How Generation, Nationality, and Expertise Influence Stakeholder Prioritization of ESG Issues Pt. 1

You can’t read the business press without seeing some handwringing about ESG. It’s probably why I’ve been teaching, advising, and sitting on a lot more panels about the topic lately. Like it or not, it’s here to stay (at least for now) so I decided to do a completely unscientific experiment on lawyer and law student perceptions of ESG using a class simulation. Over the past three months, I’ve used the topic of tech companies and human rights obligations to demonstrate how the “S” factor plays out in real life. I used the same simulation for foreign lawyers in UM’s US Law in Action program, college students who participated in UM’s Summer Legal Academy, Latin American lawyers studying US Business Entities, and my own law students in my Regulatory Compliance, Corporate Governance, and Sustainability class at the University of Miami.

Prior to the simulation, I required the students to watch The Social Dilemma,  the Netflix documentary about the potentially dangerous effects of social media on individuals and society at large. I also lectured on the shareholder v. stakeholder debate; the role of investors, consumers, NGOs, and governments in shaping the debate about ESG; and the basics of business and human rights. Within business and human rights, we looked at labor, surveillance, speech, and other human rights issues that tech and social media companies may impact.

Participants completed a prioritization exercise based on their assigned roles as either CEO, investor, government, NGO, consumer, or influencer. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison because some groups did not look at all of the issues and some had different stakeholders. In this post, I will provide the results. In a future post, I’ll provide some thoughts and analysis.

The topics for prioritization were:

Labor- in complex global supply chains that often employ workers in developing countries, how much responsibility should companies bear for forced labor particularly for Uyghur labor in China and child labor in global mining and supply chains? What about the conditions in factories and warehouses before and during the COVID era? 

Surveillance- how much responsibility do tech companies bear for the (un)ethical use of AI and surveillance of citizens and employees?

Mental Health- how much should companies care about the impact of the “like” button and the role social media plays in bullying, self-esteem, anxiety, depression, addiction, and suicide, especially among pre-teens and teens?

Fake News- should a social media company allow information on platforms that is demonstrably false? What if allowing fake news is profitable because it keeps more eyeballs on the page and thus raises ad revenue? Should Congress repeal Section 230?

Incitement to violence- what responsibilities do social media companies have when content leads to violence? We specifically looked at some of the issues with Meta (Facebook) and India, but we also examined this more broadly.

Suppression of Speech- should a social media company ever suppress speech? This was closely related to fake news and the incitement to violence prompt and some groups combined these.  

The Rankings

 

International Lawyers (approximately 40 total participants)

The international lawyer group consisted of participants from Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jamaica, Mexico, Nepal, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine. The group was not assigned to rank mental health as a social issue.

CEO:

1. Fake news
2. Labor
3. Surveillance
4. Incitement to violence
5. Suppression of speech

Socially responsible investors:

1. Incitement to violence
2. Fake news
3. Labor
4. Surveillance
5. Suppression of speech

Institutional investors:

1. Labor
2. Incitement to violence
3. Suppression of speech
4. Fake news
5. Surveillance

NGO:

1. Fake news
2. Labor
3. Suppression of speech
4. Incitement to violence
5. Surveillance

Consumers:

1. Incitement to violence
2. Suppression of speech
3. Fake news
4. Labor
5. Surveillance

Latin American Lawyers (approximately 10 total participants)

The Latin American lawyers combined fake news and incitements to violence with suppression of speech.

 CEOs:

1. Labor
2. Surveillance
3. Suppression of speech
4. Mental health

Investors (they chose socially responsible investors):

1. Mental health
2. Surveillance
3. Labor
4. Suppression of speech

NGO:

1. Surveillance
2. Suppression of speech
3. Mental health
4. Labor

Consumers:

1. Surveillance
2. Suppression of speech
3. Mental health
4. Labor

 

Law Students (approximately 52 total participants)

The law students considered six social issues. Several are LLMs or not from the United States, although they attend school at University of Miami.

CEOs:

1. Labor
2. Surveillance
3. Mental Health
4. Fake News
5. Suppression of Speech
6. Incitements to Violence

Investors:

1. Labor
2. Incitements to violence
3. Surveillance
4. Suppression of speech
5. Fake news
6. Mental health

NGO:

1. Fake news
2. Incitement to violence
3. Mental health
4. Labor
5. Surveillance
6. Suppression of speech

Consumers:

1. Surveillance
2. Mental Health
3. Incitement to Violence
4. Suppression of speech
5. Fake news
6. Labor

College Students

Given how little work experience this group had, I divided them into groups of CEOs, investors (no split between institutional and socially responsible investors), members of Congress, social media influencers, and consumers. They also combined suppression of speech, fake news, and incitement to violence in one category.

            CEOs:

1. Speech
2. Surveillance
3. Labor issues
4. Mental health ramifications

            Investors:

1. Labor issues
2. Speech
3. Surveillance
4. Mental Health

            Congress:

1. Speech
2. Surveillance
3. Labor
4. Mental Health

     Consumers:

1. Mental Health
2. Speech
3. Labor
4. Surveillance

            Influencers:

1. Mental Health
2. Speech
3. Labor
4. Surveillance

What does this all mean? To be honest, notwithstanding my sophisticated, clickbait blog title, I have no idea. Further, with two of the groups, English was not the first language for most of the participants. Obviously, the sample sizes are too small to be statistically significant. I have thoughts, though, and will post them next week. If you have theories based on the demographics, I would love to hear your comments.