for example, a better
understanding of the different types of data, how data are generated and collected, how different
contextual factors may affect data access and sharing and data quality, data ownership, how value
can be derived from data use, and how to promote mechanisms, such as data trusts, that can support
the safe, fair, legal and ethical sharing (including storing) of data.
Among the OECD Recommendations applying to data governance, the Recommendation of theCouncil on High-Level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection and the Recommendation of theCouncil on Health Data Governance make explicit reference to RBC. Some aspects of data
governance could need further development to which RBC standards could contribute. For example,
the development of an international framework for the governance of data, might need more attention
to private data (as compared to public data). Another example is the widening of the scope of dataflows, for example with respect to the localisation of data, where businesses might need guidance forbalancing security considerations and the need for cross border data flows.
12 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on High-Level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection, [OECD/LEGAL/0394].

13 OECD, Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows and Personal
Data [https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/privacy-guidelines.htm; OECD/LEGAL/0188
14 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Health Data Governance [https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-datagovernance.htm; OECD/LEGAL/0433].

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 17
Digital security
Another body of OECD work focuses on digital security. This work started in 1992 with the first versionof the OECD Security Guidelines, and has developed since then in conjunction with the Privacy
Guidelines. Digital security is mostly covered by two OECD Recommendations: The
Recommendation of the Council on Digital Security, Risk Management for Economic andSocial Prosperity of 2015, and the Recommendation of the Council on Digital Security of Critical
Activities of 2019. 15
One of the recurring underlying ideas of the Recommendations is that they should contribute tocontinuity, resilience and safety, without inhibiting the benefits from digital transformation.
Progressively, the objective of the Recommendations has shifted from raising awareness, to theprotection of digital infrastructure. In addition, it takes account of the harm that digital technologies
can do to other economic activities, services and functions. With that, the risk management approachto digital security has changed from a purely technical to an economic and social approach. It has
resulted in the recommendation to use a “whole of government approach”. Finally, cross-border digitaldependencies, and the potential scope of the impact of digital failures (for example in the case ofcascade failure) have gained attention and with that, the call for cross-border and multi-stakeholder
co-operation has become more widely heard.
The emphasis on a multi-stakeholder approach to digital security is reflected in some explicit
references made to the role of business. Although the two most recent Recommendations do notmention the MNE Guidelines, they contain a few elements that are in line with them:•

The Recommendation of the Council on Digital Security, Risk Management for
Economic and Social Prosperity provides that all participants are responsible for the
security of information systems and networks, hence that they should be aware of the needfor security of information systems and networks and the need to enhance security, thereby
respecting the legitimate interest of others who may be harmed by their action or inaction.

•

The Recommendation considers the ethical conduct of business or public actors to be crucial
and recommends that participants strive to develop and adopt best practices and promote
conduct that recognises security needs and respects the legitimate interests of others.

•

It also recommends the conduct of risk assessments at all levels of participants’ activities andall aspects of their operations on a continuous basis so as to constantly deal with the evolving
risks.

•The Recommendation of the Council on Digital Security of Critical Activities recognises thatthe consequences of digital security incidents affecting critical activities run by private
operators, may extend beyond the interests of these operators, and affect a whole society andothers beyond borders; and that, as a consequence, any residual risk taken by these operators
may affect all those who depend on such activities as well as society as a whole.

•It furthermore recommends adhering countries to ensure that operators are responsible tomanage digital security risk to critical functions with a view to protecting the continuity,
resilience and safety of critical activities that they enable.

15 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Digital Security Risk Management for Economic and Social Prosperity [OECD/LEGAL/0415], andOECD, Recommendation of the Council on Digital Security of Critical Activities[OECD/LEGAL/0456].
DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

18 |
•

Finally, it recommends adhering countries to ensure that operators effectively reduce thedigital security risk to critical functions to a level acceptable for society, which should be set
out in a digital security risk management policy.

Both Recommendations leave room for interpretation regarding the responsibility of, and the
responsible conduct by, private operators. Where the Recommendation of 2015 does not specify themeaning of ethical conduct, the Recommendation of 2019 does not mention the concept of ethicalconduct at all, and leaves its details about what is acceptable for society to national security risk
management policies. This approach may result from existing differences between adhering countries
in their definition of ethical conduct and/or of digital security issues and reinforces the need forinternational standards.

The use of digital technologies
The OECD has developed a number of Recommendations that focus on the use of digitaltechnologies and their applications. They aim to offer guidance for policymakers in dealing withvarious types of challenges that these technologies and their applications may pose.
The OECD started work on AI in 2016. The resulting Recommendation of the Council on Artificial
Intelligence 16 adopted in 2019 represents the first international, intergovernmental standard for AI
and identifies AI Principles and a set of policy recommendations for responsible stewardship oftrustworthy AI. Subsequently, the G20 Leaders have welcomed G20 AI Principles, drawn from the AI
Principles contained in the OECD Recommendation. The AI principles focus on responsible
stewardship of trustworthy AI, and include respect for human rights, fairness, transparency andexplainability, 17robustness and safety, and accountability.
The AI Recommendation aims to complement existing OECD standards that are already relevant to
AI. It refers to OECD standards in the field of privacy and data protection and digital security risk
management, as well as to the MNE Guidelines and Responsible Business Conduct. There could bea role for the MNE Guidelines also with respect to the implementation of the Recommendation.
The Recommendation of the Council on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology 18 wasadopted by the OECD Council on 11 December 2019. It refers to the OECD Due Diligence Guidancefor Responsible Business Conduct and the MNE Guidelines. It recommends to “promote trust andtrustworthiness through norms, and practices of responsible business conduct” (art. 8e).
Neurotechnology is defined as the devices and procedures used to access, monitor, investigate,assess, manipulate, and/or emulate the structure and function of the neural systems of natural
persons. By converging neuroscience, engineering and AI, it is a key driver of innovation.
Apart from this positive role, neurotechnology raises ethical, legal, and societal questions such as
about (brain) data privacy, the prospects of human enhancement, the regulation and marketing of
direct-to-consumer devices, the vulnerability of cognitive patterns for commercial or politicalmanipulation, and further inequalities in use and access. In order to respond to the ethical, legal andsocial challenges of AI, without hindering innovation, the OECD, through its Working Party on
Biotechnology, Nanotechnology and Converging Technologies (BNCT), has developed a set ofprinciples for responsible innovation in neurotechnology. It is the first international standard in thisdomain and aims to assist governments and innovators in addressing and anticipating the governancechallenges raised by mental and neurological disorders and novel neurotechnologies.

16 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence [OECD/LEGAL/0449].
17 i.e. by using methods and techniques whose results of the solution can be understood by humans.
18 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology [OECD/LEGAL/0457].

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT| 19
Policy making in view of the digital transformation
The OECD has paid considerable attention to the development of policies that are adapted to, andhelp adapt to the digital transformation. A prominent one is the Recommendation of the Council on
Principles for Internet Policy Making of 2011. These principles were “designed to preserve thefundamental openness of the internet, while concomitantly meeting certain public policy objectives,
such as the protection of privacy, security, children online, and intellectual property, as well as thereinforcement of trust in Internet”. 19 The security of the internet is presented as a condition formaintaining a level of trust and hence openness of the Internet. The principles emphasize that thepolicies enhancing them, should not hinder the Internet to operate. 20
The principles make explicit reference to the Privacy Guidelines. They do not mention the MNE
Guidelines. The principles for internet policy do suggest the development of codes of conduct that aresupported by effective accountability mechanisms, with the aim to encourage voluntary co-operative
efforts by the private sector to respect the freedoms of expression, association and assembly online,
and to address illegal activity, including fraudulent, malicious, misleading and unfair practices taking
place over the Internet. 21 Accountability is to be achieved through policies that make parties
answerable, where appropriate, for their actions on the Internet. 22 The potential lack of attention for
the negative impact in content in this Recommendation is being dealt with through the further workon Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online. 23
For a long time, OECD work related to the digital transformation has focused on the development of
the internet and the reduction of barriers to innovation (Recommendation of the Council
concerning Principles for Facilitating International Technology Co-operation Involving
Enterprises of 1995, which expands on the Recommendation of the Council concerning a
General Framework of Principles for International Co-operation in Science and Technology of1988). 24 Around 2015, the OECD Recommendations in this field shifted to more attention for digitaltechnologies, and all the actors involved in their use, ranging from government actors, nongovernmental actors, businesses, citizens’ associations and individuals.
In terms of policies, this meant that a whole-of-government approach became privileged. Digitaltechnologies were increasingly considered for their positive contribution to public services and policymaking.
This was the case in the Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies 25
which represented the first international legal instrument on digital government, and aimed atenhancing more strategic policy approaches for the use of technology, leading to more open, efficient,participatory and innovative governments. Relatively new was that the digital government strategies
were not only considered as a contribution to economic growth as such, but were expected to create
public value and mitigate risks related to the quality of public service delivery, public sector efficiency,social inclusion and participation, public trust, and multilevel and multi-actor governance. This shift in
focus brought about more attention for ethical considerations related to the use of digital technologies.
19 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Internet Policy Making [OECD/LEGAL/0387], p.7.
20 Idem, p.26
21 Idem, p.23
22 Idem, p.24

23 See also the most recent OECD digital economy paper no. 296: “Current approaches to terrorist and violent extremist content among the
global top 50 online content-sharing services” (August, 2020).
24 OECD, Recommendation of the Council concerning Principles for Facilitating International Technology Co-operation Involving Enterprises[OECD/LEGAL/0282]; OECD, Recommendation of the Council concerning a General Framework of Principles for International Co-operation in
Science and Technology [OECD/LEGAL/0237].
25 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies [OECD/LEGAL/0406].

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT20 |In the Daejeon Declaration on Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for the Global andDigital Age adopted in 2015, 26 science technology and innovation were said to foster sustainableeconomic growth, job creation and enhanced well-being. It aimed to promote the formulation of new,and the adaptation of the existing, science, technology and innovation (STI) policies, in order toharness the benefits and to address the policy challenges brought about by the digitalisation of STI.
The Declaration underlined the importance of rule setting and governance mechanisms to better
exploit open science, invest in global research infrastructures, and accelerate collective responses tocrises, also in relation to emerging and less developed countries. It furthermore mentioned the positive
contribution STI could have, not only for sustainable economic growth, but also for a cleaner
environment and a more inclusive society.
In June 2016, a similar message was issued by the Declaration on the Digital Economy:
Innovation, Growth and Social Prosperity (Cancún Declaration). 27 It furthermore promoted digital
security risk management and the protection of privacy, accountability and transparency. It declared
to support the development of international arrangements that promote effective privacy and dataprotection across jurisdictions, including through interoperability among frameworks. There is noreference to the MNE Guidelines in the Declaration.

Consumer protection in E-commerce
The digital transformation has had an important impact on individuals as consumers of internet
content of the Internet of Things, as providers of data, as actors in e-commerce transactions etc. This
has increased the need for clear rules in order to protect them. In 2016, the Recommendation of theCouncil on Consumer Protection in E-commerce 28 (i.e. business-to-consumers and consumersto-consumers transactions that are facilitated by internet) was adopted on the proposal of theCommittee on Consumer Policy (CCP). It replaced the 1999 OECD Recommendation on Consumer
Protection in E-commerce. The Recommendation of 2016 sets out the core characteristics ofconsumer protection in e-commerce that should be in place in countries and addresses some of the
key developments in e-commerce since 1999, including emerging challenges associated with
consumer ratings and reviews, the use of consumer data, and product safety. It recommends thatadhering countries work with businesses, consumer representatives and other civil society
organisations in a transparent and inclusive manner to implement a set of principles and their policy
frameworks for the protection of consumers in e-commerce. These principles tackle issues such asfair business, advertising and marketing practices, online disclosures and dispute resolution.
In addition to the principles, the Recommendation deals with their implementation and mechanisms
to enhance trust in e-commerce, including through the promotion of effective dispute resolution. 29 It
emphasises the importance to co-operate and work toward developing agreements or otherarrangements for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments resulting from disputes
between consumers and businesses, and judgments resulting from law enforcement actions taken tocombat fraudulent, misleading or unfair commercial conduct. The Recommendation also calls for thedevelopment and enforcement of joint initiatives at the international level among governments andstakeholders. Although the Recommendation does not refer to the MNE Guidelines, the promotion ofeffective dispute resolution is highly relevant from an RBC perspective and NCPs may refer to the
Recommendation when applying Chapter VIII (Consumer Interests) of the MNE Guidelines.

