ICT4D and the Sustainable Development Goals: a road well-traveled

ABSTRACT

Some 35 years after the United Nations published its Brundtland report [Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Geneva, UN-Dokument A/42/427. Retrieved December 24, 2022, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf] on the many threats our planet is under due to over- and underdevelopment, we are still struggling with how to make our world sustainable. Today we have the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) to guide us, but they have been largely criticized just like their predecessors. The debate in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) mainly concerns to which extent Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) may contribute to the SDGs. This editorial offers a historic overview of the different development goals that the UN has offered and eight papers that offer a view into the discussion of the challenges facing the SDGs, but also examples of experimental strategies on how ICTs can be used in realizing, or undermining, these goals.

KEYWORDS:

• ICT4D
• sustainable development goals
• ICTs
• sustainability
• historic overview

Introduction

We need more fantasy. We need more courage and trust to experiment with sustainability strategies (Hauff, 2007, p. 9)

The 1972 UN conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, marked the start of the environment being high on the global agenda. The UN for the first time addressed a need to balance environmental protection and human development. In 1987 the UN published its Brundtland report (Brundtland Commission, 1987) named after Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Norwegian Prime Minister and Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Brundtland report defined sustainability as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland Commission, 1987, p. 41) and describes the many threats our planet is under due to over- and underdevelopment. The report placed environmental issues strongly on the political agenda and addressed the environment and (economic) development as one single issue. The report has been criticized over the years for being ‘a regressive document which reinforces the belief that growth and affluence are necessary to solve problems related to the environment’ (Trainer, 1990, p. 71) or, simply, for being outdated and not reflecting the world we live in today (e.g., Burns & Witoszek, 2012; Hauff, 2007). Hauff (2007), in his keynote speech presented at the European sustainability conference in 2007, said that the Brundtland report still stood as a solid basis, but acknowledged that the world was a very different one just 20 years after it was written – e.g., the cold war is over, the ‘third world’ is on the move and can no longer be seen as a coherent unity, ICTs open new ways into a totally different culture, globalization has added new opportunities and challenges, etc. Burns and Witoszek (2012, p. 159) similarly point out that

the affluent, Cartesian West is no longer an unassailable, rational manager of the world order: today it has to reckon with a force which it has long tried to dismiss or suppress – the force of identity, culture and religion in formerly colonized regions or in fast growing economies like China and India

and propose a new humanist agenda for a sustainable future taking its standpoint in a new complex modern world. Writing this editorial in 2022, the world has changed dramatically only in the last couple of years with the cumulative uncertainties that we face today due to the pandemic, as well as the war in Ukraine.

The Brundtland report was succeeded by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and later the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The MDGs consisted of eight international development goals that the UN declared in 2001 for the years 2000-2015. The UN committed the world’s leaders to ‘combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women’ (World Health Organization, 2018, para 2). In 2015 the world adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs consist of 17 goals articulated into targets, which are instrumental to their fulfilment. Targets make the different goals more actionable and convert the idea of each goal into a concrete plan. These are the goals and targets that we have today to guide us in our sustainability efforts. The mission statement is ‘A shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’ (UN, 2022a, para 1). Table 1 summarizes the different objectives, or declarations, regarding sustainability and development over the years.

Table 1. UN and mission statements regarding sustainable development.

1987	2000	2015
‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’	‘Combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women’	‘A shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future
3 objectives	8 goals	17 goals
Focus: all countries	Focus: developing countries	Focus: all countries

Sustainability and Information and Communications Technology for Development (ICT4D)

As the historical overview in the introduction made clear, the concept of ‘sustainability’ has changed over time due to political agendas but also due to a changing world. Changes in the economy and in politics also lead to changes in our digital world. Most recently much due to the pandemic when rapidly evolving technologies such as AI are more frequently used.

As pointed out by Heeks (2020) the role of digital ICTs in international development has changed. Digital roles, digital products, and digital business models could be seen as a paradigmatic shift in how we view ICT4D through a new ‘digital-for-development’ paradigm. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) contributed to this change, or shift, and so did the Sustainable Development Goals where we can identify changing patterns of development priorities, with three core themes emerging (Heeks, 2020, pp. 1–2):

• Transformation: ‘a belief that the incremental developmental changes achieved to date will no longer be sufficient in the remainder of the 21^st century; and an aspiration for a step-change in approach’

• Inclusion: ‘development that provides opportunities and benefits for all, including those who have to a relative or absolute extent been excluded by development to date’.

