Envisioning the Digital Sustainability Panopticon: A

Envisioning the Digital Sustainability Panopticon: A Thought Experiment how Big Data may Help Advancing Sustainability in the Digital Age Peter Seele (USI Lugano, Switzerland)

Unedited version! For correct citations or quotations, please see the original publication in the journal! Reference: Seele, Peter (2016). Envisioning the Digital Sustainability Panopticon: A Thought Experiment how Big Data may help advancing Sustainability in the Digital Age. Sustainability Science. 11(5), 845-854, DOI 10.1007/s11625-016-0381-5

Abstract. The starting point for a theoretical vision of digital big data and sustainability builds on the situation of a currently unsustainable world threatening present and future generations regarding all three dimensions of sustainability. Given the paradigmatic changes the era of Big Data brings about, this paper proposes a thought experiment based on Bentham’s panopticon theory, where real-time data availability offers technical opportunities to promote and transform sustainability in a preceded way. Hence, different panopticon theories are discussed and merged with the concept of sustainability to arrive at the concept of the Digital Sustainability Panopticon (DSP) defined by six criteria. This vision is framed by the ten “quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science” (Wiek & Iwaniec 2014) and critically discussed regarding the totalitarian potential of digital surveillance and negative freedom.

Keywords: Sustainability, Computational Sustainability, Big Data, Surveillance, Panopticon, Synopticon, Digital Sustainabillity, Sustainable Development Goals, XBRL, RFID, bar code, Totalitarianism

Introduction: Digital Big Data and Sustainability The starting point for a theoretical vision of digital data and sustainability builds on the situation of a currently unsustainable world threatening present and future generations regarding all three dimensions of sustainability being economic, social and environmental sustainability. This not-achieving of “true sustainability” (Shevchenko et al 2016) is not caused by a lack of knowledge. Instead, when it comes to sustainability, it seem that words and deeds are far apart: On the one hand, scientific evidence leaves little doubt about the necessity to transform toward more sustainable ways of living: Concepts, guidelines, programs, transnational protocols and normative claims of promoting sustainability are on the rise – and so is scholarly research with ever more conferences, journals, handbooks, master’s programs and PhD schools. On the other hand, de facto unsustainable practices like, for example, emissions, wastewater and lifestyles are still increasing (Kauffman and Arico 2014) and so is the hunger for resources of an increasingly growthobsessed world economy fueled by central banks’ fiat money. “Earth Overshoot Day, for example, is getting earlier and earlier (2009: Sept. 25; 2015: Aug. 13) and corporations although engaging rigorously in sustainability reporting still do not consider the bio system a finite system (Bjørn et al 2016). Paradoxically, it seems that the louder the call for a transformation toward sustainability, the less heard it is and the fewer achievements are made. In the literature, this situation has been described as a “sustainability gap” (Lubin and Esty 2014). This gap or inconsistency may result in resignation among those working toward sustainable development. Furthermore, it can be used as wake-up call to develop more rigorous concepts of sustainability. In this paper, I follow the latter to advance sustainability theory by presenting a thought experiment of a big data based digital and transparent monitoring system to enable “true sustainability” (Shevchenko et al 2016). Given the groundbreaking and disruptive innovations brought about by big data and the digital age, the need and utility of theory has been called into question. Anderson (2008) famously declared the ‘end of theory’ and the ‘obsolesce’ of the scientific method caused by Big Data. This paper however argues for the need of theory to tackle the epochal (Blok and Pedersen 2014) and paradigmatic changes of a disruptive innovation as brought about by Big Data in the so-called new digital age (Schmidt and Cohen 2013). To do so I combine the possibilities and pathways of Big Data with a second major trend of our time: sustainability as it addressed societal, environmental as well as economic issues for present and future generations. The overarching question I pose in this paper is: How can Big Data help advancing sustainability. Given the transformative and pre-deliberative notion of sustainability as a concept, I borrow from one of the most famous philosophical approaches – utilitarianism – to propose a theoretical framework building on Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon theory leading to the concept of the digital sustainability Panopticon.

Sustainability and Big Data seen through Panopticon theory To address and tackle sustainability related challenges I propose combining three principal parameters as major trends of the Big Data age: Big Data, transparency, and surveillance. The three are amalgamated under the roof of sustainability to arrive at a technology-enhanced concept of sustainability using intelligence as applied for national security but for the purpose of sustainability. The theoretical framework to organize this amalgamation toward consistency in word and deed regarding sustainability is the utilitarian theory of the Panopticon as put forward in the 18th century by Jeremy Bentham. What started as a philosophical essay on the architecture of institutional buildings like prisons, schools, factories and hospitals (Bentham 1787, here 2008) has since been the subject of continual debate and reformulation. In this comment, I build on the historiographical classification scheme of Panopticon theory as put forward by Dobson and Fisher (2007). They distinguish between three avenues of Panopticum theories. I follow

Dobson and Fisher with their three phases of Panopticon theory and propose a turn toward sustainability making use of the digital 24/7/365 “dataveillance” (Haggerty and Ericson 2000) and “digital Panopticon” (Han 2013) to strive more effectively for sustainability with the help of Big Data.