26 OECD, Daejeon Declaration on Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for the Global and Digital Age [OECD/LEGAL/0416].

27 OECD, Declaration on the Digital Economy: Innovation, Growth and Social Prosperity (Cancún Declaration) [OECD/LEGAL/0426].
28 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Consumer Protection in E-commerce [OECD/LEGAL/0422].

29 This topic is also under debate in the WTO, in the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, see section 3.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT| 21
Digital technologies and the environment
In 2010, the Council adopted the Recommendation of the Council on Information andCommunication Technologies and the Environment 30 on the proposal of the Committee on Digital
Economy Policy. The Recommendation aims to support national efforts to establish, improve andreview policies on information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the environment. It
stipulates to reduce the direct effects of ICTs themselves on the environment, to enable the effects of
ICT applications in other sectors, and the systemic effects to change social and cultural behaviour
through the use of ICTs. Many of the principles underlying the considerations for the adheringcountries in the Recommendation correspond to similar recommendations for enterprises, (albeit not
specifically focused on digitalisation) in Chapter VI of the MNE Guidelines (Environment). Examples
are the recommendation to develop resource-efficient ICTs, the promotion of widespreaddevelopment and adoption of clear standards or eco-labels, and awareness raising among theusers/consumers about the environmental implications of the use of ICT/products and services.
The Recommendation furthermore instructs adhering countries to enhance the positive effects of
information and communication technologies on the environment. For example, governments should
help create an environment that helps businesses in seizing the opportunities of digital technologies
to address the SDGs, and to green the economy. It underscores the importance of monitoring
compliance with the policies and setting clear responsibilities. In the Recommendation, the potential
negative impacts that digital technologies may have on the environment, for example through energy
intensive practices like cloud computing, receive less attention. In addition, the Recommendation
looks at ICT and not on other aspects of digitalisation. There seems thus to be some margin for further
development of principles for the greening of digital consumption (either by consumers or throughbusiness accountability).

Taxation and digitalisation
Since 2015, the OECD has been working on ways to tackle some challenges for tax rules related tothe digitalisation of the economy, as one of the main areas of focus of the Base Erosion and Profit
Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan. Digitalisation fundamentally challenges the rule based international tax
system based on jurisdiction for non-resident companies, as companies increasingly do business withcustomers in jurisdictions without having a physical presence there (for example, in the case of ecommerce).
In May 2019, the 130 members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS approved theProgramme of Work to Develop a Consensus Solution to the Tax Challenges Arising from theDigitalisation of the Economy, laying out a process for reaching a new global agreement for taxing
multinational enterprises.
This programme looks into the allocation of taxing rights while taking into account the profit allocationand nexus rules, on the one hand. On the other hand, it seeks to develop rules that are designed toensure that a multinational enterprise is subject to a minimum level of tax on its profits. 31

30 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Information and Communication Technologies and the Environment [OECD/LEGAL/0380].
31 Programme of Work to Develop a Consensus Solution to the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy, OECD/G20

Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD, Paris, https://search.oecd.org/tax/programme-of-work-to-develop-a-consensus-solution-to-the-taxchallenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy.htm

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT22 |The MNE Guidelines encourage companies to design their tax oversight and tax compliance in a
responsible manner, and to comply with both the letter and spirit of the tax laws and regulations of
the countries in which they operate. So far, few specific instances related to tax evasion or tax
avoidance have been filed with the NCPs (a submission against Glencore International AG and First
Quantum Mining Ltd. filed with, and concluded by, the Swiss and Canadian NCPs in 2012; asubmission by FNV against Chevron that was filed with the Dutch NCP in 2018; and a specificinstance by AhTop against AirBnB, filed with the French NCP in 2020).
From this overview of OECD standards related to digitalisation, the following trends emerge: There
has been a shift from a focus on policies dealing with one aspect of digitalisation, such as internet
policies or cybersecurity, to more attention for a whole-of-government approach, a multi-stakeholder
approach, and the need for cross-border co-operation. With this development, the role of businessand its responsibilities, have received more attention. A broadly accepted way of dealing with the
responsibilities of these stakeholders has become risk management. Digital risks have come to beconsidered an integral part of an organisation’s overall risk management and decision-making
process. Parallel to that, the impact of digitalisation on the well-being of individuals and on society as
a whole has gradually come to the forefront. This has led to more attention for human rights indigitalisation, for example in the case of digital security. Disclosure has also become a recurrent topic,
for example in the case of data governance or AI. Questions about the extent to which digitalisation
is fair, inclusive or ethical have become more prominent as was observed in relation to online content
and its users and consumers, or the business models that develop thanks to digitalisation.
These trends are reflected, on the one hand, in some Recommendations on digitalisation which
explicitly refer to the MNE Guidelines and have integrated aspects of Responsible Business Conduct.
This is the case for the Recommendation on High-Level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection(2012); the Recommendation on Health Data Governance (2016); the Principles for Trustworthy AI(2019); and the Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology (2019). There arealso Recommendations that do not explicitly refer to the MNE Guidelines but use wording linked toresponsible business conduct, such as accountability, fair business (Recommendation on Consumer
Protection in E-commerce), and ethical conduct (Recommendation on Digital Security Risk
Management for Economic and Social Prosperity).
Looking ahead, the MNE Guidelines have an important role to play with regard to digitalisation.
Options for future developments vary from including references to the MNE Guidelines in new legal
instruments and policy initiatives; including specific language on digitalisation in a future review of the
MNE Guidelines; and developing additional guidance and tools for governments and business.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT| 23International and regional initiatives regarding digitalisation
This subsection provides an overview of other initiatives at international and regional levels. The
overview is based on desk research and is not intended to be exhaustive.

European Union
In May 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 32 has come into force. The
regulation contains provisions and requirements related to the processing of personal data of
individuals and applies to any enterprise—regardless of its location and the data subjects' citizenshipor residence—that is processing the personal information of data subjects inside the European
Economic Area. This regulation has unified regulation within the EU, which has made it easier forcompanies to comply with it within the EU. In addition to this, the ECJ rulings about GDPR issues
give guidance to business, for example in response to two cases dealing with the “right to beforgotten”. 33 The GDPR also applies to the transfer of personal data outside the EU.
Over the last 6 years, and in addition to the GDPR, the European Union has taken various steps
towards the regulation of the digital economy. Examples are the Regulation on the free flow of nonpersonal data, the Cybersecurity Act, and the Open Data Directive.
In 2018, the EU presented a Strategy for AI. It includes the elaboration of recommendations on futurerelated policy development and on ethical, legal and societal issues related to AI, including socioeconomic challenges. The Strategy has resulted, among other things, in the Policy and Investment
Recommendations, which require accountability complements and the reporting about negative
impacts; and the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) (revised document ofApril 2019). These non-binding guidelines address, among other things, accountability and risk
assessment, privacy, transparency, societal and environmental well-being. In February 2020, theEuropean Commission issued a White Paper34 and an accompanying Report on the safety andliability framework, which set out policy objectives on how to achieve a regulatory and investment
oriented approach that both promotes the uptake of AI and addresses the risks associated with certain
uses of AI at the same time.
In 2020, the European Commission presented an overall strategy for data and artificial intelligence(conclusions adopted by the Council in June 2020). Besides the aforementioned work on AI, the EU
Digital Strategy covers many issues, ranging from connectivity, digital value chains, and eHealth, tothe data economy, and digital platforms. It focuses on building a value-based and inclusive digital
economy and society, and an open but rules-based market, and aims to contribute to an open,
democratic and sustainable society. 35

32 EU Regulation 2016/679 (2016), on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the freemovement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/2016-05-04.
33European Union Court of Justice Ruling (2019) C-136/17,
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=218106&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=969167 and European Union Court of Justice Ruling (2019) C-507/17
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=218105&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=969325
34 European Commission (2020), “White Paper On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust”, Brussels,
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf.
35 European Commission (2020), “Shaping Europe's digital future: Commission presents strategies for data and Artificial Intelligence”,
Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_273.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT24 |The EU furthermore envisages to set up a European data space, for which it prepares a regulatory
framework regarding data governance, access to, and the (re)use of data between businesses,
between business and government, and within administrations.
Also as part of the EU Digital Strategy, the European Commission is preparing the Digital Service Act
package. It aims to update the E-Commerce Directive (in place since 2000), by addressing the safetyof users online, and the development of new digitally-based business models. This work is supportedby the Platform to Business Regulation, which entered into force in July 2020. It aims to protect(smaller) businesses and traders relying on search engines and online platforms, by focusing on
fairness, transparency, and predictability. 36 In addition, the European Commission is expected tofurther develop the existing general guidelines (a Communication in 2017 and a Recommendation in2018) to online platforms and Member States for tackling illegal content online. 37

Council of Europe
In 1981, the Council of Europe adopted Convention 108 for the Protection of Individuals with regard
to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. This Convention went into force five years after the OECD
Privacy Guidelines, and constitutes the first binding international instrument for the protection ofindividuals against abuses which may accompany the collection and processing of personal data andwhich seeks to regulate at the same time the cross border flow of personal data. Parallel to the OECD
revision of the Privacy Guidelines, the Council of Europe modernised Convention 108 in order toenhance its implementation and to adapt it to new technological developments. During this process
and until its completion in 2018, the OECD was strongly involved. The modernisation also tookaccount of the EU data protection rules that later culminated in the adoption of GDPR legislation, andconsulted with some non-Member States. Convention 108+, the updated version, contains somechanges in the terminology and scope (for example, with regard to the processing of data) and new
insights. Examples are the attention for the positive effect of processing of personal data on otherfundamental rights of individuals. An important new aspect of the modernised Convention is that itgives states that do not fall under the Council of Europe, and other International Organisations (andthe EU), the possibility to accede to the Convention.
In addition to Convention 108, in September 2019 the Ministers of the Council of Europe have set up
an intergovernmental Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI), to examine the feasibilityof a legal framework for the development, design and application of artificial intelligence. Important
issues to be addressed include the need for a common definition of AI, the mapping of the risks andopportunities arising from AI, notably its impact on human rights, rule of law and democracy, as wellas the opportunity to move towards a binding legal framework. It takes due account of a gender
perspective, building cohesive societies and promoting and protecting rights of persons withdisabilities in the performance of its tasks.
Furthermore, the Council of Europe has, in the past years, developed a number of non-binding
standard setting instruments on the roles and responsibilities of private actors with regard to therespect of human rights online, such as the Recommendation CM / Rec (2018)2 of the Committee of
Ministers to member States on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries. 38

36 European Commission (n.d.), “Platform-to-business trading practices”, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/business-business-trading-practices.
37European Commission (2018), European Commission Recommendation of 1.3.2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online,
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-recommendation-measures-effectively-tackle-illegal-content-online.
38 See list of adopted Committee of Ministers texts on media and information society, https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-

expression/committee-of-ministers-adopted-texts.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 25
Most recently, in April 2020, the Council of Europe´s Committee of Ministers issued a set of guidelines
calling on governments to ensure that they do not breach human rights through their own use,development or procurement of algorithmic systems. 39 The recommendation calls on governments toestablish effective and predictable regulatory frameworks that prevent, detect, prohibit and remedy
human rights violations, whether stemming from public or private actors.

