Connect with us

Economy

Disinformation as a tool for destabilizing enterprises: Shell /Greenpeace and Elf-Shell/ Ran

Published

on

photo ©Greenpeace / David Sims

On February 16th, 1995, the British government authorized the oil company Shell to sink the Brent oil spar off the coast of Scotland. The environmentalist association Greenpeace denounced the danger of the impact of this operation on the ecosystem, since this spar contained 5000 tons of oil. Both Shell and many scientists justified the need of sinking it and neglected any impact on the ecosystem; even the British Minister John Major agreed on that.

Greenpeace thus started a disinformation campaign articulated in precise steps: first, Greenpeace indicated that the scientists testifying for the sinking of the spar were linked to the government and therefore their view were biased; second, it carried on direct attacks against the oil platform with the help of about twenty activists. Their actions were filmed and diffused all over the world together with the announcement of Greenpeace activists to be determined to stay on the oil spar until Shell consented to their request. Greenpeace was also active on the counter-information side: the association published a report signed by some independent scientists highlighting the possible environmental risks of the sinking of the oil spar. All these operations were highly circulated on media outlets together with the call on the main European countries to boycott the Shell oil stations. A good amount of trade unions responded to this call and Shell witnessed significant losses. Even the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl endorsed Greenpeace campaign and explicitly asked John Major to withdraw the project of sinking the spar. Eventually, the oil company dropped the operation on June 29th, 1995.

Nevertheless, Shell lawyers commissioned a report to an independent scientific foundation in Norway exploring the issue from the scientific perspective and the possible damages to the ecosystem. The report – published on October 18th 1995 – concluded that there was no real impact. When Greenpeace got to know about the evaluation ordered by Shell, the association feared its big impact on public opinion and started a preemptive counterattack basing on the techniques already theorized by Sun Tzu: cutting the grass under the opponent’s feet. In this regard, Greenpeace tried to counter-argue the content of the report even before its diffusion. Although Greenpeace was still criticized for its own report, the impact of Shell’s findings was quite limited.

The counter-information strategies adopted in this case can be defined as the combination between communication actions that, thanks to precise and verifiable information, can soften or pushback the attack against the instigator and sometimes even wipe out its effect.

Although it is very difference from the disinformation techniques used by security services, counter information follows strict rules like using preliminary intelligence, mastering psychological mechanisms and communication and media techniques. In order to be credible, counter-information must convey open and well-developed arguments, while systematically attack contradictions and weaknesses of the opponent and using media outlets to diffuse its messages. In the case presented, the British oil company not only put in place a defensive (and non-aggressive) strategy but above all created a direct clash with Greenpeace that was completely inadequate. Besides, Shell was never able to effectively contain Greenpeace’s media attack because it decided to build its arguments on an objective and scientific dimension while the environmentalist association adopted subversive techniques.

In 1996, oil groups Exxon Shell and Elf decided to set up a consortium in order to build up an oil field in agreement with Chad’s government. The well-respected US association for environmental defense RAN immediately reacted to this initiative and revealed that the construction of oil plants would have caused the extinction of a number of vegetal and animal species such as gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants and rhinos. In order to hinder the project, RAN started a dis-information campaign based on direct action: 1) carried out a blitz at the headquarters of the World Bank (which in 1999 had decided to finance the project of the oil pipeline and terminal): one of RAN activists tied himself to a rope suspended at 30 above ground on the World Bank main building; 2) produced catchy slogans supporting an effective media disinformation campaign; 3) covered Washington D.C. with posters portraying the World Bank general director’s face with the expression “Wanted”. This strategy caught the attention of international press and transformed a local cause into a global campaign.

As a result, Elf and Shell dropped their project and so did the World Bank. The escalation of RAN’s disinformation campaign had reached its goal. RAN understood that limiting its cause to the protection of monkeys and rhinos would have not produce effective disinformation. When RAN decided to engage in the political field, mainly through spotting the inefficiencies of the World Bank and discrediting the agencies linked to the project (RAN pointed out the corruption of the countries involved in it) the importance of disinformation acquires a new feature.

