FOR decades, the global development community has had a roadmap for sustainability. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015 under the 2030 Agenda, established 17 targets covering the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of development. These remain our shared blueprint for a more prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable future.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles provide another important lens through which governments, businesses and development institutions translate these aspirations into investment decisions and measurable outcomes.
But the world has changed dramatically since 2015.
Artificial intelligence, semiconductors, cloud computing, data centers, and digital infrastructure are transforming economies at extraordinary speed. Technology is no longer simply another sector. It is becoming the infrastructure through which almost every sector operates.
This raises a fundamental question: What does a digitally sustainable economy look like?
My proposition is simple: Digital should remain a qualifier, not the end goal. Technology is a means of achieving sustainable development, not a substitute for sustainability itself.
A digitally sustainable economy should, therefore, be judged not only by how quickly technology is deployed, how much investment is attracted, or how many chips are manufactured.
We should ask whether digitalization expands inclusion, creates decent jobs, improves resilience, reduces environmental impact, strengthens accountability, and broadens access to finance, education, health care and essential services.
Ultimately, does it leave more people better off?
The controversy surrounding flood control projects in the Philippines illustrates what can happen when infrastructure and public investment are viewed primarily through physical delivery rather than sustainability, transparency, community impact, and resilience.
Lesson
The lesson is not that infrastructure is bad. It is that infrastructure without a sustainability mindset can fail the communities it is supposed to protect.
The same principle should guide discussions around Pax Silica, the United States-led initiative to strengthen secure and resilient supply chains for artificial intelligence and related technologies, including semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and advanced manufacturing.
I am not against technology or progress. I am for responsible and accountable progress. This perspective was shaped early in my career. In the early 2000s, as a portfolio analyst covering telecommunications at the International Finance Corp. (IFC), I worked with senior management in overseeing investments and monitoring key performance indicators in what was then an emerging technology sector.
Telecommunications were transforming how businesses and communities connected across developing markets. But being new and fast-growing did not mean environmental and social considerations could be ignored. The experience taught me an enduring principle: New technology does not require a new standard of responsibility.
One example was Celtel, the Pan-African telecom company founded by Mo Ibrahim in 1998. Celtel grew across 14 African countries and served millions of subscribers. In 2004, IFC gave the company its first Client Leadership Award for its commitment to corporate governance and environmental and social sustainability.
This was long before ESG became a mainstream corporate acronym. Celtel showed that environmental and social risk management did not have to obstruct technological expansion. IFC also worked with telecom companies, including Celtel operations, on initiatives addressing HIV/AIDS.
The broader lesson was that managing social risks could create business value rather than simply satisfy compliance requirements. Workforce health strengthens resilience. Community engagement builds trust. Good governance reinforces investor confidence. Local employment and capacity building spread the economic benefits of infrastructure investment.
I’m not saying that every positive outcome at Celtel resulted from ESG practices, or that the company perfectly represented today’s ESG framework. Its experience simply demonstrated that technological growth and responsible business practices need not be opposing objectives.
Ibrahim later established the Mo Ibrahim Foundation to promote good governance and leadership in Africa. That evolution — from technology entrepreneur to governance advocate — is relevant today. Technology can create enormous economic value, but governance helps determine whether that value is sustainable and broadly shared.
This month, I had the privilege of moderating a panel with representatives from the National University of Singapore, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Women’s World Banking and Agrea Agricultural Systems International.
Our discussion reinforced that sustainability in the digital economy goes far beyond environmental stewardship. It is also about including people historically underserved by formal economic systems — women, low-income households, rural communities, farmers and small businesses.
Digital technology gives us powerful tools to close these gaps. Financial technology can lower transaction costs and reach people outside traditional banking. Alternative data can help entrepreneurs establish financial identities and obtain credit. Digital platforms can connect farmers and small businesses to markets. AI can improve public and financial services.
But technology can also deepen exclusion when affordability, digital literacy, privacy and consumer protection are ignored. This is why we cannot simply ask whether technology works. We must ask: Who benefits? Who is left behind? Who bears the risks? And who is accountable when things go wrong?
As initiatives such as Pax Silica reshape the global technology landscape, we have an opportunity to create more winners and fewer losers. But it will not happen automatically.
The SDGs can remain our destination. ESG can provide the risk and accountability framework. Digital technology can be a powerful means of getting there.
The real measure of technological progress is not simply how advanced our technology becomes. It is whether technology creates a better everyday life for more people.
Digital is not the destination. Sustainable and inclusive development is.