United Nations
The UN Human Rights Business and Human Rights in Technology (B-Tech) Project seeks toprovide authoritative guidance and resources to enhance the quality of implementation of the United
Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights with respect to a selected number ofstrategic focus areas in the technology space.40 It aims to offer practical guidance and public policy
recommendations to realise a rights-based approach to the development, application and governanceof digital technologies. It uses an approach that includes attention for human rights risks, corporate
responsibility and accountability by using the three pillars of the UNGPs: Protect, Respect, andRemedy. For example, it looks at the role of states and private actors in enhancing human rights inbusiness models, human rights due diligence, and accountability and remedy. The project offers aframework for what responsible business conduct looks like in practice, regarding the development,
application, sale and use of digital technologies and suggests a smart mix of regulation, incentives
and public policy tools for policy makers that provide human rights safeguards and accountability,
without hampering the potential of digital technologies to address social, ecological and otherchallenges.
Other UN-related work with a focus on the internet is done in the framework of the Internet
Governance Forum,41 a UN-mandated forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue that seeks toenhance a dialogue between policy makers and the internet community. It started in 2005 (with amandate now extended to 2025), with a request by the World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS) for a broad based discussion of public policy issues in relation to the internet. The Forum aims
to facilitate a common understanding of how to maximize internet opportunities, to address risks andchallenges that arise from the internet, and to build capacity in developing countries. In 2019, one of
the themes discussed was data governance and approaches to ensure the development of humancentric data governance frameworks. Another track focused on digital inclusion and the improvementof access to equitable opportunities in the digital age. A third theme dealt with security, safety, stability
and resilience. 42 Within the overarching theme of “Internet for human resilience and solidarity”, thecurrent themes for 2020 are data, environment, inclusion and trust, based on the outcome of 2019
and a comprehensive stakeholder consultation. 43

39 Council of Europe (2020), Recommendation CM/Rec (2020)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the human rights impactsof algorithmic systems, https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?objectid=09000016809e1154.

40 See OHCHR webpage on the B-Tech Project for full list of materials, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/B-TechProject.aspx.

41 United Nations Internet Governance Forum (2014),”The Global Multistakeholder Forum for Dialogue on Internet Governance Issues”, United

Nations, http://intgovforum.org/cms/2014/IGFBrochure.pdf.

42 United Nations Internet Governance Forum (2019), “IGF 2019 Themes”, United Nations,

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-themes.

43 United Nations Internet Governance Forum (2020), “IGF 2020 Themes”, United Nations,

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020-thematic-tracks.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT26 |In 2015, UNESCO adopted the ROAM principles (Rights, Openness, Access and Multi-stakeholder
governance) which are part of the concept of Internet Universality Indicators. This is a researchtool to holistically assess the state of internet development nationally through a set of 303 indicators
covering six categories. In relation with internet issues, UNESCO is also working on Artificial
Intelligence on the basis of the same ROAM principles, as well as on broadband and the ethicalaspects of digitalisation. The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge andTechnology (COMEST) has carried out work on ethical issues relating to the technologies of theinformation society. In 2017, it has issued a publication on Robotics Ethics about the accountabilityof actions of cognitive machines and their impact on human behaviours, inducing social and culturalchanges, and on issues related to safety, privacy and human dignity. Under UNESCO’s
intergovernmental Information for All Programme (IFAP), a Code of Ethics for the Information
Society has been developed.
Although not specifically focused on RBC, it is worth mentioning the UN General Assembly Resolution
on Information and Communications Technologies for Sustainable Development 44 acknowledging therole this technology has in achieving Sustainable Development Goals. The UN Secretary-General’sHigh-level Panel on Digital Cooperation also issued a recent report on how digital cooperation cancontribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. 45

World Trade Organisation (WTO)
In 1998, WTO ministers adopted the Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce andsubsequently established a Work Programme on e-commerce. It aimed to examine all trade-related
issues relating to global electronic commerce resulting in a WTO agreement on e-commerce.
Discussions have continued and focus mostly on how to remove further barriers to e-commerce,
without increasing the divide between leaders and laggards. During the World Economic Forum in
Davos in January 2019, the negotiations received a new impetus with the decision by the EU and 48
members of the WTO to start negotiations about global rules on electronic commerce. The G20(Osaka Meeting in 2019) gave this a boost, followed by an agreement in Davos (January 2020)
between 83 trade ministers to present a consolidated negotiating text at the 12th Ministerial
Conference of the WTO, to be held in Kazakhstan in June 2021.

International Labour Organization (ILO)
The discussions on digitalisation at the ILO centre around enhancing decent work. In 2019, the ILO
presented the Agenda for the Future of Work. 46 The ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future ofWork, adopted at the International Labour Conference in 2019, addressed some key challenges inrelation to the use of (digital) technology in support of decent work and declared that efforts were to
be directed to harnessing the fullest potential of technological progress and productivity growth toachieve decent work and sustainable development.

44 United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/74/197 (2019) on Information and communications technologies for sustainable

development, https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/74/197.

45 UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2019), “The Age of Digital Interdependence”, United Nations,

https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/DigitalCooperation-report-for%20web.pdf.

46 ILO (2019) “Work for a brighter future – Global Commission on the Future of Work”, ILO, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_662410.pdf.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT| 27
The Agenda for the Future of Work is based on three pillars: Firstly, it calls for the adoption of a“human-in-command” approach to artificial intelligence that ensures that the final decisions affecting
work are taken by human beings. Secondly, it aims at the development of an international governancesystem for digital labour platforms that requires platforms (and their clients) to respect certain
minimum rights and protections. Thirdly, it raises the importance of developing more regulation ofdata use and algorithmic accountability in the world of work.
In 2018, the ILO published a report on working conditions at five of the major, global, online microtask platforms. 47 It is based on an ILO survey covering 3,500 workers in 75 countries around the world
and other qualitative surveys. The report analyses the working conditions on these micro-task
platforms, including pay rates, work availability and intensity, social protection coverage and work–
life balance. The report recommends 18 principles for ensuring decent work on digital labour
platforms.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
An example of an interregional initiative dealing with digitalisation is the APEC Roadmap on Internetand Digital Economy of 2017. It provides guidance on key areas and actions to facilitate
technological and policy exchanges among member economies, and to promote innovative, inclusive
and sustainable growth, as well as to bridge the digital divide in the APEC region. The roadmap
underlines the importance of a holistic approach to the development of government policy frameworks
for the Internet and Digital Economy.

47 Berg, J. et al, (2018), “Digital labour platforms and the future of work”, ILO,

https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_645337/lang--en/index.htm.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT28 |3. National, industry and stakeholder
standards and initiatives
This section seeks to provide a high-level mapping and snapshot of national and industry standards
and initiatives concerned with RBC governance issues in the digital transformation. Specifically, themapping assesses the efforts by states, civil society, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and companies todeal with the RBC aspects of digitalisation, in particular with respect to AI and online platforms”.48
Furthermore, it identifies key trends across a range of actors, and presents certain gaps in governanceand best practice guidance for what concerns the RBC aspects of digitalisation and digitaltransformation.
Due to resource and time limitations, the list of efforts is non-exhaustive and relies mostly on
secondary sources. Only documents with accessible English translations were assessed.
Furthermore, while global in scope, it primarily features initiatives from developed countries orcompanies headquartered in developed countries. Stakeholder initiatives in this space are rapidly
evolving and may not fully and neatly fit into specific categories. More in-depth research may berequired for a comprehensive stocktaking that would also present a comprehensive qualitative
assessment, fully identify gaps, and present recommendations.

Methodology and Scope
The mapping examines four groups of stakeholder initiatives (state, civil society, multi-stakeholder,and company) in relation to the nine chapters of the MNE Guidelines49 to identify if the issues
contained in the chapters were mentioned and addressed by the initiatives. It also maps the extent towhich initiatives are concerned with AI or social media platform issues, international instruments werereferenced, and the extent to which oversight mechanisms are in place. Finally, the mapping
examines company AI principles and ethics efforts to see whether they address the six steps of thedue diligence process. 50
All initiatives discussed below are listed in more detail in the Annex:

48 This mapping was supported by Article One. Article One is a consultancy that works with companies, multilateral institutions, and stateagencies, to help its clients develop and implement strategies to promote respect for human rights and advance sustainability.
https://www.articleoneadvisors.com/
49 The nine substantive chapters of the MNE Guidelines are: Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights, Environment, Bribery, Consumer
Interests, Science & Technology, Competition, and Taxation.
50 The six steps of OECD due diligence process are: 1. Embed RBC into Policies & Management, 2. Identify & Assess Adverse Impacts in
Operations, Supply Chains & Business Relationships, 3. Cease, Prevent or Mitigate Adverse Impacts, 4. Track Implementation & Results, 5.
Communicate How Impacts are Addressed, and 6. Provide for or Cooperate in Remediation.
DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 29

Figure 3.1. Total number of initiatives reviewed for this study

Note: The table represents the total number of initiatives reviewed for this study, broken down by stakeholder group.

State driven initiatives:•

Legislation that is currently enacted or going through legislative processes to provide a global
overview of how states are protecting or impacting digital rights;•

National strategies focused on AI readiness and/or Social Media regulations;•

Research and nationally sponsored recommendations that showcase the states’ cross-sector
collaboration with industry and civil society, and long-term investment in the digital economy.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives:•

Company and civil society partnerships that highlight corporate alignment with rights
respecting RBC principles outside of government regulation, working directly with civil society;•Whitepapers and recommendations by the OECD and the UN that contribute to corporate andstate best practices.

Civil society initiatives:•

Voluntary initiatives focused largely on cross-sector collaboration;•

Whitepapers and recommendations by NGOs and academic institutions that demonstrate how
civil society is shaping national approaches to the digital economy, and helping to establish
global norms;•

Ratings and rankings showing increased attention of operationalization of principles.

Company initiatives:•

Company AI Ethics and Guiding Principles outlining commitments to rights holders across
many applications of AI;•

Social Media community guidelines and standards outlining content moderation efforts bycompanies.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT30 |Research Findings
This section summarises the research findings across initiatives of the four stakeholder groups. They
showcase the types of efforts undertaken by each stakeholder group and, where relevant, the links
to the chapters of the MNE Guidelines.

State initiatives
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the percentage of AI initiatives related to RBC issues 51 and social media
legislation related to RBC issues respectively, that include content related to the MNE Guidelines’
chapters.

Figure 3.2. Overview of government AI initiatives related to RBC issues by theme

Note. Based on an assessment of strategies in 51 jurisdictions.

Figure 3.3. Assessment of government social media legislation related to RBC issues by theme

Note. Based on an overview of social media legislation efforts in 25 jurisdictions.

51 These figures were developed for the draft of the document presented to the Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct in March

2020. Subsequently, two additional state efforts were identified, as were three additional multi-stakeholder initiatives. Nonetheless, thepercentages presented in the figures remain roughly the same.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 31

Subsequently, the types of initiatives undertaken by States on the governance of AI (Figure 3.4) andSocial Media (Figure 3.5) were examined. These were grouped into four categories and involve
legislation, recommendations, research, and strategy:

Figure 3.4 Assessment of government AI initiatives by typeNote. Based on an assessment of AI initiatives in 51 jurisdictions.

Figure 3.5 Overview of government social media initiatives by typeNote. Based on an overview of social media initiatives in 31 jurisdictions.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT32 |Civil Society Initiatives
Civil society organisation (CSO) publications were reviewed to identify what international standards
they may reference. 52 (Figure 3.6):

Figure 3.6 References to international standards in CSO publications

Note. Based on an overview of 12 CSO publications.

Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives
The assessment of multi-stakeholder initiatives, consisted of 16 company and civil society
partnerships, and publications by the OECD and the UN. The assessment concluded that multistakeholder initiatives have driven voluntary approaches to corporate governance. Key initiatives
include:•The Global Network Initiative principles which provides high-level guidance to the ICT industry
on how to respect, protect, and advance user rights to freedom of expression and privacy;•

The Christchurch Call which outlines commitments from Governments and online service
providers, intended to address terrorist and violent extremist content online and to prevent theabuse of the internet as occurred in, and after the Christchurch attacks;•

The Partnership on AI which primarily focuses on stakeholder engagement and dialogue,
seeking to maximise the potential benefits of AI for as many people as possible.