Even in this case the strategy adopted is indirect and characterized from the very beginning by a gradual attrition of the oil companies involved. According to the authors the strategy that RAN adopted were following well-structured steps: first it built up its campaign basing on the moral principle of not hurting both ecosystem and the local population; second, it used public opinion to put pressure on political and economic institution. In other words, RAN proved to be aware of the importance of playing on multiple fields, and taking advantage from spoiling, exhaust and circle the opponent.

As for the narrative and the techniques applied, RAN managed to attack the credibility of its opponent focusing on its weaknesses. Through jumping from a topic to another and going around the problem, RAN disoriented its interlocutor and prevented it from putting in place an effective counter-argument. This case provides another example about how the destabilization carried out through disinformation is now a strategy civil society and associations adopt constantly and represents a threat for both institutions and enterprises.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

COVID-19 Drives Global Surge in use of Digital Payments

Published

on

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred financial inclusion – driving a large increase in digital payments amid the global expansion of formal financial services. This expansion created new economic opportunities, narrowing the gender gap in account ownership, and building resilience at the household level to better manage financial shocks, according to the Global Findex 2021 database

As of 2021, 76% of adults globally now have an account at a bank, other financial institution, or with a mobile money provider, up from 68% in 2017 and 51% in 2011. Importantly, growth in account ownership was evenly distributed across many more countries. While in previous Findex surveys over the last decade much of the growth was concentrated in India and China, this year’s survey found that the percentage of account ownership increased by double digits in 34 countries since 2017.

The pandemic has also led to an increased use of digital payments. In low and middle-income economies (excluding China), over 40% of adults who made merchant in-store or online payments using a card, phone, or the internet did so for the first time since the start of the pandemic. The same was true for more than a third of adults in all low- and middle-income economies who paid a utility bill directly from a formal account.  In India, more than 80 million adults made their first digital merchant payment after the start of the pandemic, while in China over 100 million adults did. 

Two-thirds of adults worldwide now make or receive a digital payment, with the share in developing economies grew from 35% in 2014 to 57% in 2021. In developing economies, 71% have an account at a bank, other financial institution, or with a mobile money provider, up from 63% in 2017 and 42% in 2011. Mobile money accounts drove a huge increase in financial inclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“The digital revolution has catalyzed increases in the access and use of financial services across the world, transforming ways in which people make and receive payments, borrow, and save,” said World Bank Group President David Malpass“Creating an enabling policy environment, promoting the digitalization of payments, and further broadening access to formal accounts and financial services among women and the poor are some of the policy priorities to mitigate the reversals in development from the ongoing overlapping crises.”

For the first time since the Global Findex database was started in 2011, the survey found that the gender gap in account ownership has narrowed, helping women have more privacy, security, and control over their money. The gap narrowed from 7 to 4 percentage points globally and from 9 to 6 percentage points in low- and middle-income countries, since the last survey round in 2017. 

About 36% of adults in developing economies now receive a wage or government payment, a payment for the sale of agricultural products, or a domestic remittance payment into an account. The data suggests that receiving a payment into an account instead of cash can kickstart people’s use of the formal financial system – when people receive digital payments, 83% used their accounts to also make digital payments. Almost two-thirds used their account for cash management, while about 40% used it to save – further growing the financial ecosystem. 

Despite the advances, many adults around the world still lack a reliable source of emergency money. Only about half of adults in low- and middle-income economies said they could access extra money during an emergency with little or no difficulty, and they commonly turn to unreliable sources of finance, including family and friends. 

“The world has a crucial opportunity to build a more inclusive and resilient economy and provide a gateway to prosperity for billions of people,” said Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the supporters of the Global Findex database. “By investing in digital public infrastructure and technologies for payment and ID systems and updating regulations to foster innovation and protect consumers, governments can build on the progress reported in the Findex and expand access to financial services for all who need them.”

In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the lack of an identity document remains an important barrier holding back mobile money account ownership for 30% of adults with no account suggesting an opportunity for investing in accessible and trusted identification systems. Over 80 million adults with no account still receive government payments in cash – digitalizing some of these payments could be cheaper and reduce corruption. Increasing account ownership and usage will require trust in financial service providers, confidence to use financial products, tailored product design, and a strong and enforced consumer protection framework. 