Panopticon I: Object of information, but not subject in communication Philosopher Jeremy Bentham, when writing his original book Panopticon in 1787, created the theory of the “inspection house.” Bentham developed his idea by designing an architectural concept for institutional buildings like prisons, schools, hospitals and factories. The core of the idea involves the arrangement of single rooms in a circular building. At the center of the circle, we find the inspection house where a watchman can see every room. The important effect is that inmates cannot tell whether or when they are being watched. However, by possibly being watched, they behave as if they are being watched. This is why the Panopticon observation is called self-regulatory discipline (Downing 2008: 82); even if not watched at a specific moment, the inmates assume they are being watched. According to Bentham, the effect is the following: “Morals reformed—health preserved—industry invigorated—instruction diffused—public burthens lightened—Economy seated, as it were, […] all by a simple idea in Architecture!” (Bentham 1787: xx). As a child of the Enlightenment, Bentham considered this model as a just and economically beneficial solution to societal problems. Next to critics calling the Panopticon a “tool of oppression and social-control” (Himmelfarb 1965), the most famous recipient of Bentham (who did not, however, advance the idea further as in Panopticon II or III) was Foucault. He took the concept of the Panopticon to develop the idea of “disciplinary societies” as apparatuses of power (Foucault 1975). Foucault describes Bentham’s Panopticum aptly when he says that the inmate always is the object of information, but never a subject in communication. For Foucault, the inmate “becomes the principle of his own subjection" (1975: 203).

Panopticum II: Zuboff’s Information Panopticon In Dobson and Fisher’s classification of Panopticon theories, Panopticon II is characterized by the ideal of surveillance in the information age. Panopticon II is basically developed in the book In the Age of the Smart Machine (1984), in which Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff presents the theory of the “Information Panopticon,” where everything is recorded. Supervision (in Zuboff’s example the work environment of a corporation) in the Information Panopticon is monitored by a computer; every worker’s performance is monitored and evaluated based on data. This computer-controlled supervision “can provide the computer age version of universal transparency with a degree of illumination that would have exceeded even Bentham's most outlandish fantasies. Such systems can become information panopticons that, freed from the constraints of space and time, do not depend upon the physical arrangement of buildings or the laborious record keeping of industrial administration. They do not require the mutual presence of objects of observation. They do not even require the presence of an observer” (Zuboff 1984: 322). It becomes clear why Panopticon II is so different from Bentham’s original idea; the transparency accessible to the watchmen in the inspection tower becomes universal with computational digital technology based on information. Zuboff calls this the “yearning for omniscience” that allows for “predictability and control” (Zuboff 1984: 348). In Zuboff’s Information Panopticon, those under observation are motivated by the benefits provided by taking part. This dual nature of the Information Panopticon is represented by the Benthamian notion of being under surveillance but at the same time observing others and reporting their behavior. In other words, in Panopticon II everyone has the capacity to be simultaneously an inmate and a watchman. Furthermore, in Panopticon II, all inmates know that their performance is monitored all the time, unlike in Bentham’s Panopticon, where the watchman might watch the inmates but can never watch them all at the same time. Finally, the computer observing the participants only measures standardized data points, which offers a more objective judgment than the watchman in the inspection tower in Bentham’s Panopticon. Here the transition from “lots of data” to “Big Data” (Lagoze 2014) is an important cornerstone to understand the capabilities of the concept. This, as

Zwitter (2014) also has implications of ethics in the age of Big Data, as individual decisions are less and less important where we more towards actions by many having consequences.

Panopticon III: Digital Ubiquity through RFID The third phase of Panopticon theory includes human tracking systems and devices and is put forward by Dobson and Fisher. By adding Big Data surveillance via digital tracking systems, it is possible to expand the scope of the Panopticon from institutional architectures like prisons, schools, factories and hospitals (Panopticon I) and two-way digital communication within organizations (Panopticon II) to any human being outside organizations, like children, parents, employees, neighbors and even strangers. Furthermore, due to the extremely low cost of less than $500 US per year (Dobson and Fisher 2007), observation and surveillance become available to ordinary citizens. Hence, the major contribution of Panopticon III is its digital ubiquity due to devices producing Big Data (Ruppert et al. 2013) with observation of any individual, known or unknown.