52 Leading CSO efforts include: the Santa Clara Principles which call for transparency from Social Media companies by publishing the numbers ofremoved posts, notifying users of content removal, and providing opportunities for meaningful and timely appeals; the Toronto Declaration which is ahuman rights-based framework that delineates the responsibilities of States and private actors to prevent discrimination with AI/ML advancements; andRanking Digital Rights which is the first public tool to assess company performance on digital rights – working to trigger a ‘race to the top.’

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 33
Company initiatives
Figure 2.6 shows a mapping of company initiatives concerning social media community guidelines
and user Policies, and AI guidelines and policies in relation to the MNE Guidelines chapters.

Figure 3.7 Overview of company initiatives governing social media and AI
Company Social Media Community Guidelines & User Policies
Company AI Guidelines & Policies
100%
100%

Consumer Interests
Science & Tech

92%

Human Rights

92%

Disclosure

92%

Competition

0%

Environment

0%Labor Rights

0%

Taxation0%0%Bribery

0%
0%

25%
8%
8%

Note. This overview covers the initiatives of selected companies in relation to OECD Guidelines chapters.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

100%
100%
100%

34 |

ANNEX: Mapping of standards and initiatives
This Annex organises and maps out all the standards and initiatives discussed and counted in the sections of the paper above. The table
is organised by firstly, listing government efforts on AI and Online Platforms, and secondly by breaking them down into legislation,
recommendations, research, and strategy. This is followed by additional tables on civil society and multi-stakeholder initiatives, thenindustry-led initiatives, organised as best practice guidance, ratings and rankings, and voluntary initiatives.

Artificial intelligence initiatives by country/territory/organisation/region

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

LEGISLATION
Chile

European Union

Chile is developing a National AI Policy to be released in 2020. The Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge, andInnovation created a committee of ten experts to lead the effort. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Chile
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establishes new protections for European citizens’ rights arounddata protection and privacy, which impacts any organization collecting European residents’ data. Information provided
by: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/eu-data-protection-rules_en

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology Competition

No

Privacy, Transparency, Informed Consent,
Safety, Security

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology, Competition
Disclosure Human Rights, Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology

No

RECOMMENDATIONS
People’s Republicof China (China)
Council of Europe

In June 2019, the New Generation AI Governance Expert Committee (established by MOST) released principles ofnext-generation AI governance. Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/China
Council of Europe’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection establishes that AI development relying on theprocessing of personal data should be based on the principles of Convention 108+. Information provided by:https://www.coe.int/en/web/data-protection/-/new-guidelines-on-artificial-intelligence-and-personal-data-protection
In 2019, the Council of Europe issued a recommendation on AI and human rights, titled Unboxing Artificial Intelligence:
10 steps to protect Human Rights. Information provided by:

No

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 35

Overview

EuropeanCommission

Estonia

FranceGermany

Italy

Japan

https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/unboxing-artificial-intelligence-10-steps-to-protect-human-rights
The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the Manipulative Capabilities of Algorithmic Processes is acommitment by Member States to uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms offline and online. The declaration addresses "contemporary machinelearning tools have the growing capacity not only to predict choices but also to influence emotions and thoughts andalter an anticipated course of action, sometimes subliminally." Information provided by:https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?objectid=090000168092dd4b
European Commission welcomed the final Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence prepared by the HighLevel Group on Artificial Intelligence published on 8 April 2019. The European Commission also welcomed the Reporton liability for Artificial Intelligence and other emerging technologies prepared by the Expert Group on Liability and New
Technologies published on 21 November 2019. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/EuropeanUnion
In 2019, Estonia AI experts put together a report outlining valuable advice and activities on how to accelerate applying
AI in private and public sectors. The report concluded that there was no need for changes in the foundation of theEstonian legal system, nor for a unified AI law. The report recommended some laws be modernised to apply to AI in
business, to create more general awareness, research, development and innovation rather than sector specificprioritization. In May 2019, the Estonian government has launched a national AI strategy. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Estonia and https://e-estonia.com/estonia-accelerates-artificial-intelligence/
In 2017, France's "AI for Humanity" national strategy launched a mission delegated to Mathematician Cédric Villani by
the French prime Minister to assess the French AI Strategy. Villani's report, “For a Meaningful Artificial Intelligence,”
was published in 2018. Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/France
The government established a new Data Ethics Commission which released recommendations for the government andother institutions for ethical AI in October 2019. The independent Commission called for AI to be designed safely andsecurely, to respect people’s rights and freedoms, protect democracy, and avoid bias and discrimination. It also argued
that lethal autonomous weapons should be banned outright. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Germany
In 2017 the Agency for Digital Italy launched an AI task force (AGID) of 30 direct members and around 450 community
members from many sectors. In 2018, AGID released a White Paper called “AI at the service of citizens,” thatrecommended how to develop better public services with the use of AI that could help eliminate inequalities andmeasure impact. Italy is also coordinating the Thematic Group on Emerging Technologies (AI and Blockchain) of theOECD Working Party of Senior Digital Government Officials. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Italy
In 2017 Japan published Draft AI Research and Development Guidelines for International Discussions in preparation
for the Conference toward AI Network Society. The draft document is a set of non-binding AI RandD principles and

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTRBC Issues Covered

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Human Rights Consumer Interests Science andTechnology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology
Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Consumer Interests

No

No

36 |

Overview

Kenya

NorwayUnited Kingdom

RBC Issues Covered

guidelines regarding the promotion of the benefits and the reduction of the risks of AI. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Japanhttps://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-japan/
The Kenyan government created a Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence task force in February 2018 consisting of 11
members from academia and industry. The first goal of the group is to provide the government with recommendations
about how to harness these emerging technologies over the next five years. Information provided by:https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-Kenya/
In 2018, the Norwegian Data Protection Authority published a report elaborating on its legal opinions and thetechnologies described in the 2014 report "Big Data – data protection principles under pressure,” providing greater
technical detail in describing AI, while also taking a closer look at four relevant AI challenges associated with the dataprotection principles embodied in the GDPR. Information provided by:https://www.datatilsynet.no/globalassets/global/english/ai-and-privacy.pdf
In 2018, the Select Committee on AI published a 183-page report, “AI in the UK: ready, willing and able?” which
considers AI development and governance. It acknowledges that the UK cannot compete with the US or China in termsof funding or people, but suggests the UK may have a competitive advantage in considering the ethics of AI. The
government responded to the report’s recommendations in a 41-page document highlighting many of the UK's
intentions moving forward. Information provided by: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-in-the-uk-readywilling-and-able-government-response-to-the-select-committee-report
In 2017, an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence (APPG AI) was established to address ethicalissues, social impact, industry norms, and regulatory options for AI in Parliament. The group’s first findings aredescribed in: “1 Key Recommendation, 6 Policy Focus Areas.” The key recommendation is to appoint a Minister for AI
in the Cabinet Office. Information provided by: https://www.appg-ai.org

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer, Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Labour Rights, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology

No

RESEARCH
Austria

Austria has the Austrian Society for Measurement, Automation, and Robotics Technology, which established the
National Robotics-Technology Platform (GMAR) in 2015, supported by the Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation
and Technology. Information provided by: https://produktionderzukunft.at/en/platforms/gmar.php
Austria established a Robot Council in 2017, an advisory body for current and future opportunities and challenges
associated with robots, autonomous systems and AI from technological, economic, socio-cultural, ethical and legal
perspectives. The council is made up of an eight-member team of international and Austrian experts. In 2018, thecouncil published its first white paper on Shaping the Future of Austria with Robotics and Artificial Intelligence.
Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Austria

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 37

Overview
BrazilCouncil of Europe

EuropeanCommission

FinlandFranceFrance andCanadaIn 2019, Brazil’s Minister of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications announced the creation of eight AI
laboratories throughout the country. One of these laboratories will focus on the frontiers of knowledge in AI with cybersecurity, joining efforts with the Brazilian Army. The other seven will be directed towards applied AI. In December, theMTIC opened a public consultation to define the National Strategy for AI. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Brazil
In 2018, the Council of Europe published a paper titled "A study of the implications of advanced digital technologies(including AI systems) for the concept of responsibility within a human rights framework" which takes aninterdisciplinary approach to investigating the threats and harms associated with digital technology, and who bears
responsibility for those threats and harms. Information provided by: https://rm.coe.int/draft-study-of-the-implications-ofadvanced-digital-technologies-inclu/16808ef255
The European Commission approach to AI and robotics deals with technological, ethical, legal and socio-economic
aspects to boost EU's research and industrial capacity and to put AI at the service of European citizens and economy.
The Commission is increasing its annual investments in AI by 70% under the research and innovation programme
Horizon 2020. It will reach EUR 1.5 billion for the period 2018-2020. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/EuropeanUnion
Finland has an Artificial Intelligence Programme guided by a steering group that was appointed by Minister of
Economic Affairs Mika Lintilä in 2017. The group published its first report in 2017 titled, “Finland’s Age of Artificial
Intelligence: Turning Finland into a leading country in the application of AI”. The Steering Group published a second
report 2018 titled, “Artificial Intelligence: Four Perspectives on the Economy, Employment, Knowledge and Ethics.”
Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Finland
France’s National Commission for Information Technology and Liberties (CNIL), hosted a series of ethical debates on
AI by the Digital Republic Bill, dedicated to wider data and knowledge dissemination, equal rights for internet users,and fraternity through an inclusive digital society. The result of the debates was the paper, "How Can Humans Keep
the Upper Hand? The ethical matters raised by algorithms and artificial intelligence" published in December 2017.
Information provided by: https://www.cnil.fr/en
The Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) is an international and multi-stakeholder initiative that advances cutting-edge
research and pilot projects on AI priorities to advance the responsible development and use of AI that respects humanrights and shared democratic values, as elaborated in the OECD’s Recommendation on AI. The Partnership wasconceived by Canada and France during their G7 presidencies and at its launch on June 15, 2020 counted 13 otherfounding members: Australia, the European Union, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand,
Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the United States. With its Secretariat hosted at the OECD, the GPAI willbring together experts from industry, government, civil society, and academia.
GPAI’s mission is to “support the development and use of AI based on human rights, inclusion, diversity, innovation,

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTRBC Issues Covered

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology

No

Human Rights, Consumer Interests, Scienceand Technology Competition, Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology, Competition

No

Human Rights, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

38 |

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

and economic growth, while seeking to address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”. Two Centres ofExpertise (in Montréal, the International Centre of Expertise in Montréal for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(ICEMAI) and in Paris, the National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology (INRIA)) support theoperation of four expert working groups on: Responsible AI (Montreal); Data Governance (Montréal); the Future ofWork (Paris); and Innovation & Commercialisation (Paris). Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/wonk andhttps://oecd.ai/wonk/oecd-and-g7-artificial-intelligence-initiatives-side-by-side-for-responsible-ai
MexicoIn 2018, the Mexican government and the National Digital Strategy Office supported a white paper titled “Towards an
AI Strategy in Mexico: Harnessing the AI Revolution”. The report highlights the potential social applications of AI to
improve services for the lowest earning 80% of Mexicans, but it also predicts that 19% of all jobs in Mexico will beaffected by automation over the next two years and that governments will need to respond to possible social disruption.
The report provides 21 recommendations. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Mexico

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition, Taxation

No

United Kingdom

In September 2016, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a 44-page report on“Robotics and artificial intelligence." Information provided by:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/14506.htm

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Argentina has proposed a plan for an AI ecosystem in the country that anticipates some of the risks AI could pose,
especially in ethics and data protection. The policy covers the decade from 2020 to 2030 and falls under the Innovative
Argentina 2030 Plan and the 2030 Digital Agenda. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Argentina andhttps://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/argentina-advances-national-ai-plan
In 2018 Australia’s Victorian All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence published its Digital Economy
strategy for developing Australia’s digital services. The federal government has earmarked $29.9 million over four
years to enhance Australia’s efforts in AI and machine learning in the country’s 2018-19 budget providing for thedevelopment of a national AI Ethics Framework. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Australia
In 2018, the Australia Human Rights Commission launched a project to directly address the human rights impact of AI
and emerging technologies, which includes a robust engagement of international human rights law and may serve as a
guide for other countries, available here:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/AHRC-Human-Rights-Tech-IP.pdf