The Global Findex database, which surveyed how people in 123 economies use financial services throughout 2021, is produced by the World Bank every three years in collaboration with Gallup, Inc. 

Regional Overviews: 

Global Findex 2021 Regional Overviews

EAP

In East Asia and the Pacific, financial inclusion is a two-part story of what is happening in China versus the other economies of the region. In China, 89% of adults have an account, and 82% of adults used it to make digital merchant payments. In the rest of the region, 59% of adults have an account and 23% of adults made digital merchant payments—54% of which did so for the first time after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Double-digit increases in account ownership were achieved in Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand, while the gender gap across the region remains low, at 3 percentage points, but the gap between poor and rich adults is 10 percentage points.

ECA

In Europe and Central Asia, account ownership increased by 13 percentage points since 2017 to reach 78% of adults. Digital payments usage is robust, as about three-quarters of adults used an account to make or receive a digital payment. COVID-19 drove further usage for the 10% of adults who made a digital merchant payment for the first time during the pandemic. Digital technology could further increase account use for the 80 million banked adults that continued to make merchant payments only in cash, including 20 million banked adults in Russia and 19 million banked adults in Türkiye, the region’s two largest economies.

LAC

Latin America and the Caribbean saw an 18 percentage -point increase in account ownership since 2017, the largest of any developing world region, resulting in 73% of adults having an account. Digital payments play a key role, as 40% of adults paid a merchant digitally, including 14% of adults who did so for the first time during the pandemic. COVID-19 furthermore drove digital adoption for the 15% of adults who made their first utility bill payment directly from their account for the first time during the pandemic—more than twice the developing country average. Opportunities for even greater use of digital payments remain given that 150 million banked adults made merchant payments only in cash, including more than 50 million banked adults in Brazil and 16 million banked adults in Colombia.

MENA

The Middle East and North Africa region has made progress reducing the gender gap in account ownership from 17 percentage points in 2017 to 13 percentage points—42% of women now have an account compared to 54% of men. Opportunities abound to increase account ownership broadly by digitalizing payments currently made in cash, including payments for agricultural products and private sector wages (about 20 million adults with no account in the region received private sector wages in cash, including 10 million in the Arab Republic of Egypt). Shifting people to formal modes of savings is another opportunity given that about 14 million adults with no account in region—including 7 million women—saved using semiformal methods. 

SA

In South Asia, 68% of adults have an account, a share that has not changed since 2017, though there is wide variation across the region. In India and Sri Lanka, for example, 78% and 89% of adults, respectively, have an account. Account usage has grown, however, driven by digital payments, as 34% of adults used their account to make or receive a payment, up from 28% in 2017. Digital payments present an opportunity to increase both account ownership and usage, given the continued dominance of cash—even among account owners—to make merchant payments.

SSA

In Sub-Saharan Africa, mobile money adoption continued to rise, such that 33% of adults now have a mobile money account—a share three times larger than the 10% global average. Although mobile money services were originally designed to allow people to send remittances to friends and family living elsewhere within the country, adoption and usage have spread beyond those origins, such that 3-out-of-4 mobile account owners in 2021 made or received at least one payment that was not person-to-person and 15% of adults used their mobile money account to save. Opportunities to increase account ownership in the region include digitalizing cash payments for the 65 million adults with no account receiving payments for agricultural products, and expanding mobile phone ownership, as lack of a phone is cited as a barrier to mobile money account adoption. Adults in the region worry more about paying school fees than adults in other regions, suggesting opportunities for policy or products to enable education-oriented savings.

Continue Reading

Economy

G7’s $600 Billion projects, no threat to Chinese BRI

Published

on

Image source: twitter @G7

Although G7 launches a $600B global infrastructure project to counter China, but, what are the ground realities? Can G7 counter China? Do they have enough money or resources to implement it? Is there any sincerity among G7 countries to invest such a huge amount, while they are also a victim of a global economic meltdown?

Group of Seven leaders pledged on Sunday to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over five years to finance needed infrastructure in developing countries and counter China’s older, multitrillion-dollar Belt and Road project.

U.S. President Joe Biden and other G7 leaders relaunched the newly renamed “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, (PGII)” at their annual gathering being held this year at Schloss Elmau in southern Germany.