Panopticon Theory and Beyond: Pseudo-Panopticon, Synopticon and Post-Panopticism In addition to the three types of Panopticon theories, scholars have discussed theoretical approaches that go beyond the basic idea of the panoptical observation (Lyon 2006). I will discuss the three most important of them. Post-Panopticism (Haggerty 2006) is a term created by scholars claiming “historical as well as logical limits to the usefulness of panoptic imagery today” (Bauman and Lyon 2013: 52) as we live in a time of what they call “liquid modernity” leading to “liquid surveillance.” In their book from 2013 (however written in 2011 before the Edward Snowden-NSA disclosures), Bauman and Lyon underestimate the power play of digital and Big Data-driven surveillance imposed by marketing-driven consumer research (Gandy 1993; Andrejevic 2004) and governmental intelligence agencies as disclosed by Wikileaks and the Snowden documents on the NSA (Lyon 2014). Hence, we may state here: Given the latest disclosures of governmental intelligence or internet giants like Google applying algorithm-based “dataveillance” (Haggerty and Ericson 2000), Panopticon theory indeed brings us back to Bentham’s original idea of a central inspection tower and the self-regulatory discipline of the observed who know that they are observed. This agency idea actually is a cornerstone on which the Digital Sustainability Panopticon builds in the next chapter. Second, the notion of Pseudo-Panopticon brings us to sustainability. Coombs and Holladay (2013) criticize corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability communication as creating an illusion through a Pseudo-Panopticon. Their critique builds on the assumption that the transparency created in internetbased sustainability reporting is believed to be credible, whereas Coombs and Holladay claim that it is not and that very few activist groups create databases that help citizens “figure out which companies are polluting the air in their neighborhood” (2013: 213). The Pseudo-Panopticon, however, builds on what is described above as Panopticon I with the original contribution of Bentham and the interpretation of Foucault. The concept criticizing corporate sustainability is important to advance the Digital Sustainability Panopticon proposed here. A third important avenue of going beyond Panopticon theory, also crucial to developing the Digital Sustainability Panopticon, is the extension toward synopticon. Synopticon refers to the surveillance of the few by the many constituting a “viewer society” (Mathiesen 1997). What was meant to deconstruct and replace the Panopticon imagery by reversing the perspective of the single watchman observing the many to the many (theater audience, media consumers) observing the few (actors, celebrities, politicians) added to the theoretical avenue of post-Panopticism (Boyne 2000). However, given the possibilities of the digital age (Schmidt and Cohen 2013), we may add what is referred to as social media (“candy” and “shit” storm), where the synopticon becomes reality in a digital Big Data-driven way. Next to the more specific technological advancements such as XBRL or RFID it is the use of social media and the analytics as applied by companies offering social media services such as facebook, twitter or google/youtube) that indicate the

already existing reality of a panopticon and a synopticon. In social media applications, each individual user is under surveillance by the company offering the service. The data and information obtained than is used mostly for commercial and marketing purposes as well as – as Wikileaks revealed – security purposes by players such as the NSA. At the same time each and every social media user may observe and comment on other users, like or dislike their postings and thus contribute to a synoptical way of watching other users, which in return may be used by the central surveillance authorities – here the corporations. The ubiquity and prevalence of this social media two-way-surveillance technology can in addition be enriched with more specific service oriented services of the so-called shared economy. Companies such as AirBnB (private guest rooms) or Uber (private driver services) bring together users sharing goods and services. Next to the possible effects on increased sustainability through a more efficient allocation of existing resources, these new services also track and monitor the social activity of their users regarding the specific level of their services (like hospitality and travel). A final indication for the existence of a digital panopticon can be seen in the digital tracking of supply chains: Corporations being to a large extend responsible for some of the most environmental and social unsustainabilities began to integrate sustainability management in their supply chains, also as reaction to some serious scandals as in the supply chain of Apple and its supplier Foxconn (Seele 2012). Hence some sustainability first mover companies such as Switcher (a producer of organic cotton textiles) added a bar code into the product, so the consumer may trace back the supply chain and challenges regarding sustainability and how they have been tackled. In addition, performance data on resource consumption and waste production can be obtained and benchmarked against industry standards. In sum and taken together: The indications and phenomena mentioned above (XBRL, RFID, Social Media, Sharing Economy, NSA) are pointing in the direction that we already live in a digital world that could be understood as panopticon – understood here as patchwork of the three panopticon theories in addition with synopticon approaches. In other words: if one likes it or not, the transformations brought about by digital technology are to be considered as given. In addition, the world we live in is already to a large extend shaped by a digital panopticon. Hence, the next step, as proposed here, is to make sustainability a core element and normative direction in using digital technology in a way that adds to sustainable development and reduces harm.

