Military influencers are taking over social media. The Pentagon is at a loss on how to handle them. – Business Insider

Report on Military Influencers and Institutional Policy in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

The emergence of active-duty military personnel as social media influencers presents a complex challenge to existing institutional frameworks, highlighting critical intersections with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the ethical, regulatory, and economic dimensions of this phenomenon, focusing on the need for stronger institutions, decent work policies, and effective partnerships.

Analysis of Key Challenges in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The core issue revolves around the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The current regulatory environment for military influencers is characterized by ambiguity, creating significant governance challenges.

• Policy Gaps: Existing Pentagon policies are described as vague and unevenly enforced, failing to provide clear guidance on social media monetization and personal branding. This lack of a robust legal and ethical framework undermines institutional integrity.
• Erosion of Apolitical Standards: The engagement of military influencers with political figures and controversial policies threatens the military’s apolitical ethos, a cornerstone of a stable and just institution. Recent directives to review social media for political content lack specific enforcement criteria, further contributing to regulatory uncertainty.
• Accountability and Enforcement: Responsibility for enforcement falls to unit-level commanders who may lack the expertise or clear authority to navigate complex digital monetization strategies, leading to inconsistent application of rules.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The activities of military influencers represent a new form of economic opportunity and work, which requires updated policies to ensure it is both decent and ethical.

• Emerging Economic Opportunities: Social media influencing provides a path to supplemental income for service members, reflecting modern trends in the digital and creator economies.
• Regulatory Lag: Military ethics guidelines prohibit using one’s position for personal gain but do not adequately address modern monetization methods such as speaking fees, referral codes, or brand partnerships, which are distinct from traditional advertising.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Monetization: The challenge lies in reconciling the individual’s right to economic activity with the imperative to prevent the misuse of a government position and likeness for private enrichment. This creates a precarious work environment for influencers who risk violating unclear rules.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The U.S. Army’s “Creative Reserve” pilot program exemplifies a multi-stakeholder partnership aimed at achieving institutional objectives, namely recruitment. However, it also reveals the complexities of such collaborations.

• Public-Private Collaboration Model: The program leverages the reach of individual creators (influencers) to support a public goal. This partnership has demonstrated significant reach, with an estimated 40 million views during one campaign.
• Challenges in Partnership Management: The military vacillates between appreciating influencers as recruitment assets and bristling at their independence. Tensions arise over content control, with some influencers reporting pressure to amplify specific messages or stifle independent commentary.
• Sustainable Partnership Frameworks: For such partnerships to be sustainable and effective, a clear, ethical, and mutually beneficial framework is required that respects both institutional goals and the authenticity of the individual partners.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Implications

The issue is viewed differently by various stakeholders, indicating a need for a holistic approach to policy development.

1. Military Influencers: Express a desire for clearer guidelines to legitimize their work, enhance recruitment efforts, and operate without fear of reprisal. They aim to provide an authentic view of military life but are wary of the personal and professional risks involved.
2. Military Leadership: Acknowledge the potential of influencers as powerful recruiting tools but remain concerned about the lack of message control, unpredictable optics, and content that may reflect poorly on the force.
3. Public Affairs Officers: Are often frustrated by the inability to control the narrative and the potential for an officially recognized influencer to generate negative publicity or controversy.
4. Legal and Ethics Experts: Highlight the fundamental conflict between federal ethics rules prohibiting the use of public office for personal gain and the very nature of a military influencer’s brand, which is intrinsically tied to their service.

Recommendations for Aligning with SDG Principles

Policy and Governance Reform (SDG 16)

To build a more effective and accountable institutional framework, the following steps are recommended:

• Develop a comprehensive, transparent, and modern ethical framework specifically governing social media engagement, personal branding, and monetization for service members.
• Clearly define the boundaries between personal and official capacity online to prevent conflicts of interest.
• Establish a centralized body or updated training modules to ensure consistent interpretation and enforcement of social media policies across all branches of the military.

Fostering Sustainable Economic Opportunities (SDG 8)

To support decent work while upholding ethical standards, the military should:

• Modernize ethics regulations to address contemporary digital monetization strategies beyond traditional advertising.
• Provide clear guidance and training to service members on ethical entrepreneurship and personal branding in a manner that is compliant with institutional values.
• Streamline the process for authorizing and monitoring outside employment as an influencer, ensuring fairness and transparency.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). A connection can also be made to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions is the most relevant goal. The core of the article discusses the Pentagon’s struggle as a public institution to create effective, accountable, and transparent policies. The text repeatedly highlights that “Pentagon policies on social media are vague and unevenly enforced,” which points directly to challenges in institutional governance and the rule of law within the military.
   • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth is relevant because the article explores a new form of economic activity for service members—social media influencing. It discusses monetization, the accumulation of “wealth and clout,” and the need to figure out “how to do this legally, ethically, and in a way that’s fair to the service members,” which relates to the principles of decent work and economic opportunities.
   • SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals is connected through the mention of the Army’s “Creative Reserve” pilot program. This program represents a public-private partnership where a government institution collaborates with individual influencers to achieve a specific goal (recruitment).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article is a case study of an institution grappling with this target. Phrases like “lack of clarity,” “murky space,” and influencers’ wishes for “clearer guardrails” demonstrate the need for more effective and transparent policies. The challenge is to regulate a new phenomenon “legally, ethically, and in a way that’s fair,” which is the essence of developing accountable institutions.
   • Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training. The article explicitly states that military leaders see influencers as “recruiting tools” and that the Army’s “Creative Reserve” program tapped soldier-influencers for “help recruiting and marketing.” This directly aligns with efforts to guide youth toward employment opportunities within the military.
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. The Army’s “Creative Reserve” program, which “tapped soldier-influencers for help recruiting and marketing,” is a direct example of a public-private partnership. The article explores the benefits and challenges of this collaboration, such as the Army benefiting from their posts while struggling with control and ethics.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article does not cite official SDG indicators, but it mentions or implies several qualitative and quantitative measures that could serve as indicators for the identified targets:

   • For Target 16.6:
     • Implied Indicator: The existence and clarity of institutional policies. The article’s central theme is that current guidelines are “vague” and do not address modern monetization methods like “speaking fees, referral codes, Venmo links, or payments from brands.” Progress would be indicated by the development and issuance of clear, comprehensive, and updated social media policies.
     • Implied Indicator: Consistency of policy enforcement. The article notes that rules are “unevenly enforced.” A measure of progress would be the establishment of a consistent enforcement mechanism, moving away from the “ad hoc” directives mentioned.
   • For Target 8.6:
     • Mentioned Indicator: The reach and engagement of recruitment campaigns using influencers. The article provides a specific metric: posts from the “Creative Reserve” influencers were “estimated to reach 40 million views during the Army’s 250th birthday celebration.” This serves as a direct indicator of the output of these recruitment efforts.
   • For Target 17.17:
     • Mentioned Indicator: The establishment and operational status of partnership programs. The article explicitly mentions the creation of the “Creative Reserve” pilot program and notes that it is now “paused.” The number and status (active, paused, successful) of such partnerships can be used as an indicator of collaboration efforts.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	Existence and clarity of institutional social media policies (Implied). Consistency and fairness of policy enforcement mechanisms (Implied).
   SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	Target 8.6: Substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training.	Audience reach of recruitment campaigns using influencers (e.g., “40 million views”) (Mentioned).
   SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.	Establishment and operational status of partnership programs like the “Creative Reserve” (Mentioned).

Source: yahoo.com