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition, Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology

UNGPs

https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-united-kingdom/
STRATEGY
Argentina

Australia

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 39

Overview
BrazilBrazil has already supported the OECD AI Recommendation, which includes a set of five principles and fiverecommendations to governments. Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Brazil

CanadaIn 2017, Canada appointed the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) to develop and lead a $125 million
Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy. The strategy objectives are: to increase the number of outstanding AI
researchers and skilled graduates in Canada; to establish interconnected nodes of scientific excellence in Canada’s
three major centres for AI in Edmonton, Montréal and Toronto; to develop global thought leadership on the economic,
ethical, policy and legal implications of advances in AI; and, to support a national research community on AI.
Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Canada
The New Generation of Artificial Intelligence Development Plan is headed by the Ministry of Science and Technology(MOST) and the AI Plan Promotion Office, driven by government-led subsidies. An AI Strategy Advisory Committee
was established in November 2017 to conduct research on strategic issues related to AI and to makerecommendations. China’s AI Industry Development Alliance is co-sponsored by more than 200 enterprises andagencies nationwide and focuses on building a public service platform for the development of China’s AI industry withwhich to integrate resources and accelerate growth. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Chinahttps://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-china/
In 2018, the Czech Republic has committed itself to support AI development in the academic, public and private sectors,
mutual cooperation and international engagement. The National AI Strategy follows up on and meets the objectives of
the Government Innovation Strategy 2019–2030 and is linked to the Digital Czech Republic programme. It was inspiredby similar foreign strategic documents concerning AI and the support for the digitization of the industry and services. The
strategy was prepared by the deputy Prime Minister, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, andwith public, private and research institutions, the general public and with the involvement of social partners.
https://www.mpo.cz/assets/en/guidepost/for-the-media/press-releases/2019/5/NAIS_eng_web.pdf
In 2018, the Danish Government launched the “Strategy for Denmark’s Digital Growth,” which includes a focus on AI.
The strategy allocates 1 billion DKK for initiatives running to 2025 and is based on recommendations from a Digital
Growth Panel and the Danish Government’s Disruption Committee. In 2017, Denmark published, “Towards a Digital
Growth Strategy – MADE,” highlighting the Danish centre for artificial intelligence (DCKAI). Denmark also has a Digital
Strategy for 2016-2020, “A Stronger and More Secure Digital Denmark” published in 2016, that briefly mentions AI.
Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/DenmarkInformation provided by:https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-Denmark/President Macron presented his strategy to make France a leader in AI at the Collège de France on 29 March 2018.
That year the #FranceIA Strategy launched, focused on developing: a quality training offer and attracting top
researchers; dynamic ecosystems of innovation encompassing French Tech start-ups and major industrial groups; anda favourable legislative and regulatory framework with the Law for a Digital Republic. Information provided by:

China

Czech Republic

Denmark

FranceDIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTRBC Issues Covered

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition
Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

OECD

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

No

Human Rights, Consumer interests, Labour
rights, Science and Technology

Human Rights Labour Rights Consumer
Interests Science and Technology, Competition,
Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

40 |

Overview

G20

G7

Germany

Hungary

India

Ireland

RBC Issues Covered

https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/FranceInformation provided by: https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-France/
In 2019, the G20 Trade Ministers and Digital Economy Ministers and released a Ministerial Statement on Trade andDigital Economy which covers Human-centered Future Society, Data Free Flow with Trust, Human-centered Artificial
Intelligence, Governance Innovation, Security in the Digital Economy, SDGs and Inclusion and Trade agreements. In
the annex, the G20 released AI Principles for Responsible Stewardship of Trustworthy AI. Information provided by:https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000486596.pdf
In 2019, the G7 leaders commit to the Biarritz Strategy for an Open, Free and Secure Digital
Transformation which led to the launch of the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) in June 2020. Information provided by:https://futureoflife.org/Charlevoix-common-vision-future-artificial-intelligence/https://www.oecd.org/about/secretarygeneral/artificial-intelligence-g7-summit-france-august-2019.htm andhttps://www.elysee.fr/admin/upload/default/0001/05/62a9221e66987d4e0d6ffcb058f3d2c649fc6d9d.pdf
In 2018, Germany adopted a national AI strategy based on the Federal Cabinet’s Key Points for a Strategy on Artificial
Intelligence, which was developed by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the Federal
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, and the Federal Ministry of Labour. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Germany and Social Affairs.
https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-germany/
In 2019, Hungary launched an AI Action plan to "define and form the institutional framework of the Hungarian data
market and the AI ecosystem. In May 2020, Hungary's Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2020-2030 was adopted:
https://digitalisjoletprogram.hu/files/6f/3b/6f3b96c7604fd36e436a96a3a01e0b05.pdf
Information also provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Hungary and https://www.cmslawnow.com/ealerts/2019/10/hungary-announces-ai-action-plan
In 2018, India defined a national policy on AI in a working paper titled, “National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence#AIforAll.” The paper includes a section on "Ethics, Privacy, Security, and Artificial Intelligence".. Information provided
by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/India and https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/RR%20No201809_Germany%27s%20NetzDG.pdf https://futureoflife.org/ai-policyindia/#:~:text=In%20June%202018%2C%20the%20Indian,agriculture%2C%20education%2C%20urban%2D%2Fsmart
In 2018, the Irish Economic Development Agency (IDA) and Enterprise Ireland created an infographic highlighting
Ireland’s strengths in AI and characterizing Ireland’s strategy as the “AI Island”. To develop this, they audited thecountry’s AI ecosystems and organized a collaborative workshop in 2017 involving industry, government andacademia. Information provided by: https://www.idaireland.com/newsroom/publications/artificial-intelligenceInformation
provided by:Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition, Taxation

OECD

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition, Taxation

OECD

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer, Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Science and Technology, Competition, Taxation

No

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 41

Overview
Japan
Lithuania

Nordic-Baltic
RegionRussianFederation
Singapore

Korea

Spain

SwedenIn 2017, Japan released an “Artificial Intelligence Technology Strategy”, focusing on promoting AI development anddetermining phases and priorities for industrialization including productivity, healthcare, and mobility. Information
provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Japan
In 2019, Lithuania published the Lithuanian Artificial Intelligence Strategy: A Vision of the Future. The report includes
recommendations to the government with the goal to "modernize and expand the current AI ecosystem in Lithuania
and ensure that the nation is ready for a future with AI." The report recommends establishing an AI Ethics committee,
involving representatives from academia, government, industry and NGOs. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Lithuaniahttps://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-Lithuania/
Ministers from Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania Norway, Sweden, and theÅland Islands issued a declaration of collaboration on AI in 2018, “AI in the Nordic-Baltic region.” The countries aim tocollaborate on skill development, data access, standards and principles, ensuring the role of AI in the European Digital
Single Market, avoiding unnecessary regulation, and utilizing the Nordic Council of Ministers to facilitate collaborate.
Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/policy-initiatives/2019-data-policyInitiatives-24254Information
provided by:
In 2019, Russia released a national AI strategy, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on theDevelopment of Artificial Intelligence in the Russian Federation. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/RussianFederationhttps://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-Russia/
In 2019, Singapore launched a National AI Strategy, considering AI alongside the Internet of Things, cloud computing,big data analysis, and mobile technologies. The strategy identifies five national AI projects including transport andlogistics, smart cities and estates, healthcare, education, and safety and security. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Singapore
In 2016, South Korea launched its "Realizing a Human-Centred Intelligent Information Society" strategy for engaging
businesses, citizens, government and the research community. The strategy focuses on public concerns of loss ofjobs, and unsafe/inappropriate use of technologies and on businesses' concerns of having a shortage of experts,
excessive regulation, and the lack of an industrial ecosystem and infrastructure. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/SouthKorea
In 2019, Spain’s Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities released an R&D Strategy in Artificial Intelligence.
The report was authored by the General Secretariat of Scientific Policy Coordination within the Ministry as well as by
the Artificial Intelligence Task Force and called for the development of a National AI Strategy which is currently indevelopment. Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/SpainInformation provided by:https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-Spain/
In 2018 Sweden released its “National Approach for Artificial Intelligence," guiding document outlining what the country
needs to be at the forefront of AI development and use. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/Sweden

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTRBC Issues Covered

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Disclosure, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition, Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Bribery, Consumer Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Environment,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition, Taxation

No

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Environment,
Science and Technology, Competition

No

Human Rights Science and Technology,
Competition

No

42 |

Overview
Switzerland

United ArabEmirates

United Kingdom

United States ofAmerica

RBC Issues Covered

On 18 October 2018, Federal Councillor Johann N. Schneider-Ammann, together with the umbrella organisations of
the Swiss social partners and in the presence of the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
Guy Ryder, signed a tripartite declaration on the future of work and social partnership in Switzerland in the age of
economic digitisation.
In 2017, the UAE announced its Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, which was approved in 2019. The policy aims toachieve the objectives of UAE Centennial 2071; boost government performance at all levels; use an integrated smart
digital system that can overcome challenges and provide quick efficient solutions; make the UAE the first in the field of
AI investments in various sectors; and create new vital market with high economic value. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/UnitedArabEmirates
The UK's Sector deal on AI in 2019 reinforced the 5 foundations of the Industrial Strategy (Ideas, People Infrastructure,
Business Environment and Places) and draws on the government's Digital Strategy which focuses on strengthening
telecoms, data and enterprise. Information provided by: https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/UnitedKingdom andhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/artificial-intelligence-sector-deal/ai-sector-deal
As of 2019, President Trump's American AI Initiative as of 2019 includes : AI for American Innovation for R&D by the
Select Committee on AI under the National Science and Technology Council; AI for American Industry: Transportation,
Healthcare, Manufacturing, Financial Services, Agriculture, Weather Forecasting, and National Security and Defense;
AI for the American Worker including an executive order charging companies and trade groups across the country tosign a pledge committing to expand education, training, and reskilling opportunities for American workers among othereducational initiatives; and AI with American Values. Information provided by:https://oecd.ai/dashboards/countries/UnitedStateshttps://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-united-states/ andhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/ai/

Reference
toInternational
Instruments

Labour Rights, Science and Technology

ILO

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Environment,
Science and Technology, Competition

No

Human Rights, Labour Rights, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour Rights,
Consumer Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition, TaxationOECD

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 43

Social media initiatives by country/territory/organisation/region
Overview

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

LEGISLATION
AngolaAustralia

Bangladesh

BelarusBrazil

China

Egypt

In 2019, Angola approved a new penal code pertaining specifically to crimes committed in the media. These include fines and up to
six months’ imprisonment for “abuse of press freedom,” a charge that can be drawn by speech deemed as inciting crimes,
disseminating hate speech, or defending fascist or racist ideologies. The measure also covers those who disseminate texts,
images, or sounds obtained by fraudulent means, as well as those who intentionally publish fake news. Information provided by:https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2019/angola
In 2019, Australia published a bill called the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material amendment, criminalizing “abhorrent violent
material,” which it defines as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping. Social media companies that fail toremove such content “expeditiously” could face fines of up to 10% of their annual profit, and employees could be sentenced to up
to three years in prison. Companies must also inform the police when illegal material is found.
In 2019, Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act (DSA replaced the controversial section 57 of the Information and Communication
Technology Act (ICT Act). It grants law enforcement authorities wide-ranging powers to remove or block online information that
“harms the unity of the country or any part of it, economic activities, security, defense, religious values or public order or spreads
communal hostility and hatred.” The government announced a new social media monitoring program to identify “fake news” andpropaganda online for enforcement. Information provided by: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/19/bangladesh-crackdown-socialmedia
In 2018, New amendments to Belarus's Mass Media law expanded the Ministry of Information’s ability to block and filter content,empowering it to suspend, block, and close registered and unregistered online outlets without warning or judicial oversight. These
amendments empower the ministry to block social media platforms, and to hold website owners liable for hosting content deemed
false, defamatory, or harmful to the national interest. Owners can also be liable for comments by unidentified persons posted totheir sites. Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/belarus/freedom-on-the-net/2019
Preceding Brazil’s 2018 general elections, several draft bills were proposed to criminalize the dissemination of false news.
Proposed penalties ranged from small fines to up to eight years of imprisonment. While they were archived at the end of 2018,some of these proposals were relaunched and continued to be discussed. Information provided by:https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/brazil/freedom-on-the-net/2019
In 2015, new legislation introduced penalties of up to seven years in prison for the dissemination of misinformation on social media.
https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/china/freedom-on-the-net/2019
In 2015, the antiterrorism law instructed companies to delete terrorist content or face administrative detention for their personnel. It
barred social media users from sharing information about acts of terrorism or spreading “inhuman” images that could encourage
copycat attacks, and increased pressure on private companies to provide the government with user data.
Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/china/freedom-on-the-net/2019
In 2018, President Sisi signed a new law that compels media outlets to obtain a license from the Supreme Council for MediaDIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,