Digital Sustainability Panopticon: Merging Digital Panopticism and Sustainability Based on the transformative power both of sustainability and big data merged with the different types of Panopticon, I propose to reconceptualize the change toward a (more) sustainable world through the theoretical lens of Panopticon. Thus, the digital revolution of Big Data characterized by “hypercommunication” leading to a “transparency society” (Han 2013: 92) may be used to trigger and monitor sustainability on a large scale. This approach in close to what is know as “computational sustainability” (Gomes 2009) in the literature. In computational sustainability it is proposed that the extraordinary challenges the planet faces need treatment form information technology experts: “it is imperative that computer scientists, information scientists, and experts in operations research, applied mathematics, statistics, and related fields pool their talents and knowledge to help find efficient and effective ways of managing and allocating natural resources. To that end, we must develop critical mass in a new field, computational sustainability, to develop new computational models, methods, and tools to help balance environmental, economic, and societal needs for a sustainable future” (Gomes 2009). A similar proposal has been introduced by Helbing’s “Future ICT” (2012) proposing to develop a new ICT set up addressing sustainability issues. In this line of

concepts discussing how big data may help advance I position the DSP. The core difference to the two data science driven models is, that the DSP is based on a philosophical theory with strong normative implications (nevertheless, both computational sustainability and Future ICT also are highly normative, just not upfront as Bentham’s panopticon). One common denominator for promoting the Digital Sustainability Panopticon would be: production of data among all actors involved. This is particularly true for corporations who increasingly also address sustainability issues in their reporting (Gatti and Seele 2014). Also, corporations have developed new ways to measure and disclose sustainability data. The global reporting initiative (GRI) is an NGO that provides guidelines for the standardization of sustainability reports (Knebel and Seele 2015). The latest move referencing the digital age is that GRI developed an XBRL taxonomy for sustainability (Watson and Monterio 2011; Seele 2016). XBRL is a software-based reporting language used since 2010 as mandatory by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to report digital financial data to regulators. A second important element of the Digital Sustainability Panopticon can be seen in the internet protocol version 6, which allows for almost indefinite web addresses. Adding radio frequency identification (RFID) chips that make literally everything a sender and thus a contributor to hyper-communication, we arrive at what is referred to as the “internet of things.” As Han claims, this digital Panopticon is the digital fulfillment of Bentham’s Panopticon (2013: 96). Expanding this new digital world toward sustainability enables regulators and other stakeholders to rigorously observe and compare sustainability performance – and if required force non-sustaining actors into sustainable action. Technically, thanks to Big Data, we are at the brink of digital sustainability by technological means. What is missing, however, is a comprehensive theoretical framework and – if arrived at by means of deliberate democracy – a regulatory framework to control and if necessary sanction harmful activities. This framework can be seen – among other possible frameworks –the Digital Sustainability Panopticon, which has the potential to obtain a holistic sustainability transformation. The following six criteria are considered crucial to create a strong thought experiment suitable for application or debate: 1. Big Data production of all relevant sustainability issues in a unified taxonomy. XBRL offers a suitable option, but other standards or taxonomies are conceivable as well. 2. Internet of things goes sustainability. Given RFID chips together with unlimited internet protocol v. 6 web addresses, every data point can be linked by hyper-communication to the unified sustainability database. 3. Transparent disclosure of all digital sustainability data following the idea of open access. 4. Big Data-driven algorithmic monitoring of digital sustainability data by suitable sustainability watchmen (Panopticon I). 5. Digital ubiquity provides real-time, low-cost tracking of sustainability performance (Panopticon III). 6. Open discourse and deliberation in the Habermasian sense on sustainability progress across all channels involving all sustainability stakeholders (Panopticon II) integrating social media hypercommunication (synopticon). When the digital panopticon design is developed incorporating the points mentioned, it would be conceivable to reach a behavioral effect to promote sustainability similar to what Bentham had in mind creating a more humane and utile architecture for prisons, schools, businesses or hospitals. Bentham’s visionary idea that inmates cannot tell if they are watched or not and thus behave as if they are watched is fulfilled by dataveillance in a much more rigorous way because everyone knows that they are watched, recorded and data analyzed. Given a positive vision with a normative teleology such as sustainability, this effect that was rightly criticized as a possible instrument of oppression and social control (Himmelfarb 1965) nevertheless bears the vision of a collective enforcement mechanism toward transformation for sustainability. While Foucault suggests that self-enforcement in the Panopticon (here Panopticon I) as the inmate “becomes the principle of his own subjection" (1975: 203), we can turn this into a positive idea of deliberately arriving at a digital technology-enhanced empowerment system rigorously reducing

unsustainable behavior. Given the not yet fully discovered and understood parameters and consequences of the Big Data, we may, however, state that the entire complexity conceptualized as the ‘internet of things’ has already become a digital Panopticon, which we are slowly beginning to understand thanks to Wikileaks and the Edward Snowden documents. Moreover, we are all inmates (Panopticon I) as well as watchmen (Panopticon II) at the same time and traceable everywhere (Panopticon III). By dedicating Big Data to sustainability, however, we may have a chance to use the Panopticon – to use Bentham’s famous words– as a mill for grinding the unsustainable sustainable.

Validating the Vision of a Digital Sustainability Panopticon The digital sustainability panopticon as a theoretical concept is – just like Bentham’s and Foucault’s contribution on the Panopticon idea – more of a thought experiment than a specific, policy-relevant framework. To make the concept work for sustainability, the concept is discussed along the ten “quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science” as “visioning is considered a key method in sustainability research and problem solving, for instance, in transformational sustainability science” (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014: 499). The ten criteria are organized along three avenues: Normative, construct and transformational quality. In addition, there are three general criteria such as meaningful sequence, iterative procedure and participatory setting (507). In the following it is discussed in how far the digital sustainability panopticon can be considered a sustainability vision along the lines suggested by Wiek and Iwaniec:

Normative Quality Visionary The foremost quality of a sustainability vision is the necessity to be visionary. Wiek and Iwaniec understand visionary as projecting a “desirable future state; with elements of (aspirational) surprise, utopian thought, far-sightedness, and holistic perspective. DSP could be interpreted as visionary insofar as it provides a technology driven infrastructure that by surveillance and performance control in real time offers preceded ways in reaching sustainability goals. The panopticon effect of not knowing whether participants are under surveillance or not can be seen as element to provide surprise and utopian thought is reached as the merger of big data and sustainability offers a framework for a perspective of society that is unseen so far and thus – literally – utopian. As the internet of things touches upon almost every aspect of live and as the consequences are disruptive affecting almost all aspects of life, it can also be considered holistic.

Sustainable The basic idea of the DSP is to utilize big data technology to measure, advance and control human operations towards a more sustainable way of living. As Wiek and Iwaniec ask for a sustainability vision to be “in compliance with sustainability principles, featuring radically transformed structures and processes” we may state here in addition, that DSP goes one step further in being the infrastructure to govern sustainability principles and to provide the means to arrive at radically transformed structures and processes.

Construct Validity Systemic DSP is systemic and comprises of a “holistic representation” as it is based on the fundamental idea of selfregulatory discipline (Downing 2008: 82) as outlined in Bentham’s original work. As in the digital age every person making use of digital services it part of the panopticon, the self-regulatory discipline effect is played on everyone producing actively data or being monitored publicly and thus producing indirectly data. As the

internet of things as underlying infrastructure of the DSP affects almost everyone and everything the different elements of the vision are interlinked in a complex big data structure, another key point of the construct validity criterion from Wiek and Iwaniec (2014: 501).

Coherent Coherence and internal consistency are considered important to guarantee construct validity of a vision. DSP builds on the principle of surveillance in the internet of things merged with advancement and control of sustainable development. Hence the sustainability vision of the DSP has no own goal, but consists rather of a infrastructural framework to measure and prevent unsustainable activity. However, as discussed below in the limitations, the coherence of the DSP is challenged by the institutional and political framework governing the framework making it part of a deliberative democratic process rather than imposing bigbrother control risking to be neglected as totalitarian. Wiek and Iwaniec (2014: 501)) also stress, that coherence is not about avoiding complexity. For managing complexity a digital environment seems a feasible solution, as data is recorded, is collected in real time, and – one of the outlooks of DSP – would thanks to algorithmic power allow for predictive measures. Contradictions however might evolve on a political level given national sovereignty and transnational coordination. Here the suggestion of a UN mandate would come into play to also provide governance coherence for DSP. This however is not farfetched given recent innovations on the side of the US together with major corporate players such as the Microsoft corporation. In May 2016 a presidential statement of the Security Council proposes a “Counter Terrorism Committee” (UN 2016), where forces are joined between the UN and corporations in the digital economy. The aim is identify and counter “terrorist narratives” used for recruiting. Here a surveillance framework is in discussion, where – just as the panopticon theories suggest – all inhabitants are watched to identify threats and possible future attacks. This monitoring framework however is also criticized as censorship, which raises questions – also parallel to the DSP – of the tradeoff between freedom and improvement.

Plausible The plausibility of a sustainability vision following Wiek and Iwaniec (2014: 502) is created by evidence, informed by “empirical examples, theoretical models, and pilot projects”. In the DSP transformation is closely linked to real-time data, e.g. in the reporting language XBRL as already developed by GRI providing a time-ontological shift of real-time transparency (Seele 2016). When considering panopticon theories we already find a plentitude of theoretical models as reviewed above. The most relevant concept is the “information panopticon” from Zuboff (1984) building on empirical data of human resources management. The general functionality of the DSP can be seen in the existing application contexts of digital panoptical technology: commerce and security. But instead of indentifying security issues and threads or predicting consumer behavior, DSP would utilize the existing technology in order to promote, measure and advance sustainability by monitoring and possibly preventing unsustainable behavior. The plausibility however – as presumably for any sustainability vision – is challenged by those who consider the transformational aspect of sustainability an attack on the status quo. This also applies to the DSP.