Biden said the United States would mobilize $200 billion in grants, federal funds, and private investment over five years to support projects in low- and middle-income countries that help tackle climate change as well as improve global health, gender equity, and digital infrastructure. The rest of the US Dollars 400 Billion will be shared by other G7 nations. It is very much clear that this money is not aid, nor charity, but, an investment, which will generate profit and will be shared by investors accordingly.

The US has experience with the “Marshal Program” launched just after WWII in Western Europe. The aim was to assist Western Europe to rebuild its war-damaged infrastructure and revive its economy. The US was a major beneficiary of the Marshal Program while Western Europe also gained a lot.

But, this time, the objective is very much different – to counter China or to counter the Chinese mega initiative of Belt and Road. China’s belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was launched in 2013, with trillions of dollars, and got recognition from around 150 nations, countries, and organizations. Many countries are the beneficiaries of BRI already and the fruits of it are being enjoyed in many countries. BRI has no political motives and is open to all, any nation, country, or organization can be a beneficiary of it. Contrarily, G7’s program is politicized and focused to counter China only.

Does the G7 have sufficient funds? Can they spare such funds when their own economies are in trouble? Unlike China’s huge BRI initiative, the proposed G7 funding would come largely from private investors and is therefore not guaranteed. Do G7 countries have experience with infrastructure developments like China? Do they have capacity? If their own infrastructure is lacking behind, how can they assist other nations to develop? China upgraded its own infrastructure first and demonstrated its capability, after getting recognition, it assisted other nations in development. China is much more advance in infrastructure as compared to the rest of the world. Can all the G7 nations be willing to counter China? Some of the G7 members are close partners with China in trade, economy, and S&T. Some of the G7 depend on Chinese investment and or at least beneficiary of it. Few are dependent trading partners with China. Are all G7 nations on the same page politically? Are they willing to face the backfire or repercussions?

Overall Europe is a close partner with China in trade, investment, and development. They cannot sacrifice their national interests. Politically, they are closer to China.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian defended the track record of BRI when asked for comment at a daily briefing in Beijing on Monday. “China continues to welcome all initiatives to promote global infrastructure development,” Zhao said of the G7’s $600 billion plan. “We believe that there is no question that various related initiatives will replace each other. We are opposed to pushing forward geopolitical calculations under the pretext of infrastructure construction or smearing the Belt and Road Initiative.”

In fact, China is an open country and does not consider it a threat to its mega initiative of BRI. It is good to have multiple approaches to development, developing nations should have more options and opportunities. China strongly believes in globalization, multi-laterals, and open, free & fair competition. It trusts in its capacity, capability, experience, and financial strengths. Its approach of win-win cooperation got global recognition and established confidence, so there is no need of panicking. Rightly, China welcomes.

It is believed that more projects and initiatives are required for global developments. Advanced and developed nations should come up with more options. Developing nations warmly welcome, if more options and choices are available. A healthy completion is always a good phenomenon. It will be much more appreciated if such projects are purely for development, no politics at all. The focus should be on the welfare of humankind and not on gaining hegemony or supremacy.

Continue Reading

Economy

Digital Economy Development in China Shifts the Focus to the Production Side

Published

on

Just recently, China’s Central Commission for Comprehensively Deepening Reform reviewed various plans for data system, including a guideline on building the basic systems for data and making better use of data resources. The central government’s layout from the construction of the basic system of data is intended to lay a solid foundation for the further development of the digital economy, in addition to pushing for the development of the data-based data industry to further accumulate resources and driving force. These new changes in the digital economy signify that there is the establishment and improvement of rules in the digital economy of China.

Looking at the content of the guidelines and plans, there are two aspects worth noting, the first is to clarify the ownership and classification of data, and the second is to build a mechanism for data transactions. The clarification of the ownership and the rights and responsibilities is crucial in establishing the legal foundation for data transactions. Of course, the new plan has yet to clarify this, but it does present the hope to develop a system with clear ownership so that the corresponding data transactions can be carried out. Although Shanghai, Beijing, Hainan, and other places have begun the attempt of creating data exchanges and data transactions, in terms of scale and transaction frequency, this is still in the initial trial stage. Researchers at ANBOUND believe that the focus of data resource development and application of digitalization will shift from the consumer side to the production side.