No

No

44 |
Overview

EU

FranceGermany

JordanKazakhstan

Kenya

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Regulation. The legislation defines media outlets to include any website or social media account with at least 5,000 subscribers,
and the individuals behind such outlets could be subject to account deletion, fines, and imprisonment if they are found to be
spreading false news. Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/Egypt/freedom-on-the-net/2019
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), enforced in 2018, establishes new protections for European citizens’ rights
around data protection and privacy, which impacts any organization collecting European residents’ data. Information provided by:https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/eu-data-protection-rules_en

Consumer Interests, Taxation
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Scienceand Technology, Taxation

No

In 2018, Parliament passed a law that aims to combat disinformation around elections by empowering judges to order the removalof “fake news” within three months of an election. Judges have 48 hours to decide whether a website is spreading fake news
following a referral by a public prosecutor, political party, or interested individual. Under the law, social media platforms are also
required to disclose who is paying for sponsored ads during electoral campaigns. Information provided by:https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/France/freedom-on-the-net/2019
Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, or NetzDG law serves to combat hate speech on the internet. Under the 2018 law, online
platforms face fines of up to €50 million for systemic failure to delete illegal content. Companies with more than 2 million registeredusers in Germany are required to establish an effective and transparent procedure to receive and review complaints of allegedly
illegal content. They must block or remove “manifestly unlawful” content within 24 hours of receiving a complaint but have up to one
week or potentially more if further investigation is required. In especially complex cases, companies can refer the case to anindustry-funded but government-authorized body that is required to make determinations within a seven-day window. The
government has authorized the FSM Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter as such a body in January 2020.
(https://www.fsm.de/en/netzdg).

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Right,
Science and Technology,
TaxationNo

In 2017, Jordan’s government proposed a series of controversial new amendments to the Cybercrime Law to explicitly cover hatespeech, defined as “any statement or act that would incite discord, religious, sectarian, ethnic or regional strife or discrimination
between individuals or groups. The bill also criminalises spreading rumours and false news, without providing a clear definition of
the offenses, with up to two years in prison and a fine. In February 2019, the lower house of Parliament rejected the bill, however,the legislation was being considered by the Senate as of April 2019.
Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/Jordan/freedom-on-the-net/2019
According to Kazakhstan’s 2016 Mass Media Law web publishers—including bloggers and social media users— are liable for thecontent they post. In 2015, the Ministry of Information and Communication stated that social media users could be held liable forextremist comments posted on their pages by third parties, as permitting the publication of extremist materials in a mass media
outlet is an offense under the criminal code that can be punished with up to 90 days in jail. In 2016, the Ministry of Information andCommunication gained the authority to issue takedown and blocking orders until website owners remove specific content.
Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/kazakhstan/freedom-on-the-net/2019
The 2018 Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes law in Kenya punishes the spreading of "false information" and imposes a lengthy jailterm on offenders. It proposes a fine of $50,000 and/or up to two years in prison for publishing "false" information. The law also
criminalizes abuse on social media and cyber bullying. Information provided by: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-44137769

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 45
Overview
Malaysia

Russian Federation

RwandaSingapore

Sudan

Tech Against
Terrorism

Malaysia passed the Anti-Fake News Bill in 2018, weeks before the country held national elections. The law cites the following
offences: Creating, offering, publishing etc. fake news or publications containing fake news; providing financial assistance forpurposes of committing or facilitating commission these offences; failing to carry out the duty to remove fake news. The law permits
courts to mandate the removal of publications containing fake news or authorize the removal of fake news by a police officer orauthorized officer under the Communications and Multimedia Act (1998) Information provided by:https://www.accessnow.org/malaysias-dangerous-fake-news-law-is-still-on-the-books-it-must-be-repealed/ andhttps://www.cljlaw.com/files/bills/pdf/2018/MY_FS_BIL_2018_06.pdf
In 2019, President Putin signed a set of bills that make it a crime to “disrespect” the state and spread “fake news” online; Users thatspread “fake news” will face fines of up to 1.5 million rubles for repeat offenses. As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines
are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, and any official or a legal entity that spreads “fake news” will face fines of
up to 1.5 million rubles for repeat offenses. Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to
300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses. Information provided by:https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/18/putin-signs-fake-news-internet-insults-bills-into-law-a64850
Rwanda’s cybersecurity law of 2018 imposes up to five years imprisonment and a fine between 1 million francs and 3 million francs
for publishing “rumours that may incite fear, insurrection or violence…or that may make a person lose their credibility.” Anyone who“establishes, publishes, or uses a site of a terrorist group” faces imprisonment of 15 to 20 years and a fine between 20 million and
50 million francs. Notably, the spread of “false information or harmful propaganda with intent to cause a hostile international opinion
against [the] Rwanda government” carries penalties of between seven and ten years in prison in peacetime and life imprisonment
during wartime. Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/rwanda/freedom-on-the-net/2019
Singapore's protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (2019) is intended to “prevent the electronic communication offalse statements of fact” by imposing harsh penalties. Individuals who do not publish corrections or comply with takedown requests
can be subjected to 12 months in prison or fines of up to S$20,000. ISPs that do not carry out blocking orders can also be fined up
to S$20,000 a day, with an upper limit of S$500,000. Websites with three published falsehoods within 6 months can haveadvertising money restricted. The use of bots or an “inauthentic online account” to communicate false content mandates a prison
term of up to 10 years and fines of up to S$100,000. Information provided by: https://www.parliament.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/protection-from-online-falsehoods-and-manipulation-bill10-2019.pdf andhttps://freedomhouse.org/blog/citing-fake-news-singapore-could-be-next-quash-free-expression
Amendments in 2019 to the Media Law imposed restrictions on online journalism and social media, including requiring online
journalists to register with the Journalism Council, which has the power to suspend publications and prevent online journalists fromposting content it objects to. In June 2018, the National Assembly passed the Law on Combating Cybercrimes of 2018, which
introduced criminal penalties for the spread of fake news online. Information provided by:https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/sudan/freedom-on-the-net/2019#C2
In the aftermath of the 2017 terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, government leaders and online platforms agreed on theChristchurch Call for Action. In response, the EU Internet Forum produced the EU Protocol to allow Member States and online
platforms to respond rapidly and in a coordinated manner to the dissemination of terrorist content online in the event of a terrorist
attack.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTRBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology

No

46 |
Overview
United Kingdom

California (UnitedStates of America)

Viet Nam

ZambiaZimbabwe

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set up in 2010 by ACPO (and run by the Metropolitan Police) to remove
unlawful terrorist material content from the Internet with a focus on UK based material. CTIRU works with internet platforms toidentify content which breaches their terms of service and requests that they remove the content on a voluntary basis. CTIRU also
compiles a list of URLs for material hosted outside the UK which are blocked on networks of the public estate. Information provided
by: https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/together-were-tackling-online-terrorism/
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) enacted in 2018, creates new consumer rights relating to the access to, deletion of, andsharing of personal information that is collected by businesses. Businesses are subject to the CCPA if one or more of the following
are true: Has gross annual revenues in excess of $25 million; buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 50,000 or moreconsumers, households, or devices; derives 50 percent or more of annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information.
As proposed by the draft regulations, businesses that handle the personal information of more than 4 million consumers will haveadditional obligations. Information provided by:https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/CCPA%20Fact%20Sheet%20%2800000002%29.pdf
The cybersecurity law of 2019 prohibits a wide range of activities conducted online, including organizing opposition to the CPV;
distorting Vietnam’s revolutionary history and achievements; spreading false information; and harming socioeconomic activities. In
addition, websites and individual social media pages are prohibited from posting content critical of the state or that causes publicdisorder.
Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/vietnam/freedom-on-the-net/2019
In 2018, the cabinet approved review of the draft on Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes Bill. In particular, the draft bill provides
penalties of up to one year in prison, fines, or both for “any electronic communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass,or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.” The legislation has not been made available for public scrutiny and has notbeen debated in the parliament.
Information provided by: https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/zambia/freedom-on-the-net/2019#C2
In Zimbabwe, the government is considering a draft law that would criminalise certain forms of online speech and activity. The draft
was approved by the cabinet in October 2019, though it has yet to make its way through Parliament. The Cyber Crime Bill draft
penalises the dissemination of communications “with intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, threaten bully or cause substantial
emotional distress” with a fine, prison terms of up to 10 years, or both, and penalises the spread of false information “to cause
psychological or economic harm” with fines, up to five years in prison, or both. Information provided by:https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/Zimbabwe/freedom-on-the-net/2019#B

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Taxation

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights

No

Co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia, the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group focuses on diminishingradicalization and recruitment to terrorism through internationally, regionally, nationally and locally owned and relevant approaches
to CVE. In September 2018, Australia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom launched an Initiative to develop a Policy Toolkit tooperationalize the Zurich-London Recommendations. The Toolkit provides a practical and user-friendly guide for policymakers andgovernmental experts on good governmental practices, case studies, and references to existing international and regional
initiatives and practices in preventing and countering violent extremism and terrorism online. Information provided by:Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Scienceand Technology

No

RECOMMENDATIONS
Global Counterterrorism Forum

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 47
Overview

United Kingdom

https://www.thegctf.org
The Online Harms White Paper (2019) sets out the UK Government’s plans to make companies more responsible for their users’safety online, especially children, and will help to build trust in digital markets. The White Paper outlines the government's intention
to establish in law a new 'duty of care' on companies towards users. The 'duty of care' will ensure companies have appropriate
systems and processes in place to deal with harmful content on their services to keep their users safe. An initial response to theOnline Harms White Paper consultation was published in February 2020. Information provided by:https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper#executive-summary
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/public-feedback/online-harms-white-paper-initialconsultation-response

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Scienceand Technology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights
Science and Technology

No

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests, Scienceand Technology

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests

No

STRATEGYEU

Italy

Jordan

Malaysia

Thailand

Established in 2015, the EU Internet Referral Unit (EU IRU) detects and investigates malicious content on the internet and in Social
Media. The work of the EU IRU, which is based at Europol’s European Counter Terrorism Centre, not only produces strategic
insights into terrorism, but also provides information for use in criminal investigations. On average, the content flagged for referrals
has been removed in 86% of the cases (Figures of December 2017). Information provided by:https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-Europol/EU-internet-referral-unit-EU-ire
Leading up to the March 2018 elections, the Italian government announced the launch of an online portal to report “fake news” tothe postal police. Project “red button,” gives citizens the opportunity to report fake news using a portal on the police’s website. The
National Anti-Crime Information Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection was tasked with analysing the reported content.
According to the plan, the police website and their social media accounts would be set to publish retractions, based on theiranalysis of reported content.
Information provided by: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/italy
Jordan’s Aqaba Process is a multi-national forum led by His Majesty King Abdullah II to enhance global coordination in the fightagainst terrorism and violent extremism. The 2015 session of the Aqaba Process, included heads of state, government officials andlaw enforcement officials from throughout the region, Europe and Africa, focused on combatting terrorism in East Africa anddeveloping approaches to countering emerging security challenges.
The Barisan Nasional Government (in place until May 2018), took steps to combat what it characterized as “false news” in 2017.
Sebernarnya, a fact-checking portal launched by the Communications and Multimedia Ministry, encouraged social media users toverify the content of all news reports shared on popular platforms with the slogan, “not sure, don’t share.” Officials said the portal
was nonpartisan, and the following government retained it. Information provided by:https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/malaysia/freedom-on-the-net/2019
In 2019, Digital Economy and Society Minister Puttipong Punnakanta announced an initiative to establish a Fake News Centre,
whose mission would be to combat false and misleading information on social media that jeopardizes people’s safety or violates
the CCA.On November 1st 2019, Reuters reported that the Centre had been established. Information provided by:https://www.freedomonthenet.org/country/thailand/freedom-on-the-net/2019#C2;and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