Tangible The tangibility of a sustainability vision is “composed of clearly articulated and detailed goal” to become meaningful (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014: 502). In this regard, the six criteria of the DSP mentioned above can be considered as practical and tangible. Wiek and Iwaniec (2014: 502) ask also for “subtle application” in order to create tangibility. In the case of the DSP particularly point 2 from above indicates in the direction of application, when the internet of things via RFID technology is directed towards sustainability. Also visibility of the vision is important for tangibility of the sustainability vision. Here it can be said, that due to the original idea of the panopticon as an architectural design, the theory is not abstract but highly visible and conceivable. In the case of the digital panopticon however the visibility is not as tangible as in the case of a

watchtower in the panopticon building. But the Snowden case discussed for months now in the media creates a picture of what the digital panopticon is about and capable of.

Transformational Validity Relevant To be relevant a sustainability vision needs to be “composed of salient goals that focus on people, their roles, and responsibilities (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014: 502). The review of the panopticon theories reveals that the original panopticon was unidirectional. The digital panopticon however is multidirectional as all participants are watched and watchmen at the same time (Panopticon II). This theoretical assumption means on the level of the individual actor that participants of the digital panopticon are connected and are communicating constantly as this is increasingly the case through social media, open government, multistakeholder initiatives and other means of an open democratic society enhanced by digital technology. Hence the DSP outlines for each individual and also for public and private governing bodies how to be affected by the DSP. In addition, all activities leave digital traces, that can be measured and controlled. This measurement and control may happen on the level of the person (as in health devices linked to an application on a smartphone) as well as on the level of the regulator. The overall question that needs to be addressed however (see chapter outlook) is the question of standardization and regulation. Here a voluntary approach on the level of the individual is conceivable as well as a mandatory approach on the level of national or international standards and regulations.

Nuanced Wiek and Iwaniec state that a sustainability vision is nuanced, when detailed priorities are given regarding its desirability. This suggestion builds on the statement, that “visions are composed of various elements and not all of them are of equal desirability” (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014: 503). This indeed is an important point also for the DSP. Given the application of a disruptive technology such as big data and real time transparence sustainability control – by technological means – could become absolute. This however, as described above in the review chapter, could lead to a society where the Panopticon becomes a “tool of oppression and social-control” in a negative sense (Himmelfarb 1965), where totalitarianism is not far. Now being nuanced is a crucial criteria for the DSP. In this vision a concept is presented to indicate what is possible with the technological means available today. Application however is a complex process imposing challenging questions to national and transnational regulation and organization. The DSP itself can be developed both in a deliberative way (as suggested here by following a Habermasian approach) or in an oppressive way leading to a technologically driven sustainability-totalitarianism, that would follow the negative line of critics as Himmelfarb. Hence and in conclusion, the 6th criteria to follow a democratic and deliberative process is crucial for developing the vision further and to arrive at a nuanced vision.

Motivational A sustainability vision to reach transformational quality “ought to create buy-in and acceptance of the proposed changes, spark further development of the vision, and even motivate active participation in the implementation process” (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014: 503). For the DSP this criteria is important insofar as a deliberative approach for creating and implementing the vision is recommended. Once implemented the mentioned self-regulatory discipline – if and only if applied to all members – has a strong motivational force, as free riders – technologically – would be identified and sanctioned immediately. The more difficult task in envisioning the SDP lies however in implementing the SDP as it – as powerful as it is in promoting and enacting sustainability – would mean to live with restrictions both on the level privacy and regarding freedom of consumption and use-profiles. Hence the motivational quality - as controversial as the DSP is – is important to inspire and motivate towards the envisioned change.

Shared As all ten quality criteria need to work together following the authors, visions are required to display a support and ownership of all relevant stakeholders. This is necessary as visions are designed to ”converge our actions into a desired direction” (van der Helm 2009: 99). Technically, there are two modes to operate the DSP. One would be adopting the ‘secret service’ approach as used by big data national security agencies. The second one – also proposed here – would be to arrive at consensus and a bottom-up shared vision of undergoing change to transform society into a sustainable society governed by algorithms and measured within the internet of things. This deliberative approach makes sure, that the potential of the DSP could come to life without running into justified warnings to open Pandora ’s Box of oppression and totalitarianism, even if it was enforced to bring about change considered to be positive change as advancing sustainability. The arrive at a shared vision of the DSP in the deliberative sense clarifications and elucidations are considered important and helpful regarding in a first instance the existing digitalization and internet of things. This is important to show that we – willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly – already live in a digital Panopticon. At the moment however the digital information Panopticon is used to adcance consumer behavior predictions, to promote e-commerce and to use digital surveillance for security and other intelligence issues by public authorities. Once this step one is prevalent and widely known, a multistakeholder approach would help in developing shared visions to use the existing technology to do something positive for everyone and the environment: to promote sustainability. By this two-way-awareness creation process the DSP could become a shared vision, that a majority could subscribe to in order to arrive at enhanced levels of legitimacy of the sustainability version (Wiek and Iwaniec 2014: 503; Cash et al. 2003).

