Blog

Published on 29/08/2025 – 12:57 GMT+2
•Updated
15:40

Human rights group Amnesty International is urging governments worldwide to break up with Big Tech, arguing that “the concentration of power” of a few companies has profound implications on privacy, nondiscrimination, and access to information. 

A report published on Thursday, called ‘breaking up with Big Tech,’ by the group took aim at Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple. It urged governments to “rein in Big Tech and put people’s rights first”.

The report comes as tech relations between the United States and Europe turn fragile after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose “substantial” additional tariffs on countries that implement legislation targeting American tech companies.

“These few companies act as digital landlords who determine the shape and form of our online interaction,” said Hannah Storey, an advocacy and policy adviser on technology and human rights at Amnesty.

The report also argued that artificial intelligence (AI) is the “next phase” in tech companies’ “dominance”.

“Big Tech companies are rapidly building and deploying AI systems, prioritising speed and scale over fairness and accuracy,” the report said, adding that the biased data AI models are trained on is harmful for users and marginalised communities. It said they could be more vulnerable to harms stemming from algorithmic profiling and biometric mass surveillance.

The Amnesty report alleged that Google and Meta profit from harvesting and monetising vast quantities of our personal data and because of the companies’ market dominance, users have little meaningful choice or control over how their data is used.

“The more data they collect, the more dominant they become, and the harder it is for competitors to challenge their position,” the report added. 

Google’s YouTube and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram also use algorithms “optimised for engagement and profit,” which emphasise content meant to provoke strong emotions and outrage from users, the report said. 

Amnesty alleged that Facebook was instrumental in the Tigray war in Ethiopia (2020-2022), saying that Meta’s algorithms amplified content that incited hatred and violence against Tigrayans as government officials and pro-government activists used Facebook to “dehumanise the entire ethnic group”.

Amnesty also alleged in 2022 that Facebook prompted violence in the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar in 2017. 

Meta responded to Amnesty, saying that the report contained “multiple inaccurate claims,” including the one on Tigray, adding that it takes its role “seriously in keeping abuse off our services” and that “privacy is at the core of everything” the company does. 

Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft were also highlighted in the report for their market dominance.

Microsoft responded that it is “firmly committed to respecting human rights,” while Apple and Amazon did not respond to Amnesty’s allegations.

Euronews Next has reached out to the five companies for their reaction to the report. 

The recommendations:

Amnesty made a set of recommendations to policymakers, including states and competition authorities, to use competition laws as part of their “human rights toolbox”.

It also urged states to investigate Big Tech for human rights harms, break up companies that are found guilty of doing so, and block mergers and acquisitions that risk harming human rights. 

As for AI, the report said the generative AI sector should be investigated to establish human rights risks and impacts from anticompetitive practices. However, this may be difficult as AI companies notoriously do not share the sources of the data they use to train their models.

Whether the European Union will respond to Amnesty’s requests will stir anticipation, as calls grow for EU leaders to respond to the US tariff threat on governments that regulate American tech companies.

TOKYO (Kyodo) — Tokyo stocks fell Friday, pressured by weaker-than-expected Japanese industrial output data, while some investors locked in gains following recent advances.

The 225-issue Nikkei Stock Average ended down 110.32 points, or 0.26 percent, from Thursday at 42,718.47. The broader Topix index finished 14.60 points, or 0.47 percent, lower at 3,075.18.

On the top-tier Prime Market, notable decliners were real estate, insurance and transportation equipment issues.

The U.S. dollar mostly traded around the 147 yen line in Tokyo amid deepening uncertainty about the independence of the U.S. central bank, with Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook suing President Donald Trump on Thursday after he attempted to fire her over alleged mortgage fraud, dealers said.

At 5 p.m., the dollar fetched 147.00-02 yen compared with 146.91-147.01 yen in New York and 147.16-18 yen in Tokyo at 5 p.m. Thursday.

The euro was quoted at $1.1674-1676 and 171.61-65 yen against $1.1678-1688 and 171.61-71 yen in New York and $1.1643-1644 and 171.34-38 yen in Tokyo late Thursday afternoon.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Japanese government bond ended at 1.600 percent, down 0.015 percentage point from Thursday’s close, as the debt was bought following a decline in U.S. Treasury yields.

On the stock market, investor sentiment was negatively affected by government data that showed Japanese industrial output in July declined 1.6 percent from the previous month, weighed down by weakness in the auto sector, brokers said.

“Although market players seem to have already factored in the impact of U.S. tariffs to some extent, the data showing a decline was a negative trading incentive,” as they grew concerned about an economic downturn, said Maki Sawada, a strategist in the Investment Content Department of Nomura Securities Co.

The market was also dragged down by profit-taking, while exporter shares were sold on the yen’s appreciation, which decreases overseas profits of exporters when repatriated.

Baker McKenzie advised Zug Estates Holding AG on the successful placement of an additional CHF 100 million green bond in the Swiss market. The Zug Estates Group designs, develops, markets and manages properties in the Zug region.

