IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2021 - 27

formed in a complex web that depends on soft law
in all its forms-standards, codes, principles, and
guidance, derived from a wide range of multistakeholder
initiatives. It is this ecosystem as a whole that
establishes both the necessary instruments and the
needed credibility to make this type of governance
work [8], [10], [11].
The contrast with our civics class model is striking.
According to Cairney et al. [8], " rather than a
deterministic cycle, most policymaking is about collective
action in an environment that often seems
unpredictable or impossible to control. "
Although there is no single control point in these
polycentric models, there is important room for key
players who can orchestrate networks, information,
and even perceptions of credibility. In the United
States, for example, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology has played an orchestration
role over the last decade in identifying key standards
for the development of technologies such as cloud
services and smart grids that guided both standardization
and the market [12], [13]. Ecosystems are
also characterized by a wide range of intermediaries
with diverse interests, from consultants to accreditation
bodies to auditors, who can help drive an
initiative to wide adoption or nudge it toward irrelevance
[14]. Initiatives will compete with each other
on credibility, as well as subject matter, outcomes,
mindshare, and speed [11], [14].
Across these diverse polycentric actors creating
policy and regulatory guidance, soft law does not
serve solely as a replacement, alternative or gap
filler for policy as much as it is a part of a complex,
dynamic, and evolving policy ecosystem. The ecosystem
needs multistakeholder initiatives and soft
law to play a key role in governance, policy, and
assurance, especially in areas like AI that are characterized
by transnational interactions, uncertainty,
and rapid change. Soft law initiatives aiming to earn
credibility need to understand the ecosystems they
will be a part of, who the players are, what orchestrators,
intermediaries, and other stakeholders may
be able to help (or who would oppose), and how to
advance credibility within that setting.
Societal developments in institutional credibility
The year 2021 is an extraordinary time to discuss
credibility. Voters in the United States faced the 2020
presidential election that may forever be called into
question by millions of voters. Around the globe, we
December 2021
are living through a pandemic beset by conspiracy
theories and efforts to undermine science and international
institutions. Multilateralism has been under
attack by a small handful of world leaders, with former
U.S. President Trump at the forefront, even as
the UN and many academics reinforce the importance
of multilateral institutions in addressing society's
greatest challenges [15], [16]. Within the United
States, and echoed around the world, we see important
long-overdue social justice issues coming to the
fore and with that comes heated discussion of the
credibility, legitimacy, and accountability of specific
practices and institutions, from law enforcement to
voting to the U.S. postal system. And, while the tech
industry has long enjoyed the highest levels of institutional
trust around the world [17], the last few years
have brought us " techlash " with reductions in that
trust level [17], [18], most recently manifested with
multiple U.S. Congressional hearings and a developing
series of European Union (EU) antitrust investigations.
Moreover, with the broadening use of AI by
government, there are important questions about the
credibility of its use in democratic governance [19].
It is not just institutions and technology that face
credibility challenges today. Multistakeholder initiatives
such as AI soft law will inherently face similar
challenges. For example, a recent study of 21 multistakeholder
initiatives designed to protect human
rights (including Global Network Initiative, a tech
industry effort) found significant shortcomings in
stakeholder selection, accountability, and legitimacy,
leading to weaknesses in outcomes and an
overall assessment that multistakeholder initiatives
alone do not have sufficient credibility to serve in
lieu of regulation to address human rights [20].
Aspects of soft law initiatives that might once have
traveled under the radar may well gain attention
and focus-participants should build initiatives and
design collaborations accordingly. Tools like transparency
and accountability need to take on new
meaning and effectiveness. Principles like diversity,
inclusion, cultural relevance, and geographic
engagement need to take on a new priority [20],
[21]. Development of AI technology and the soft law
to guide it will both demand input from a far broader
spectrum of backgrounds than are dominant today
in the technology industry [21]-[23].
Researchers point to an important shift under way
in trust, from static to dynamic and from institutional
to distributed. Citizens are less likely today to trust an
27
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2021