Critical Discussion on the Thread of Potential Big Brother Sustainability Totalitarianism As mentioned above the DSP is a thought experiment and meant to provoke thinking about the technical possibilities of a Big Data driven digital surveillance system promoting and measuring sustainability. The experimental concept of a DSP is a system based on precise digital measurement, surveillance and control. In this note it has been explained above with the six factors, that implement a DSP a political consensus of deliberative democracy (in the Habermasian sense) would be deemed most suitable to justify and legitimate a system like the DSP. Nevertheless given the rigorous data driven surveillance the threat of totalitarianism as explained by critiques of Panopticon theory like Himmelfarb remains a valid point. In order to also arrive at a warning of the DSP, although is it ‘just’ a thought experiment, I think revisiting Karl Poppers idea of the ‘Open Society’ and here the question of freedom and liberty may help. Popper when defending the open society discusses the ‘paradox of freedom’ building on the discussion of Plato on the same issue. The paradox of freedom centers around the question if the concept of freedom allows for a free choice deciding to live under a tyranny or dictator. In other words: Does freedom as a concept allow also for giving up freedom? The thought experiment of the DSP can be compared directly to this paradox of freedom: If we acknowledge that sustainability is not to be reached without more serious measures, would it not be within our choice (again within deliberative democracy) to vote for a system that restricts our freedom, applies throughout digital surveillance, measures our performance and controls for emissions and unsustainable practices? The Paradox of Freedom would allow to restrict freedom, when this is a free choice. In other words. If a big data driven control system restricts freedom in order to arrive at a (more) sustainable world, this is a measure that can be agreed upon if arrived at by free choice of all those affected. This paradox of freedom however is more hypothetical as it remains to be seen if every natural person and every legal person agrees to enter into a regime considered to also act in a totalitarian way. But

to point to the technical possibility and to create awareness of the enforcement mechanisms available with Big Data is the intend of this thought experiment called DSP.

Outlook: DSP and Technological Singularity The DSP as described here builds on existing technological devices and innovations. In other words: The DSP is a vision building on yet existing technologies, but not yet targeted in a unified way on sustainable development. The vision of this thought experiment therefore lies more in its normative direction than in a utopian idea of what could be possible with devices not yet existing. The DSP is an arrangement, a reassembly of mosaic stones creating a new picture with existing bits and pieces. Therefore, an outlook on how the DSP may be further advanced with technologies and principles yet in the making also offers new insights in how sustainable development could be enforced technologically. Here yet existing but not yet fully developed concepts as deep learning of algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) and last but not least the concept of singularity may pave the way to a more rigorous, self-governed, intelligent and comprehensive digitally driven sustainability panopticon. Singularity here is understood as technological singularity meaning that humans will be “overtaken by artificially intelligent machines or cognitively enhanced biological intelligence, or both” (Shanahan 2015). One may state that human intelligence with all the creativity and innovation it has caused, seems to be of not sufficient help to create a strong sustainability in balance with renewable resources. With the help of AI and technological singularity a powerful digital surveillance and enforcement mechanism is conceivable that not only offers access to data and treatment thereof to conceptualize a DSP, but enacts through algorithmic learning and artificial intelligence an outcome driven limitation to resource exploitation, production and consumption. In this more utopian next step of the DSP vision the critical questions on the totalitarianism-freedom-trade-off are even more urgent to address than in the thought experiment developed here.

References Anderson, C (2008) The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Wired 16/7. http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory (accessed 20.06.2015) Andrejevic, M (2004) Reality TV: The work of being watched. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Bauman, Z, Lyon, D (2013) Liquid surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Bentham, J (1787; here 2008). Panopticon; or: The Inspection House: Cornwall: Dodo Press Bjørn, A.; Bey, N.; Georg, S.; Røpke, I. and Hauschild, M. (2016): Is Earth recognized as a finite system in corporate responsibility reporting? Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.095 Blok, A Pedersen, M (2014) Complementary social science? Quali-quantitative experiments in a Big Data world. Big Data & Society 1 (2) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714543908 Boyne, R (2000). Post-panopticism, Economy and Society, 29:2, 285-307 Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091. Coombs, T, Holladay, S (2013) The pseudo-Panopticon: the illusion created by CSR-related transparency and the internet, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 2: 212 – 227 Dobson, J, Fisher, P (2007) The Panopticon's changing geography. Geographical Review, 97, 3, Geosurveillance , 307-323