While the new concept provides a framework for the establishment of the data system, it does not mean short-term boost for the development of the data industry or the digital economy can be formed. The future relies on digital technology to generate data, rather than monetize data, and the same is true in other fields. With this, the model of harvesting from online traffic flow by capital and market expansion will face higher and higher business costs and regulatory barriers. Judging from the development trend of the digital economy in China, after the rectification of internet platforms and the country’s domestic 5G network reaching the stage of large-scale popularization, the overall driving force for the development of the digital economy will be weakened.

Statistics reveal that in 2020, the scale of China’s digital economy has reached USD 5.4 trillion, accounting for 38.6% of GDP, maintaining a high growth rate of 9.7% and becoming the key driving force for stable economic growth. Yet, the growth rate still dropped by 5.9 percentage points from the previous year. The downward trend in the growth rate of the digital economy deserves attention. In 2021, the expected growth of the digital economy scale was RMB 42.4 trillion, accounting for 37.06%, a slight decline from the previous year. At the same time, the proportion of China’s digital economy in GDP was 21.4 percentage points lower than that of the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and 5.1 percentage points lower than the global average.

Researchers at ANBOUND pointed out that the main problem that needs to be solved in the future development of China’s digital economy is the ownership of data resources. The main issue being disputed in the country’s traffic economy that is constraining internet platforms is precisely about the right to data usage. In the existing internet platform economy like online consumption, when the market expansion encounters boundaries and the cost of data acquisition is getting higher and higher, internet platforms that rely on their own accumulated customer data are seeking to realize cash in consumption and finance. This has brought a great impact on the current real economy and financial sectors, and is also an important cause of the authority’s rectification of internet platforms. As noted by ANBOUND, clarifying and resolving the matter in regard to the ownership of data resources is becoming a pragmatic issue. As far as data resources are concerned, although there is still some room for development in the medical and financial fields, under the background of the increasingly perfect anti-monopoly system and the continuous improvement of supervision, the traffic economy is now being constrained and restricted. This signifies that the space for the application and development of the existing large amount of data resources based on consumer data will be constrained on the consumer end.

From the overall trend, when the internet platform is constrained and the traffic economy encounters incremental bottlenecks, the development of digital industrialization dominated by terminal digital consumption will face difficulties in transformation after going through a stage of rapid growth. Looking at the data industry, on the one hand, strengthening supervision means that the Big Data resources, mainly consumer data, also face institutional obstacles to further development and “diversion”. The development of digital industrialization not only faces the obstacles of insufficient digital infrastructure, but also requires technological breakthroughs in its industrialization development itself. In addition, the production side also faces the basic hurdle of lack of a large amount of production data. Therefore, in the new growth space of the digital economy, the demand for large amounts of data on the production side will be the key driving force for building a basic data system and establishing a data transaction mechanism.

The central and western regions of China are building data centers to meet the current and future needs for large amounts of data storage. However, the application of these data and the development of data resources not only face basic systemic problems, but also lack the development of data application fields. In Guiyang, known for its development of the Big Data industry, the focus is chiefly on storage, and the Big Data investment projects there are mainly on the data centers. To mine data resources, it is not only necessary to realize the accumulation and mining of data, this also requires the support of technology and industry to realize the appreciation of data through digital technology. However, the weak real economy and lack of data development capabilities have become the biggest shortcoming of Guiyang’s development. This makes its data industry generally at the middle and low end of the value chain, and its core competitiveness is rather weak. If the Big Data industry in various places wishes to assume further roles, it still needs the upgrading and integrated development of basic industries. The future development of the data industry depends on the accumulation, application, and development of a large amount of production data. This also means that the future focus of the development of the digital economy begins to shift from the consumer side to the production side.

Final analysis conclusion:

The Central Commission for Comprehensively Deepening Reform’s conception of the construction of data infrastructure means that it will solve the fuzzy area of data ownership and further realize the tradability and transfer of data. This provides an institutional and market foundation for large-scale data development. The digital industrialization of the consumer side, as things stand, has come to an end, where the growth focus of the digital economy will shift to the production side.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending