The Data for Policy 2025 conference, held last month at Leiden University in The Hague, brought together policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to explore this year’s theme: Twin Transition: Governing the Digital and Green Transformation. The discussions engaged how digital and environmental transitions intersect and how data and policy frameworks can support these shifts. I had the pleasure of presenting research co-authored with Anri van der Spuy, which extended and applied Research ICT Africa’s D4D (Data for Development) project work to the conference theme. This work has now been published in a book of abstracts in collaboration with Data & Policy by Cambridge University Press.
Our research examines the risks that emerge at the nexus of digital and green transitions, particularly in African contexts marked by socio-digital inequalities. More specifically, we ask how data-driven developmental initiatives designed to address climate challenges can both advance and undermine human rights—including the collective and social rights emphasised in African human rights instruments.
A noteworthy contribution of our work is the reframing of ‘risk’ to encompass both negative and positive externalities—moving beyond the common tendency to equate ‘risk’ solely with harm. Drawing on Ulrich Beck’s conception of risk as “uncertainty with respect to something we value,” this broader perspective enables a more nuanced assessment of data-driven green solutions, which often carry both environmental and social potential and peril. For example, while smart grids aim to improve energy efficiency through data-driven optimisation, the infrastructure required to store and process that data—such as data centres—can itself have significant environmental impacts, including high energy and water consumption.
Given that the positive and negative potentials of (any) intervention are intertwined, a risk framework that only considers the negative component is somewhat incomplete, and combining such a focused framework with an additional instrument that considers the associated opportunities may become clumsy. Our proposal to consider these potentials holistically produces a risk framework that is more comprehensive and theoretically concise. We further note that considering the negative and positive potentials alongside each other does not imply that these potentials should be given equal weight.
This conceptual framework will be applied to select African case studies, identifying specific risks, mapping relevant stakeholders, and assigning clear responsibilities for risk management. From a policy perspective, we are particularly concerned about the ways in which data-driven green solutions may give rise to what Beck calls “organised irresponsibility”—a phenomenon where multiple actors, including traditionally powerful institutions such as governments, development partners, and technology vendors obscure, defer, or shift accountability for managing risks. For instance, in the deployment of smart agricultural platforms that use satellite and sensor data to guide farming practices, governments may promote these tools as climate-resilient innovations while relying on foreign tech vendors to manage the infrastructure and data. When issues arise—such as biased data leading to poor recommendations or the exclusion of smallholder farmers from digital ecosystems—responsibility can easily be diffused, with no single actor held accountable for the negative outcomes.
Our case study application will draw heavily on Research ICT Africa’s After Access surveys, which represent some of the only nationally representative, demand-side datasets on digital access across African countries. We hypothesise that digital inequalities introduce uncertainty (both threats and opportunities) when it comes to implementing digitally driven green solutions. RIA’s After Access surveys, which detail how different population segments use (or don’t use) digital services, allow us to flesh out the various risks associated with specific green interventions as they relate to these different population segments. There is an opportunity for this full paper to be published in Data & Policy in December.
The opportunity to bring this African perspective to the European regional conference was welcome. Given the global nature of digital technologies and environmental challenges, coordinated responses must draw on diverse regional experiences. Several presentations drew on similar ideas to mine and Anri’s research, as well as to RIA’s broader policy agenda, contributing to a robust and diverse set of approaches. For example, Juliana Kappeler, Yang Yang, and Dechun Zhang from the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Tracking and Society shared a comparative policy analysis showing how different regions frame the link between digital technologies and sustainability. This helped contextualise the global policy environment influencing data-driven green initiatives in Africa.
Adam Zable also presented work co-authored with Stefaan Verhulst and Andrew Zahuranec at GovLab, refining the 9Rs Framework, which encourages companies to share data by highlighting nine business incentives grouped under knowledge, brand equity, and licence to operate. This aligns closely with RIA’s efforts to promote data governance as a public good . Many presentations also offered other valuable methodological insights. Some of the organisations represented included the European Commission, University of Leiden, UCL and Oxford Internet Institute. Connecting with this cohort of people working at the intersection of data, development, and governance was an incredible highlight. Above all, the conference facilitated relationship-building that I hope will lead to future collaborations that can help create a sustainable, equitable, and rights-respecting digital future.