• Sustainability: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

In the field of ICT4D, there is always an ongoing, and in our view very sound, debate about how realistic and politicized the different set of goals are. Even though the MDGs specifically targeted developing regions, they were criticized by many scholars in our field for, e.g., promoting a ‘one-size-fits-all-model’ and not considering alternative paths for development (Heeks, 2005) or for portraying a very narrow agenda for development and ignoring relative poverty positions and structural inequalities (Byrne et al., 2011). A very frequently criticized goal related to restricting income poverty to those below US$1 a day. This of course says nothing about poverty where you could be extremely poor based on the double income depending on context and needs and it says nothing about how ICTs can contribute to an increased income.

The SDGs have also been subject to scrutiny. Quilley and Kish (2019) criticized the SDGs on similar points as much of the critique of the Brundtland report by drawing attention to the conflict between economic growth and environmental preservation. Mills (2015) criticized the SDGs from the point of view of traditional gender identities, questioning the extent to which the SDGs are really ‘leaving no one behind’ in their formulation. Rothe (2020) proposed a framework grounded in the Sustainable Development Goals, which overcomes much of the criticism of the SDGs by acknowledging interdependencies between different development goals and by also including potentially harmful impact of ICTs. Rothe et al. (2022) also problematized the SDGs from the explicit view of ICT4D stating that by placing so much emphasis on reducing inequalities and by promoting the idea of ‘leaving no-one behind’ it is easy to forget that ICTs also have the power to reinforce existing inequalities. The introduction of technologies can be seen as a ‘two-edged sword’ where technology can also be used by the rich to ‘retain their positions of economic, social and political power’ (Unwin, 2009, p. 2). Just like Qureshi (2006) pointed out in an early editorial of this journal we need to be aware that while ICTs bring opportunities for development, they can also marginalize large groups that do not have access to them (Qureshi, 2006). Today in 2022, Prieto-Egido et al. (2022) also remind us that the prevailing connectivity gap between rural areas and cities makes it problematic to view ICTs as ‘cross-cutting tools’ that will contribute to meeting the global challenges set out in the SDGs.

Despite all these challenges, many efforts are made in our field to circumvent challenges and come up with workable solutions. In 2011, a special issue in the Journal of Information Technology for Development focused on specific cases of how ICTs can facilitate the attainment of the MDGs, arguing that it is vital for our community because considering ‘how ICT can serve developmental objectives and goals opens crucial debates’ (Byrne et al., 2011, p. 1). Now it is time to open crucial debates regarding the SDGs. This editorial on ICT4D and sustainability wants to explore if ICT4D has the courage and fantasy to experiment with sustainability. As Volker Hauff, Chair of the German Council on Sustainable Development, (2007) pointed out at a sustainability conference: ‘we need more fantasy. We need more courage and trust to experiment with sustainability strategies’. This editorial is dedicated to presenting papers from the field of ICT4D where this experimentation has taken place.

The Sustainable Development Goals in brief

We have analyzed the papers in this issue based on innovative applications of ICTs to meet the 17 SDGs and therefore a brief listing of them is appropriate. The SDGs were set up in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly and are intended to be achieved by 2030. In 2017, the SDGs were made more tangible in a UN resolution that stipulated more specific targets for each goal including indicators for their measurement. The SDGs are (UN, 2022b):

SDG 1: No poverty – end poverty in all its forms everywhere.

SDG 2: Zero hunger – end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

SDG 3: Good health and well-being – ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

SDG 4: Quality education – ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

SDG 5: Gender equality – achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

SDG 6: Clean water and sanitation – ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy – ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all

SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth – promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

SDG 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure – build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation

SDG 10: Reduced inequality – reduce income inequality within and among countries

SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities – make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable

SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production – ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

SDG 13: Climate action – take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy

SDG 14: Life below water – conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development

SDG 15: Life on land – protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

SDG 16: Peace, justice, and strong institutions – promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels

SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals – strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Papers in this issue: Experimenting with sustainability strategies

This is a regular issue in ITD, and the papers included do not, with some exceptions, specifically target the SDGs or focus on experimental strategies. However, the SDGs highly influence the development agenda and all papers in this issue can be linked to one or more of the 17 SDGs and their targets. Our reading of the papers is based on our discussion about the SDGs and the critique as outlined above.