48 |Overview

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

Refers to
Human Rights(HR,hereafter)

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer

OECD, UNGP

fakenews/thailand-unveils-anti-fake-news-center-to-police-the-internet-idUSKBN1XB48OArtificial intelligence initiatives by civil society organisations
Organisation

Overview

BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE
Access Now

AI Now Report

Amnesty Internationaland AccessNow

FAT/ML

Data and Society

In 2018, Access Now published a report on the potential range of human rights issues that may be raised by emerging AI technologies
through the lens of human rights law. Access Now points out that “many of the issues that arise in examinations of [AI] are not new, butthey are greatly exacerbated by the scale, proliferation, and real-life impact that artificial intelligence facilitates." The paper gives
recommendations on how to address human rights harms. https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2018/11/AI-and-HumanRights.pdf
AI Now released a report in 2017 as a result of the AI Now symposium (2016 and 2017) and in conjunction with the Obama WhiteHouse’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Economic Council. The report advocates for "the immediate need tounderstand AI technologies in the context of existing social systems, to connect technological development to social and politicalconcerns, to develop ethical codes with force and accountability, to diversify the field of AI and to integrate diverse social scientific andhumanistic research practices into the core of AI development. https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2017_Report.pdf
The Toronto Declaration by Amnesty International and AccessNow (2018) focuses on protecting the right to equality and nondiscrimination in machine learning systems according to internationally recognized human rights and standards. The report first applies
the framework of human rights law, addressing the right to equality and non-discrimination and promoting diversity and inclusion. Next,
the report outlines the duties of States when using ML systems, promoting equality and accountability by the private sector. The reporttasks the private sector with human rights due diligence and fulfilling the right to effective remedy.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/8447/2018/en/
FAT/ML's 2016 "Principles for Accountable Algorithms and a Social Impact Statement for Algorithms" is designed for developers andproduct managers to implement algorithmic systems in publicly accountable ways. Accountability in this context includes an obligation
to report, explain, or justify algorithmic decision-making as well as mitigate any negative social impacts or potential harms. FAT/ML
recommends that companies publicly commit to associated best practice by having algorithm creators develop a Social Impact
Statement using their principles as a guiding structure. FAT/ML recommends that the statement be revisited and reassessed (at least)
three times during the design and development process and, when the system is launched, made public as a form of transparency sothat the public has expectations for social impact of the system.https://www.fatml.org/resources/principles-for-accountable-algorithms"Governing Artificial Intelligence: “Upholding Human Rights and Dignity and provides a snapshot of stakeholder engagement at theintersection of AI and human rights. The paper breaks down stakeholder initiatives by AI and human rights activity in business, civilsociety, governments, the UN, intergovernmental organizations, and academia. Recommendations include: Developing effective

No

UNGP

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 49
Organisation

UNI Global Union

Association for
Computing Agency
Professional Ethics in
Computing
World Economic Forum

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

channels of communication between technology companies and local civil society groups; technology companies and researchers
conducting HR-IAs throughout the life cycle of their AI systems; Governments developing national AI policies, guidelines, and possible
regulations; cross-sector collaboration on the development of operationalization of human rights in business; and continuing the
research and publication of the human rights impacts resulting from AI systems by UN human rights investigators and special
rapporteurs.https://datasociety.net/library/governing-artificial-intelligence/
UNI Global Union represents 20 million workers from over 150 countries in the services sector. In 2017 the UNI released "Top 10
Principles for Workers' Data Privacy and Protection" to address a gap between companies' increasing use of data, big data and data
sets, and workers’ data protection and privacy rules. The paper addresses data provided by workers such as CVs, fingerprints or iris
scans, data mined on workers by employers to monitor workflow, and data use by management in hiring, promotions, and discipline.
The paper advocates for workers' and union representatives' right to access, influence, edit and delete data that is collected on themand via their work processes. Notably, the UNI recommends a multi-disciplinary inter-company data governance body should beestablished to govern data formation, storage, handling and security issues and integrating all its proposed principles through sectoralcollective bargaining. http://www.thefutureworldofwork.org/media/35421/uni_workers_data_protection.pdf
The latest version of the Association for Computing Agency (ACM) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (“the Code”) is the 2018
version, which was adopted by the ACM Council on June 22, 2018. Before this, the Code was most recently updated in 1992; changes
in the nature of computing’s impact (including with the emergence of AI systems) means that every decision requires computing
professionals to identify a broader range of stakeholders and consider how to satisfy our obligations to them. A primary function of theCode is to help computing professionals identify potential impacts and promote positive outcomes in their systems.
https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics
The World Economic Forum's Whitepaper "A Framework for Developing a National Intelligence Strategy" (2019) makes the case forwhy states need national AI strategies, and how to design those strategies. One of the paper's key points is that AI raises
unprecedented challenges for governments in relation to algorithmic accountability, data protection, explainability of decision-making
by machine-learning models and potential job displacements. The proposed AI framework is the result of a holistic study of the various
strategies and national plans prepared by various countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, France,
Singapore, Germany and the UAE. Additionally, the World Economic Forum team has interviewed government employees responsiblefor developing their national AI strategies, in order to gain a detailed understanding of the design process they followed.
https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/a-framework-for-developing-a-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy

Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

UDHR

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

No

Disclosure, Human
Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition
Disclosure, Human
Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer

Refers to HR

RATINGS AND RANKINGS
Berkman Klein Center
for Internet and Society
at Harvard University

The Principled AI Project (January 2020) analysed the contents of thirty-six prominent AI principles which, in wording or in process,identified thematic trends that suggest the earliest emergence of sectoral norms. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2020/principledai

Ranking Digital Rights

Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) works to promote freedom of expression and privacy on the internet by creating global standards andincentives for companies to respect and protect users’ rights. RDR does this by ranking the world’s most powerful internet, mobile, andtelecommunications companies on relevant commitments and policies, based on international human rights standards.

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

UNGPs

50 |
Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2019/

Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

International
Instruments

VOLUNTARY INITIATIVES
Future of Life Institute

The Asilomar principles were developed in conjunction with the 2017 Asilomar conference. The principles address research issues,
ethics and values, and long-term issues. Notably, the principles specify that an arms race in lethal autonomous weapons should be
avoided. Furthermore, they recognise that AI systems designed to recursively self-improve or self-replicate in a manner that could leadto rapidly increasing quality or quantity, must be subject to strict safety and control measures.
https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai-intelligent-machines-smart-policies/conference-agenda/ai-intelligent-machines-smart-policiesoheigeartaigh.pdf

Disclosure, Human
Rights, Labour Rights,
Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science andTechnology, Competition

Refers to HR

Social media initiatives by civil society organisations
Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
CompetitionNo

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,

Refers to HR

BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE
Santa Clara
Principles onContent
Moderation

Developed by civil society, the Santa Clara Principles outline minimum levels of transparency and accountability for platform
companies which moderate content online. For example, companies should publish the numbers of posts removed, andaccounts removed permanently or temporarily suspended due to violations of their content guidelines, and provide notice toeach user whose content is taken down or whose account is suspended about the reason for the removal or suspension.
https://santaclaraprinciples.org/

Artificial intelligence and social media initiatives by civil society organisations
Organisation

Overview

BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCEIEEE

In 2017 the IEEE published a Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems released a report titled, "FromPrinciples to Practice Ethically Aligned Design Conceptual Framework" providing general principles and ethical foundations,followed by a discussion of areas of impact, including: sustainable development, personal data rights and agency over digital

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 51
identity, legal frameworks for accountability and policies for education and awareness. In the paper's section specifically on Social
Media, the IEEE recommends increasing transparency and user control; using AI to detect untruthful information; requiring
companies to provide algorithmic transparency and business transparency, clarifying legislation between "platforms" and "content
providers" and promoting the right to information. https://standards.ieee.org/news/2017/ieee_global_initiative.html

Competition

Multi-Stakeholder artificial intelligence initiatives
Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

OECD

BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE
Artificial Intelligence
Network of Excellencein Sub-Saharan Africa

C Minds

Global Symposium on
Artificial Intelligenceand Inclusion

OECD

In 2019, the Network held a three-day workshop (Nairobi Workshop) which focused on three critical areas: Policy andregulations; skills and capacity building; and the application of AI in Africa. The 5-year target outcomes of theworkshop include: A commitment by 30 African countries to have AI specific policies that include multi-stakeholder
evidence-based inputs, and AI regulation that is ethics and rights based; a commitment to have 5 regional research
centres and 500 researchers. The meeting gathered sixty African and international experts. https://ai4d.ai/event/ssanetwork/
C-Minds is a women-led team that designs and deploys initiatives for social change with and from the Global South.
The AI for Good Lab is where C Minds explores how to strengthen Mexico and the Latin American region in the faceof the international AI and Tech Revolution, boosting the ecosystem, deepening ethical conversations and contributing
more ethical, fair and inclusive AI policy. As a part of the AI for good lab with the IEEE, C Minds is founding andchairing the Latam Circle, part of the institute's AI ethics global initiative, working with 5 different countries to boost theregion's participation in the creation of global AI standards. In 2018, the group published a paper titled "Towards an AI
Strategy in Mexico: Harnessing the AI Revolution". Involved parties included: IDB, Microsoft, Tecnológico deMonterrey, and Open Data Institute. https://www.cminds.co/ai
The Global Symposium on AI and Inclusion held in Brazil in 2017 sought to address issues that exist at theintersection of AI development and the application divide between the Global North and the Global South. Some of thethematic areas included health and wellbeing, education, and humanitarian crisis mitigation, as well as cross-cutting
themes such as data and infrastructure, law and governance, and algorithms and design. Involved parties included:
MIT Media Lab, Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, the Institute for Technology andSociety Rio, and the Global Network of Internet and Society Research Centres, the Ethics and Governance of Artificial
Intelligence Fund, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Open Society Foundations, and theMuseum of Tomorrow. https://networkofcenters.net/
The OECD principles on AI identify value-based principles for the stewardship of AI, including the benefit to society,rights respecting by design, transparency and responsible disclosure around AI systems; safety, and security, andaccountability. The OECD provides recommendations to governments, on public and private investment in researchand development, fostering accessible AI ecosystems, ensuring a policy environment that supports the deployment of

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT52 |Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

UNGPs

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

OECD

Disclosure, Human Rights, Labour
Rights, Environment, Consumer
Interests, Science and Technology,
Competition

Refers to Human
Rightstrustworthy AI systems, empowering people with the skills for AI and support workers for a fair transition andcooperating across borders and sectors to progress on responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI. OECD Members
and Adherents: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Malta, Peru, Romania and Ukraine.
https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/

RATINGS AND RANKINGS
Future of Life Institute

The AI Policy Challenges and Recommendations of the Future of Life Institute include a review of 14 areas of concern
for the safe and beneficial development of AI, both in the near future and in the long-term. The review serves as an
educational resource for policymakers seeking to harness the benefits of AI while preparing for and mitigating
potential threats. The topics are not sector-specific (i.e. transportation or healthcare), but address overarching AI
policy concerns that cut across multiple industries. Benchmarked Groups: Future of Life Institute Similar AI Principles,
G7, DeepMind Ethics and Society Principles, IEEE: Ethically Aligned AI Design, Google AI Principles, ITI AI Policy
Principles, AI Now (2017) Report, British Standard guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic
systems, The Toronto Declaration, "The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, andMitigation" written by 26 Authors from 14 Different Institutions, Human Rights Watch, and the Campaign to Stop Killer
Robots. https://futureoflife.org/ai-policy-challenges-and-recommendations/