The fixed-interest bond carries a coupon of 1.25% and a maturity of seven years. The proceeds will be used to refinance sustainable projects in accordance with Zug Estates’ Green Finance Framework. Application will be made for admission to trading of the bonds on SIX Swiss Exchange.

Baker McKenzie’s Matthias Courvoisier, Yves Mauchle and Samuel Marbacher advised Zug Estates on the transaction.

Independent forecasters, including MSCI, expect carbon credit prices under CORSIA to rise sharply, surpassing the peaks previously seen in the voluntary market. And with compliance penalties looming; treasury and procurement professionals must adopt a structured risk management approach to sourcing the Eligible Emissions Units that are required under CORSIA.

In this article, we outline four key risk categories in carbon procurement under CORSIA and share mitigation strategies that airlines can consider as part of their strategy for CORSIA Phase 1.

Airlines are now exposed to carbon market risk

Carbon credits are transitioning from discretionary purchases to an obligation for the aviation industry, where non-delivery or pricing missteps can result in cost overruns, audit issues or non-compliance determination from regulators.

Key drivers include:

• ICAO’s tightening credit eligibility criteria, including registry and methodology restrictions
• Finite issuance of CORSIA-eligible units from projects authorised by Article 6
• Registry delivery bottlenecks, especially during year-end submission periods
• Growing demand as Phase 1 accelerates and more airlines enter the market

This is why a passive or reactive approach to credit sourcing can present many risks for airlines.

Key risk categories in procuring Eligible Emission Units

1. Volume constraints

CORSIA’s complex eligibility criteria is likely to limit the supply of Eligible Emissions Units. For example, it only considers reduction projects starting after 2016 and specific vintages. These criteria also specify methodology restrictions and require host-country approval, which affects carbon credit eligibility.

Airlines that act early are better positioned to lock-in supply and mitigate this risk.

2. Credit price volatility

Carbon markets remain fragmented and opaque, with pricing influenced by:

• Project type and the methodologies that have been used
• Article 6 authorisation premiums
• Market sentiment ahead of compliance deadlines

Small moves in the market can result in price swings.

3. Counterparty and delivery risk

Carbon markets involve a complex network of developers, registries, brokers, traders, and various intermediaries. However, their financial standing, operational reliability, and regulatory oversight vary significantly. Large aviation industry participants, with stringent internal compliance and KYC requirements, may find it challenging to onboard a broad spectrum of these counterparties.

Partnering with financially robust and reputable entities is critical. Counterparts with strong balance sheets, and operations regulated within relevant jurisdictions are more likely to fulfill contractual obligations, mitigating risks of non-delivery or financial default.

4. Timing and procurement mismatch

Another risk stems from airlines underestimating the lead times inherent in the carbon market, leading to procurement efforts commencing too close to compliance deadlines. This critical timing mismatch can expose them to registry congestion, spot market illiquidity, and unacceptable delays in credit delivery.

Successful procurement depends on recognising the time required for all key functions, including credit verification and issuance, registry processing, and contract negotiation.

Mitigation strategies for airline carbon credit risk

Work with trusted counterparts

Finding the right partner can help you turn a compliance obligation into a competitive advantage. Look out for partners that:

• Have a track-record in carbon markets
• Can demonstrate balance sheet strength
• Understand host-country authorisation processes
• Have skin in the game and have invested in high-quality projects

Start Early

Starting procurement in 2025 can maximise your chances of securing favourable terms in a market that is forecast to be under-supplied, and provides a buffer to handle delays.

Contract Forward

You can secure future delivery of Eligible Emission Units with trusted counterparts. This might not be your full obligations under CORSIA, but it can provide a significant portion of your obligations.

Consider deliveries of EEUs on a regular basis, rather than waiting for the tight window before retirements are due.

Diversify your sourcing

Consider splitting your required volume between multiple sources, to reduce the risks of a single point of failure.

Planning for treasury and procurement

To stay ahead of the curve, treasury and procurement professionals may consider:

• Beginning credit planning 12–18 months ahead of expected delivery requirements
• Defining procurement needs by volume, delivery timeframes, and preferences for registries, activities and host countries
• Considering the multiple different types of procurement structures available
• Auditing EEU proposals against ICAO’s eligibility and tagging requirements
• Building supplier relationships that combine registry access, delivery assurance and contractual reliability

How we help airlines de-risk their carbon procurement

CSC Commodities, a division of Marex, supports the aviation industry with a dedicated trading desk and origination team that offers:

• Direct access to a wide range of CORSIA eligible carbon credits via ICAO-approved registries
• Flexible procurement structures including spot, forward and conditional to suit your specific hedging, timing and budget needs
• Support for due diligence, documentation and administration

Whether helping you secure annual compliance needs or building a procurement roadmap for Phase 1 and beyond, at CSC we can help you access this market and provide execution confidence in a volatile market.

Speak with our team about structuring a CORSIA carbon credit procurement strategy:

Read our disclaimer