The first paper in this issue is ‘Digital development, inequalities & the Sustainable Development Goals: what does ‘Leave No-One Behind’ mean for ICT4D?’ by Rothe et al. (2022). In the paper, the authors argue that the pledge to ‘leave no-one behind’ in the SDGs presents a challenge for the field of ICT4D (or digital development). While the paper looks at numerous goals in the SDGs, the focus is on Goal 10: Reduced inequalities, and the authors argue that:

Given their manifold negative downstream effects on virtually all areas of the SDGs, reducing inequalities presents a crucial prerequisite for sustainable development as a whole. (Rothe et al., 2022, p. 13)

Inequalities are analyzed through the concept of intersectionality in the paper and they e.g., show how different groups are highlighted in the different SDGs and targets. For example, women are highlighted 72 times and children and poor/vulnerable people 28 times respectively. However, racial and ethnic minorities are only mentioned 3 times and indigenous people 4 times. The reason why ‘leave no-one behind’ is challenging for digital development is due to the reproductive mechanisms in digital technologies that reinforce existing inequalities. Therefore, they argue, it is necessary to account for the negative effects of inequality that digital technologies may result in when developing SDG programs, so as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. To avoid increasing the inequality for those already marginalized they propose that two questions need to be mainstreamed when designing digital development programs: ‘What digital and traditional capital is required in order to benefit from it, and who is therefore likely to be left out?’ (Rothe et al., 2022, p. 14).

In ‘Nowcasting for hunger relief: a study of promise and perils’ Wobcke et al. (2022) scrutinize the World Food Programs HungerMap LIVE website which tracks and predicts food insecurities in 90 countries. The aim of HungerMap LIVE is to improve decision-making, early warnings, and to direct actions. The website and this paper are thus directly linked to Goal 2: Zero hunger which aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The HungerMap LIVE website employs innovative technologies in its predictions by using machine-learning. In line with the arguments in this editorial, we see this as an experimental strategy to aid in improving decision-making and making relief available when, and where, it is needed, and in effect help combat hunger. However, as the authors point out, there are issues with this approach that need to be addressed. For example, assessing the accuracy of predictions and how machine-learning can replace survey data deficiency about food consumption and strategies.

Given the perils of approaching machine learning predictions as replacements for survey data […], HungerMap LIVE does not at this stage engender great confidence that access to machine learning-derived data enhances collective capacity to understand, prevent or address hunger. (Wobcke et al., 2022, p. 13)

While the authors acknowledge that there is promise in using approaches such as HungerMap LIVE as a data-gathering and analytical tool, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Not least that topics such as machine-learning mainly are treated as a technical issue, while attention also need to be given to the ‘social’ side of any socio-technical arrangement.

A paper in this issue that looks at telecentres is ‘Contract approaches for sustainable community-based access to e-service provision: a comparative study between Bangladesh and the Philippines’ by Brown and Hoque (2022). The focus of this paper is, on partnerships regarding the sustainability of community-based ICT projects. More specifically the authors make a comparison on how different approaches – private-public partnerships (PPP) vs public initiatives – impact the infrastructure and type of services offered at telecentres. This paper mainly focuses on Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals, and more specifically targets 17.17 which aims to encourage and promote effective public and public-private partnerships. In their comparison between the PPP initiative in Bangladesh and the public initiative in the Philippines, their study shows that the PPP telecentre was more highly operational and thus more sustainable compared to the public telecentre. Factors that contributed to this were the privatization of an internet infrastructure and the provision of appropriate services at the telecentre. In the PPP model, the staff was also more motivated and had a background in ICT. Since the study shows that PPP initiatives are more beneficial than public ones, it may be worthwhile to experiment with different partnerships in our ICT4D projects to make them more sustainable.

In ‘Does digitalization contribute to lesser income inequality? Evidence from G20 countries’, Yin and Choi (2022) examine the effect of digitalization on income inequality. The study includes data from G20 countries and, hence, looks at income inequality in middle- to high-income countries. Since the paper examines income inequality it mainly focuses on Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries. Goal 10 is quite broad and includes inequality in several areas such as the social, economic, and political sphere. However, this paper focuses on income inequalities. The variables they used for digitalization included Internet use, mobile subscription, and broadband subscription and for income inequality they included GDP per capita, trade openness, FDI foreign direct investment, and political stability. When looking at the full sample of G20 countries, their study shows that digitalization contributes to reducing income inequality and helps narrow the income gap. However, when looking at high-income and middle-income countries separately, the data showed that ‘digitalization in high-income countries widens income inequality, while digitalization in middle-income countries alleviates income inequality’ (Yin & Choi, 2022, p. 18). A future research venture resulting from this paper would be to also include data from low-income countries to look at the effect that digitalization has had and try and understand what it is with the ICTs that affect the inequality (positively and/or negatively).