VOLUNTARY INITIATIVES
AI for Good Global
Summit

IA2030Mx

Partnership on AI

The AI for Good Global Summit (2019) is the leading UN platform for global and inclusive dialogue on AI. Building on
the success of previous years, the 2019 AI for Good Global Summit continued to collaborate with AI innovators andother stakeholders, including more than 37 UN agencies and bodies, to identify strategies to ensure that AI
technologies are developed in a trusted, safe and inclusive manner, with equitable access to their benefits. Involved
groups: CTBTO, FAO, ICAO, ILO, IMO, IOM, UNAIDS, UNCTAD, UNDESA, UNDPPA (former UNDPA), UNECE,
UNEP, UNESCO, UNFCCC, UNFPA, UNGP, UNHabitat, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNICRI, UNIDIR, UNIDO, UNDRR(former UNISDR), UNITAR, UNODA, UNODC, UNOOSA, UNOPS, UNRISD, UNU, UNWomen, UNWTO, WFP, WHO,
WIPO, WMO and World Bank Group (WBG). https://aiforgood.itu.int/
The organization works to advance the use and application of AI to benefit Mexicans, strengthen coordination
between sectors, deepen the debate about current and future AI opportunities, develop Mexican talent in AI, makeMexico a competitive and fair country, and make the knowledge of AI accessible to all people. IA2030Mx is a multisectoral coalition composed of professionals, academic institutions, companies, start-ups, public agencies and otherkey actors of the digital ecosystem and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Mexico. Parties include: Amexcomp, Blue
Messaging, C Minds, Coparmex, The British Embassy in Mexico, UDEM, Iniciativa en Inteligencia Artificial, and AI
Mexico. www.IA2030Mx.mx
The Partnership on AI (PAI) has 8 tenets, primarily focusing on stakeholder engagement and dialogue seeking tomaximize the potential benefits of AI for as many people as possible. The Partnership was formally established in late2016, led by a group of AI researchers representing six of the world’s largest technology companies: Apple, Amazon,
DeepMind and Google, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft. Today, PAI includes for-profit technology companies,

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT| 53
Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

representatives of civil society, academic and research institutions, start-ups, NGOs and others in 13 countries.
https://www.partnershiponai.org/

International
Instruments

Multi-Stakeholder social media initiatives
Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

International
Instruments

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights, Environment,
Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology,
Competition

Refers to
Human Rights

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights, Environment,
Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights, Environment,
Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology,
Competition

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights, Environment,
Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology,
Competition
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Labour Rights, Environment,

UNGPs,OECDVOLUNTARY INITIATIVES
Christchurch
Call

EU Code ofPractice on
Disinformation

GlobalInternet
Forum toCounter
Terrorism
GlobalNetwork
Initiative
The United
Nations-

The Call outlines collective, voluntary commitments from Governments and online service providers intended to address the issue of terrorist
and violent extremist content online and to prevent the abuse of the internet as occurred in and after the Christchurch attacks. All action on thisissue must be consistent with principles of a free, open and secure internet, without compromising human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of expression. It must also recognise the internet’s ability to act as a force for good, including by promoting innovation andeconomic development and fostering inclusive societies. Founded by France and New Zealand. Supporters into states and corporate online
service providers with an additional advisory group comprised of civil society. https://www.christchurchcall.com/christchurch-call.pdf
The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018) involved representatives of online platforms, leading social networks, advertisers andadvertising industry agreed on a self-regulatory Code of Practice to address the spread of online disinformation and fake news. The Codecommitments to transparency in political advertising, the closure of fake accounts, and demonetization of purveyors of disinformation. The
Code of Practice was signed by the online platforms Facebook, Google and Twitter, Mozilla, as well as by advertisers and advertising industry
in October 2018 and signatories presented their roadmaps to implement the Code. In May 2019, Microsoft subscribed to the Code of Practiceand also presented its roadmap.https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/code-practice-disinformation
The objective of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) is to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism,
disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence. The Content Incident Protocol (CIP) is a process bywhich GIFCT member companies become aware of, quickly assess, and act on potential content circulating online resulting from a real-world
terrorism or violent extremist event. Involved parties include: DropBox, Pinterest the Hash Sharing Consortium, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter,YouTube, Ask.fm, Cloudinary, Instagram, JustPaste.it, LinkedIn, Verizon Media, Reddit, Snap, and Yellow.
https://gifct.org/press/gifct-statement-halle-shooting/Participants of the Global Network Initiative (GNI) commit to implement the organisation’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy,
which provide direction and guidance to the ICT industry and its stakeholders in protecting and advancing the enjoyment of these human rights
globally. The Principles provide high-level guidance to the ICT industry on how to respect, protect, and advance user rights to freedom of
expression and privacy, including when faced with government demands for censorship and disclosure of user’s personal information. GNI
participants include companies, academics, investors and civil society. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/
The Freedom of Expression Monitors Issued a Joint Declaration on ‘Fake News’, Disinformation and Propaganda that identifies the applicablehuman rights standards, encourages the promotion of diversity and plurality in the media, and emphasizes the particular roles played by digital

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

UNGPs

54 |
Organisation

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

OSCE, OAS,
and ACHPR

intermediaries as well as journalists and media outlets. The Declaration involved the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion
and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organizationof American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights(ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.
https://www.osce.org/fom/302796 and https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/JointDeclaration10July2019_English.pdf
This coalition of states is committed to promoting freedom of expression, association and assembly as well as the protection of privacy on theInternet - worldwide. An advisory board of civil society organizations, the private sector and academia is participating in the work of theFreedom Online Coalition (FOC) to best address issues ranging from digital inclusion, to online disinformation, the impact of cybersecurity on
human rights, and the impact of Artificial Intelligence, particularly in the context of Social Media.
Multi stakeholder commitment to make the Internet free, secure, accessible to all and based on human rights. It is grounded in existing humanrights law and international frameworks that have been endorsed by governments around the world.

Consumer Interests,
Science and Technology,
Competition

The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General in 2018. Its final report from June 2019 “The Age of
Digital Interdependence” makes concrete recommendations on how we can work better together to realize the potential of digital technologies
for advancing human well-being while mitigating the risks. The report “The Age of Digital Interdependence” refers to the 2011 Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights and states that there is a critical need for clearer guidance about what should be expected onhuman rights from private companies as they develop and deploy digital technologies. According to the report, the need is especially pressing
for social media companies, which is why the report’s recommendation 3B calls for them to put in place procedures, staff and better ways ofworking with civil society and human rights defenders to prevent or quickly redress violations.https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/DigitalCooperationreport-for%20web.pdf

The Contract
for the Web
Freedom
OnlineCoalition(FOC)
UN Secretary
General’s
High-level
Panel on
DigitalCooperation

International
Instruments

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests

UDHR, OECD

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests

No

Human Rights, Consumer
Interests

UNGPs,OECD

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT

| 55

Artificial intelligence guiding principles and policies by company
Company

Overview

RBC Issues Covered

Google (2018)

Be socially beneficial, Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias, Be built and tested for safety, Be accountable topeople, Incorporate privacy design principles, Uphold high standards of scientific excellence;
Evaluation of likely uses, including Primary purpose and use, Nature and uniqueness, Scale, and the Nature of
Google’s involvement
AI for good; Evaluation of social impacts; Right to Privacy; Avoid bias and unfair impacts on people; Respect forIntellectual Property; Respect for the Environment; Cyber Security; Commitment to open research.
Evaluation of Likely Uses based on Purpose, nature and Impact.
Accountability; Value Alignment; Explainability; Fairness; and User Data Rights

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

Refers to HR

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

OECD

Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests
Disclosure, Human Rights,
Consumer Interests

No

IA Latam (2019)

IBM (2019)
Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI) (2017)

Microsoft (2018)

Industry’s Responsibility in Promoting Responsible Development and Use; Including: Safety and Controllability,
Robust and Representative Data, Interpretability and Liability of AI Systems Due to Autonomy
The Opportunity for Governments to Invest in and enable the AI Ecosystem; Including:Flexible Regulatory Approach, Promoting Innovation and the Security of the Internet, Cybersecurity and Privacy, andDeveloping Global Standards and Best Practices
The Opportunity for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs); including:
Democratizing Access and Creating Equality of Opportunity, STEM Education; and securing Future of Work
Foster Innovation and Open Development; Create New Human Employment Opportunities and Protect People’s
Welfare (AI will change the way people work);
Liberate Data Responsibly; Rethink Privacy; Require Accountability for Ethical Design and Implementation
Fairness, Inclusiveness, Reliability and Safety, Transparency, Privacy and Security, and Accountability

Salesforce (2019)

Responsible, Accountable, Transparent, Empowering and Inclusive

Telefónica (2018)

Responsibility, Human Rights, Fair, Transparent and Explainable, Human Centric, Privacy and Security by Design,
Policies governing work with Partners and Third-Parties
Responsible and value centric, Human centric, Rights respecting, Human control, Accountable, Safe and Secure,Transparent and eEplainable, Fair and Equal, and Continuous review and Dialogue
Respect Human rights, mitigation of bias, engagement in policy dialogue around new technologies, transparent andaccountable, protection of data, privacy and ethics by designIntel (2017)

Telia Company (2019)
Workday (2019)

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTInternational
Instruments

Refers to HR

Refers to HR
Refers to HR
Refers to HR
Refers to HR56 |Social media user agreements and community standards by company
Company

Overview

Facebook

Risk Mitigation of: Violence and Criminal Behaviour; Safety; Objectionable Content; Integrity and Authenticity; Description of Data Collected andInformation Shared with Third-Parties; Data Security; user Control; Accountability; Promotion of Social Good

Instagram

Risk Mitigation of: Violence and Criminal Behaviour; Safety; Objectionable Content; Integrity and Authenticity; Description of Data Collected andInformation Shared with Third-Parties; Data Security; user Control; Accountability; Promotion of Social Good

LinkedIn

Fairness (mitigation of bias, ensuring non-discrimination); Accountability (Making it possible to identify and assign responsibility for a decision made by
the AI system) Privacy and Confidentiality of User data, and Transparency and Explainability by Design in AI/ML Systems

RedditContent is prohibited if it is: illegal; pornographic; sexual or suggestive and involving minors; encouraging or inciting violence; threatening, harassing, orbullying/encouraging others to do so, personal and confidential information; impersonating someone in a misleading or deceptive manner; Using Reddit
to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services; or Is spam; in addition, prohibited behaviour includes: asking for votes
or engaging in vote manipulation, Breaking Reddit or doing anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit, Creating multiple accounts to evade
punishment or avoid restrictions; Reddit also enables content moderation within communities.
Prohibition of: content that is sexually explicit, specifically in the case of minors; Harassment and bullying including respecting people's right to privacy
by not snapchatting them in private spaces and not repeatedly contacting them off of other accounts when blocked; threats, violence, and harm;
Impersonation and Spam; Hate Speech and False Information including denying the existence of tragic events; illegal content; terrorist content
Risk Mitigation of: Violence and Criminal Behavior; Safety; Objectionable Content; Integrity and Authenticity; Description of Data Collected andInformation Shared with Third-Parties; Data Security; user Control; Accountability; Promotion of Social Good; Human Rights Commitments

SnapChat
Twitter

RBC Issues
CoveredDisclosure, Human
Rights, Consumer
Interests
Disclosure, Human
Rights, Consumer
Interests
Disclosure, Human
Rights, Consumer
Interests
Disclosure, Human
Rights, Consumer
Interests
Disclosure, Human
Rights, Consumer
Interests
Disclosure, Human
Rights, Consumer
Interests

International
Instruments
No
No
No
No

No
No

DIGITALISATION AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCTDigitalisation and Responsible Business Conduct
Stocktaking of policies and initiatives
This paper was developed by the OECD Centre for
Responsible Business Conduct as part of an ongoing
consideration of the links between the digitalisation of the
global economy and responsible business conduct (RBC). RBC
encompasses a range of issues, including human rights
abuses, consumer protection, environmental degradation,
taxation, and corruption among others, as described in theOECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/