Downing, L (2008) Michel Foucault. Cambridge University Press Foucault, M (1975; here 1995) Discipline and punishment. New York: Vintage Books Gandy, O (1993) The Panoptic sort: A political economy of personal information. Boulder: Westview Gatti, L, Seele, P (2014) Evidence for the prevalence of the sustainability concept in European corporate responsibility reporting. Sustainability Science, 9:89-102 Gomes, C. (2009). Computational Sustainability: Computational methods for a sustainable environment, economy, and society The Bridge, Vol. 39, No. 4.. 5-13. Haggerty, E, Ericson, R (2000) The surveillance assemblage. British Journal of Sociology 54: 1: 605-622 Haggerty, K (2006) Tear down the walls. In Lyon: Theorizing Surveillance. Panopticon and Beyond. Cullompton: Willan. 23-46. Han, B (2013) Im Schwarm. Ansichten des Digitalen. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz Helbing, D., (201. The FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator Towards a More Resilient and Sustainable Future. In: P. Ball: Why Society is a Complex Matter. Springer, Berlin, pp. 55-60.

Himmelfarb, G (1965) The haunted house of Jeremy Bentham. In Herr, Richard, Parker, Harold T. Ideas in history: essays presented to Louis Gottschalk by his former students. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Jensen, O.; Seele, P. (2013). An Analysis of Sovereign Wealth and Pension Funds’ Ethical Investment Guidelines and Their Commitment Thereto. In: Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment.13/3/3 264282. DOI:10.1080/20430795.2013.791144 Kajikawa, Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science 3:215–239 Kates R, Clark W, Corell R, Hall J, Jaeger C, Lowe I, McCarthy J, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson N, Faucheux S, Gallopin G, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha N, Kasperson R, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517): 641–642 Kauffman J, Arico S (2014) New directions in sustainability science: promoting integration and cooperation. Sustainability Science. 9/4. 413-418 Knebel, Sebastian; Seele, Peter (2015): Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+ non-financial reports and implications for credibility and standardization. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. 20.2. 196-212. 10.1108/CCIJ-11-2013-0101 Kshetri, N (2014) The emerging role of Big Data in key development issues: Opportunities, challenges, and concerns. Big Data & Society, 1 (2) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714564227 Lagoze, C (2014) Big Data, data integrity, and the fracturing of the control zone. Big Data & Society 1 (2) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714558281 Lubin, D, Esty, D (2014) Bridging the sustainability gap. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/bridging-the-sustainability-gap/ Lyon, D (2006) Theorizing surveillance: the Panopticon and beyond. Cullompton: Willan. Lyon, D (2014) Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society 1 (2) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714541861

Mathiesen, T (1997) The viewer society. Michel Foucault's `Panopticon' Revisited. Theoretical Criminology 1(2). 215-234. Miller O, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson, L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2013) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science 9/2. 239-246 Peacock, S (2014) How web tracking changes user agency in the age of Big Data: The used user. Big Data & Society 1 (2) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714564228 Prabhakar R (2014) It’s time to scale the science in the social sciences. Big Data & Society. 1(1) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714532240 Roger Burrows, Mike Savage (2014) After the crisis? Big Data and the methodological challenges of empirical sociology. Big Data & Society 1 (1) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714540280 Ruppert, Evelyn, Law, John and Savage, Mike. (2013). Reassembling Social Science Methods: the challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), pp. 22-46. Schmidt, E, Cohen J The new digital age. Reshaping the future of people, nations and business, New York: Knopf Seele, P. (2012). Triple-Profitability-Bottom Line: Supplier Responsibility in a Multistakeholder Perspective and the Power of the Markets in the Apple-Foxconn Case. In: CRR Working Papers: 11/2012. Seele, P (2016). Digitally Unified Reporting How XBRL-based real-time transparency helps in combining integrated sustainability reporting and performance control. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.102 Shanahan, M. (2015). The Technological Singularity. Boston: MIT Press. Shevchenko, A.; Lévesque, M. and Pagell, M. (2016). Why firms delay reaching true sustainability. Journal of Management Studies. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12199 UN (2016). Security Council Presidential Statement Seeks Counter-Terrorism Committee Proposal for ‘International Framework’ to Curb Incitement 11 May 2016 SC/12355 http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12355.doc.htm (accessed 21st of May 2016) van der Helm R (2009) The vision phenomenon: towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning. Futures 41:96–104. Watson, LA, Monterio, BJ (2011) The next stage in the evolution of business reporting – the journey towards an interlinked, integrated report. The Chartered Accountant. 75-78. Retrieved from http://220.227.161.86/23478july2011journal_75.pdf (20.06.2014) WCED (1987) Our common future. London: Oxford University Press Wittmayer J, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science. 9/4. 483-496 Yarime M, Trencher G, Mino T, Scholz RW, Olsson L, Ness B, Frantzeskaki N, Rotmans, J (2012) Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustainability Science 7(1):101–113 Zuboff, S. 1984: In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books Zwitter, A (2014) Big Data ethics. Big Data & Society, 1 (2) DOI: 10.1177/2053951714559253