An area that only receives limited attention in the ICT4D literature is ICT’s effect on the environment. Related to Goal 13: Climate action, Saud, Haseeb, Chen, and Li’s paper (2022) is an exception to this limited attention. In their paper ‘The role of information and communication technology and financial development in shaping a low-carbon environment: a Belt and Road journey toward development’ the authors look at 60 Belt and Road Initiative countries. Their statistical analysis indicates that ICTs have a positive/favorable effect on C0₂ emission, and that globalization and financial development are not threats to a low-carbon environment. However, increased electricity consumption and economic growth are threats to environmental sustainability and the authors ‘urge the adoption of advanced ICT in the industrial sector for efficient energy use and socioeconomic development’ (Saud et al., 2022, p. 1). Considering the devastating climate crisis we are facing, we argue that more research in ICT4D could, and should, focus on how ICT can aid in combating climate change and promote climate action. This will certainly require innovative approaches and not something we can achieve in isolation. We need to initiate interdisciplinary research if we are to be able to contribute to a more environmentally sustainable future.

In ‘Impacts of information and communication technologies on the SDGs: the case of Mayu Telecomunicaciones in rural areas of Peru’, Prieto-Egido et al. (2022) take a broader approach looking at ICTs impact on the SDGs. Arguing that ICT often is seen as ‘cross-cutting tool that contributes to meeting the global challenges set out in the Sustainable Development Goals’ (Prieto-Egido et al., 2022, p. 1), they look at the connectivity gap between urban and rural areas in Peru and how the gap impacts the SDGs. The paper looks specifically at an initiative in Peru, Rural Mobile Infrastructure Operator, that aims to deploy and maintain mobile phone networks in underserved areas. The study shows that providing connectivity to underserved areas mainly affected three SDGs; Goal 3: Good health and well-being, Goal 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure, and Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals. However, the authors also discuss the challenges with the project – particularly the financial sustainability where ‘infrastructure investment makes communities under 400 inhabitants not financially viable’ (Prieto-Egido et al., 2022, p. 18). The authors also acknowledge that providing connectivity is not sufficient to reach broader development impacts. For example, to improve maternal and child health conditions, connectivity can be a prerequisite but to achieve improvements a multistakeholder partnership to implement telemedicine services was needed. Here we see a future research venture to explore how such partnerships can be implemented. Drawing parallels to the paper by Brown and Hoque (2022), it would be worthwhile to explore how PPP initiatives can be implemented to provide relevant services to those in need and to make the projects sustainable.

In ‘Can information and communication technologies contribute to poverty reduction? Evidence from poor counties in China’, Gu et al. (2022) examine the effect of ICT adoption on poverty. Thus, the paper focuses on Goal 1: No poverty. The paper looks at poor counties in rural China and the study suggests that ICTs may enable households to escape poverty by diversifying their livelihoods away from agriculture. ICTs enable households to rural-urban migration and off-farm activities. However, even though individuals’ poverty levels may be benefited by this rural-urban migration, there is a risk for rural decline that ‘may be a cause for concern about local agricultural production’ (Gu et al., 2022, p. 12). This highlights the importance of complementing the developments from the ICTs with local developments and China has proposed a rural revitalization strategy to boost local economies.

Finally, in another study from China, ‘Digital finance and happiness: evidence from China’, Meng and Xiao (2022) examine the relationship between digital finance and happiness. The paper mainly focuses on target 8:10 – which targets domestic financial institutions and financial services for all – of Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth. In the paper, the authors look at the effect of households’ happiness from digital finance. The findings suggest that digital finance is associated with several undesirable behavior which negatively affects the consumers’ happiness and outweighs the potential positive impacts.

[Digital finance] may fuel undesirable financial behaviors such as excessive borrowing and overspending, which in turn are negatively associated with happiness. (Meng & Xiao, 2022, p. 13)

As the authors state, digital finance is seen as an innovation of ICT, and it is expected to contribute to economic, social, and human development. However, as with many innovations of ICTs, it can be a ‘double-edged sword’ and we need to not only explore its potential benefits, but also its negative impacts on human well-being.

Conclusion

Despite all criticism of the many development goals over the years, the papers in this issue demonstrate how many efforts are made in our field to circumvent obstacles and come up with workable solutions. Not only do many of the papers put forward quite innovative strategies to reach the goals but many also reveal where ICTs can have a negative impact on the goals or where the goals are simply internally conflicting. Internal conflicts between goals have been a criticism ever since the Brundtland report tried to increase economic growth and save the planet – opening up for the critique ‘that you can’t have your cake and eat it’.

Enjoy the read and let us encourage this open and critical debate regarding the UN development goals. It is not long before the next set of goals will land on our tables.

Acknowledgements

A big thank you to Richard Heeks, Shirin Madon, Silvia Masiero and Sajda Qureshi for their insightful feedback on earlier versions of this editorial. Their knowledge and experience continue to create excellence in the field.