The ‘twin transitions’ of sustainability and digitaltech and the implications for learning

Stephen Harwood

By Dr. Stephen Harwood (TechnoForeSight)?Twitter: @drsharwood?

Aside from geopolitics, perhaps the two most significant forces global shaping both policy and everyday practices are sustainability and digital technology. However, their respective transformative impacts need not be aligned. Nevertheless, the notion of a ‘twin transitions’ suggests that they can be mutually reinforcing if managed. This has important implications for the future of work and education.

Sustainability has exploded into being a prominent issue for a combination of reasons that include climate change, deforestation, resource depletion, pollution, fresh-water security and biodiversity loss. Whilst these can be viewed as environmental issues, there are significant social and economic implications that affect a person’s wellbeing. However, this is not new with the 1987 Brundtland Report recognizing and examining these three intertwined issues, these constituting what have become regarded as the ‘three pillars of sustainability’.?

Digital (information) technology is possibly the more conspicuous technology of the four forms of emerging technology, the other three being cogno-, nano-, and bio- technologies. Indeed, digital technology permeates so many artefacts. Further, these digital artefacts are becoming increasingly smart due to the embedding of artificial intelligence (AI) which is underpinned by the handling of massive datasets of different forms.? This enables these smart artefacts to be more effective and efficient than humans to first evaluate situations, then provide more appropriate responses. Significantly, this endows these smart artefacts with a degree of autonomy (i.e. the capability to self-regulate).?

This creates a dilemma.

On the one hand is the imperative to address sustainability. Let us go back to 1987. The Brundtland Report states a core principle that underpins how we approach sustainability:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.?

This recognises the importance of economic factors to support not only environmental concerns but also social concerns, especially that relating to the world's poor. Indeed, the common interest that underpins sustainable development is undermined by the failure to achieve ‘economic and social justice’ both within and amongst nation states. The report also recognises the importance of technology to support sustainable development. Indeed, attention needs to be given not only to the applications of technology but equally to their development.? Nonetheless, technology is Janus faced, as it can benefit but, at the same time, harm.

Now, fast forward to the present. It is 2024 and very rapid developments in technology has brought to the fore the Janus face of technology, which creates the dilemma.

The dark side of technology is one characterised by zero trust and is illustrated with the challenges associated with cybersecurity. Also is the growing mountain of eWaste and accelerating demands for energy to illustrate the unsustainable side of technology.

In contrast, is the good side of technology which is captured in such hashtags as #Tech4Good and #TechForAll. Associated with this are calls for the improved handling of eWaste, especially its reuse and recycling, as well as a push to cleaner and more efficient energy sources. ?

This recognises that technology is not deterministic in terms of establishing what we do with it.? Instead, we are in control of how we develop and use newer forms of technology, with much uncertainty about its impacts, which intensifies out concerns about it. Indeed, the perception that AI is a threat has led to the first international AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park [1st - 2nd November 2023], with one outcome being a ‘discussion paper’ about the risks associated with AI.

This raises a particular aspect of the dilemma. One perceived risk concerns technological developments and specifically AI, leading to the redundancy of human workers. Indeed, in 2013, it was predicted that occupations associated with 47% of the US workforce were capable of being automated due to developments in robotics and AI. However, there are two other arguments. One is that many jobs will continue to exist such as managerial roles and those involving manual activity. Another view is that new roles will be created to support new forms of technology.? Irrespective, the speed of recent technological developments, in particular generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT) is amplifying concerns and debate about workplace transformation.

Against this backdrop of the imperative for sustainable development and the Janus face of digital technology, is the need to manage their ‘twin transitions’ if they are to be mutually reinforcing. This does not imply centralised or decentralised models of management, but, more appropriately, governance structures that are distributed, underpinned by a values driven commitment to the well-being of all. However, whilst this highlights the responsibilities of governments, institutions, organisations and businesses, it also highlights the responsibilities of individuals, especially younger and future generations, if they are to contribute to a mutually reinforcing twin transitions.

Given the disruptive nature of emerging technologies in the workplace and the uncertainty of how people will be affected, the onus is upon individuals to be resilient to change. The assumption of a job for life needs to be rejected. In its place is the need for individuals, especially younger and future generations, to develop the capability to adapt, this implying the ability to reinvent themselves to take advantage of new work-place opportunities. This involves learning, which is likely to be a recurring activity and consequently lifelong.

Indeed, individuals need to become effective learners, for them to be able to quickly exploit new work-place opportunities that necessitates new knowledge and skills. This requires a person to understand their metacognition, in other words, a person knows what approach to learning works best when learning. To add, given the magnified significance of both sustainability and digital technologies in the everyday, then this suggests that workplace opportunities are pursued that are able to develop solutions that are appropriate to the twin transitions.?

A recent white paper ‘Twin Skills for the Twin Transition’ examines the occupations and skills that embrace both the sustainability and digital domains. Occupations include those offering expertise in education, consultancy, management or technical roles, fusing digital technical knowledge with knowledge of environmental sciences, laws and standards and practices. The top soft skills are identified as:

Critical Thinking, Judgement and decision making, Complex Problem Solving, Monitoring, Writing and Coordination.

This suggests the need to understand the cradle to grave aspects of technologies in terms of how to sustainably design and implement them, as well as the contextual issues of their application, these embracing not only the environmental ecosystem, but also the social as well as governance issues (ESG). The cognitive skills associated with first four soft skills is complemented with the communication skills of the latter two skills. This is not surprising given the implied complexity of any specific twin transition, whereby different views about how sustainable issues should be addressed can create tensions.

Implicit is the need to be able to capture and make sense of any situation in such a way that establishes what the appropriate problem is, that is to be handled, that accommodates different and perhaps competing viewpoints. This invokes a systemic or holistic approach to dealing with any situation that recognises both the complexity of any situation as well as the social and organisational implications of both developing and implementing proposed solutions, particularly the underpinning values of those implicated. This invites the question of what the implications are for the content and delivery of learning experiences, suggesting that this is truly multi-disciplinary. This challenges existing educational structures which tend to be discipline focused and whether these structures can adapt. Indeed, these educational experiences need not take place in formal educational settings. For example, Huawei hosts the global programme Tech4Good to ‘help young adults learn about the latest trends in digitalization and explore how digital technologies can address common social issues.’ A feature of this is the Tech4Good Global Competition, which is open to teams from around the world.

To wrap up, this cursory evaluation of the twin transitions of sustainability and digital technology recognises the prominence of both in shaping humanity’s future. However, their transformational trajectories need not be aligned due to the Janus faced nature of technology, which can potentially undermine sustainability related endeavours. This implies the cojoined management of both domains to create the desired synergies. Whilst organisations have responsibilities for this, individuals have an important role which requires them to develop the requisite knowledge and skills. However, this is not one-off learning experience, but is expected to be a recurring activity and consequently lifelong. One aspect of this is the ability to handle the complexity of any situation, which calls for systemic approaches. This calls for a rethink of educational curricula to embrace the multi-disciplines invoked. It will be interesting to see whether a disruptive educational model will emerge that caters for a lifelong learning experience that equips people for the twin transitions of sustainability and digital technology.