The Role of AI in Advancing Social Equity and Protecting Human Rights

Nicole Cacal • March 21, 2024

Nicole Cacal, Founder and CEO of Forbes Ignite and ISSP Governing Board Secretary, shares insights into how we might shape the evolving landscape of AI and emerging technologies to be able to serve humanity's highest ideals, ensuring no one is left behind.



The struggle for social equity and human rights is a fierce fight against the commodification of our existence. Across continents and communities, disparities in wealth, access to resources, and systemic injustices persist, shaping the lived experiences of countless individuals. These challenges, deeply entrenched in society, demand innovative solutions and a reimagining of the tools at our disposal.

 

The allure of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool for change is undeniable. Yet, it's crucial to confront the limitations and potential pitfalls of relying solely on technology for solutions. In a recent conversation I had with Jenny Davis, author of How Artifacts Afford, she described how the enthusiasm for AI's transformative potential often brushes up against the realities of two concepts: techno-solutionism, the idea that technologies can solve social problems, and universalism, the idea that technologies will have the same effects on all people. Both concepts are flawed. By acknowledging these traps, we can leverage technology understanding that its impact is not the same across varying populations and take steps to correct those inconsistencies.

 

AI, for all its sophistication, cannot be a panacea for societal woes. Its effects are unevenly distributed, often exacerbating the very inequalities it aims to solve. Marginalized communities, in particular, face the brunt of AI's unintended consequences, from biased algorithms to invasive surveillance. Recognizing this, the call for a human-centered approach in AI development is crucial. This approach demands that we not only champion the use of AI in addressing social equity and human rights, but also rigorously question whom it benefits and at what cost.

 


The Promise and Perils of AI in Addressing Social Equity


AI's capacity to analyze large datasets has revolutionized personalized learning, making education accessible to students in the most remote corners of the globe. Similarly, AI-driven diagnostics and telemedicine have broken down barriers to healthcare, offering hope to underserved populations. However, although we’re tempted to view AI as a silver bullet for a lot of societal ills, we have to remember this perspective is both naive and dangerous. Complex social issues, entrenched in layers of historical inequities and systemic biases, demand solutions that are nuanced and multifaceted.

 

AI perils are evident in the technology's tendency to perpetuate existing biases. Facial recognition technology has been criticized for racial and gender biases, leading to misidentification and discrimination. One famous case that underscores the profound implications of these biases is that of computer scientist Joy Buolamwini, during her time as a graduate student at MIT. In a startling revelation, Buolamwini discovered that the facial recognition software she was developing failed to detect her dark skin, and it only responded when she donned a white mask.

 

This encounter marked Buolamwini's introduction to what she would later term the “coded gaze.” Her groundbreaking research unveiled a systemic issue: many facial recognition datasets were shockingly unrepresentative of diverse populations. What she refers to as "pale male" datasets, these collections overwhelmingly skewed towards lighter-skinned and male individuals, rendering them inherently biased. Consequently, such datasets, touted as industry standards, paved the way for higher rates of misidentification among underrepresented groups.

 

Tragically, these biases translate into real-world consequences. Individuals like Porcha Woodruff, Robert Williams, Nijeer Parks, and Randall Reed have all fallen victim to false arrests stemming from facial recognition misidentifications. Their experiences underscore the urgent need for reform in AI development and deployment. Facial recognition technology's biased algorithms represent not only a technological flaw, but also a profound human rights issue, as they perpetuate systemic discrimination and infringe upon individuals' rights to privacy, freedom, and dignity.

 


The Path to Inclusive AI Development


Sustainability professionals address systemic issues that impact human lives across society. Advocating for a human-centered approach to AI requires a commitment to prioritizing the needs and rights of the most vulnerable. This involves a deliberate effort to involve diverse voices in AI development, from conception through to deployment, ensuring that technologies are not only equitable, but also beneficial for all. Strategies for achieving this include participatory design processes, where affected communities have a say in how technologies are shaped and implemented, and transparency in algorithmic decision-making, allowing for accountability and revisions when biases are detected.

 

My experiences in collaborating on inclusive AI initiatives have illuminated the value of bringing diverse stakeholders to the table. These collaborations have shown that when we work together with a diversity of lived experiences, the potential for equitable tech solutions expands dramatically. Lessons from these initiatives point to the importance of empathy, openness, and a willingness to learn from one another in the pursuit of technology that serves humanity.

 

The path forward calls for a collaborative effort among AI developers, policymakers, and community activists. Together, we can forge a future where technology is developed not in silos, but in consultation with those it seeks to serve. This future envisions AI as a tool that respects and enhances human rights, champions social equity, and is grounded in ethical principles. By embracing a human-centered approach to AI, we commit to a process that values diversity, equity, and inclusion at every stage of development. Through collaboration, dialogue, and a dedication to ethical principles, we can harness AI's potential to create a more equitable and just world for all.

 


Concluding Thoughts


In navigating the complexities of AI's role in advancing social equity and human rights, a nuanced perspective is essential — one that balances optimism about AI's potential with a critical awareness of its limitations. As sustainability professionals and technologists, we bear a continuous responsibility to not only advocate for, but also implement AI solutions that genuinely contribute to a more just and equitable world. This journey, fraught with challenges and opportunities, demands our collective effort and unwavering commitment to ethical principles and inclusivity. Reflecting on the path ahead, I am reminded that the journey to social good through AI is not a solo endeavor, but a shared effort. It is a testament to the power of collaboration in shaping a future where technology serves humanity's highest ideals, ensuring that no one is left behind.

About the Author:

Nicole Cacal
Founder and CEO of Forbes Ignite
ISSP Governing Board Secretary


Image: Generated by Stable Diffusion

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
PHOTO: Ana Bachurova | Pléneau Island, 65°06.6’S / 064°04.0’W
By Ana Bachurova March 20, 2025
After recent travels in Antarctica, UNEP-FI Energy Efficiency Lead Ana Bachurova, M.Sc., MBA shares learnings and insights into our current environmental realities and how practitioners in sustainable development can advance positive impacts.
More blog posts