IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2023i1p228-d1307994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liable and Sustainable by Design: A Toolbox for a Regulatory Compliant and Sustainable Tech

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Aseeva

    (Legal Design GARDEN Association, 75010 Paris, France)

Abstract

The pandemic has exacerbated the effects of the digital transformation: the extractive economy is steadily giving way to the new economic space—the digital economy. This transformation shakes the very foundations of the existence and purpose of law, i.e., the regulation of social relations. However, today, the consequences of developing tech in an unsustainable manner are becoming obvious. Despite the internet’s many benefits, it also erodes trust and fuels misinformation, polarization, and inequality. These developments occur partly because the algorithms that shape our economies, society, and even public discourse were developed with few legal restrictions or commonly held ethical standards. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the technologies that currently shape our socio-economic relations must be consistent with both our shared norms and values and the existing rules. The main question of this study is how to correctly introduce tech that is legal by design, but also, and especially, liable and sustainable by design. The underlying questions are hence, firstly: to this end, do we need (to create) a whole new body of norms, law, and regulation? Alternatively, are there already legal fields, concepts, and tools that can help us lay comprehensive groundwork for tech that is liable and sustainable by design? The central object of this study is to address this problem with regard to the types of organization that is in any way involved in or at least related to tech and innovation, essentially, the Web 3-4 actors. My principal method is systems analysis, which engages with a system as a whole. The construct of regulatory compliant and sustainable tech is thus analysed both functionally and institutionally, with concepts including norm-setting and law-making, formal application and enforcement, case law, real-world effects, and limitations. The objective of the article is to first synthesize the pre-existing legal and regulatory fields and constructs, and then analyse in a succinct yet systematic manner the conditions for their applicability to, and efficiency for, regulation of Web 3.0 (and soon, Web 4.0), as well as their limits. In the course of the study, I found that there are a few pre-existing legal fields, concepts, and tools that can pave the way to creating a Web that is liable and sustainable by design. I have also identified two key developments that arise from the digital transformation: (i) the digital economic space creates the so-called governance and regulatory gaps ; and (ii) some of these gaps are rapidly filled (at times, successfully and at times, less so) by a burgeoning newest legal framework (national and supranational targeted regulation, legislation, and case law), which has been growing especially rapidly since the global digital ‘leap’ facilitated by the COVID-19 pandemic in the beginning of the 2020s. To conclude, the article summarizes both pre-existing and new tools and thus offers a ready-to-use toolkit for a regulatory compliant and sustainable tech (including a table summarizing the toolkit), which is the key aim of this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Aseeva, 2023. "Liable and Sustainable by Design: A Toolbox for a Regulatory Compliant and Sustainable Tech," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2023:i:1:p:228-:d:1307994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/228/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/228/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 1999. "Corporate Ownership Around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 471-517, April.
    2. Edwards, Lilian & Veale, Michael, 2017. "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for," LawArXiv 97upg, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gilberto E. Arce & Edgar Robles C., 2005. "Corporate Governance in Costa Rica," Research Department Publications 3218, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    2. Klapper, Leora F. & Love, Inessa, 2004. "Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 703-728, November.
    3. Díez-Esteban, José María & Farinha, Jorge Bento & García-Gómez, Conrado Diego, 2016. "The role of institutional investors in propagating the 2007 financial crisis in Southern Europe," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 439-454.
    4. Fidrmuc, Jana P. & Jacob, Marcus, 2010. "Culture, agency costs, and dividends," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 321-339, September.
    5. Kamini Gupta & Donal Crilly & Thomas Greckhamer, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1869-1900, October.
    6. Nicodano, Giovanna & Regis, Luca, 2019. "A trade-off theory of ownership and capital structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 715-735.
    7. Francesco Caselli & Nicola Gennaioli, 2008. "Economics and Politics of Alternative Institutional Reforms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 1197-1250.
    8. Jongmoo Jay Choi & Hoje Jo & Jimi Kim & Moo Sung Kim, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 931-954, December.
    9. Heinrich, Ralph P., 1999. "Complementarities in Corporate Governance - A Survey of the Literature with Special Emphasis on Japan," Kiel Working Papers 947, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Lepetit, Laetitia & Saghi-Zedek, Nadia & Tarazi, Amine, 2015. "Excess control rights, bank capital structure adjustments, and lending," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 574-591.
    11. Chan-Jane Lin & Tawei Wang & Chao-Jung Pan, 2016. "Financial reporting quality and investment decisions for family firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 499-532, June.
    12. Marco Pagano & Paolo F. Volpin, 2005. "The Political Economy of Corporate Governance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1005-1030, September.
    13. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2007-059 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Sergio Destefanis & Vania Sena, 2007. "Patterns of corporate governance and technical efficiency in Italian manufacturing," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 27-40.
    15. Veltrop, D.B. & Hermes, C.L.M. & Postma, T.J.B.M. & de Haan, J., 2012. "A tale of two factions," Research Report 12001-HRM&OB, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Huang, Wei, 2016. "The use of management forecasts to dampen analysts' expectations by Chinese listed firms," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 263-272.
    17. Elif Akben Selcuk & Pinar Sener, 2018. "Corporate Governance and Tunneling: Empirical Evidence from Turkey," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 349-361.
    18. Katharina Pistor & Martin Raiser & Stanislaw Gelfer, 2000. "Law and Finance in Transition Economies," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 8(2), pages 325-368, July.
    19. Mohd Mohid Rahmat & Kamran Ahmed & Gerald J. Lobo, 2020. "Related Party Transactions, Value Relevance and Informativeness of Earnings: Evidence from Four Economies in East Asia," Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies (RPBFMP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(01), pages 1-42, March.
    20. Sarkar, Jayati & Selarka, Ekta, 2021. "Women on board and performance of family firms: Evidence from India," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    21. Nadia Saghi-Zedek, 2016. "Product diversification and bank performance: does ownership structure matter?," Post-Print halshs-01342528, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2023:i:1:p:228-:d:1307994. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.