The Meta-Constitution of 'Beyond the Law' Metrics: How Power Functions Beyond the Law

The Value-Filtering System Permeating Daily Life

You wake up and open your banking app. You look at job postings online while thinking about changing careers. You receive a bill for school lunches from your child's school. At first glance, these are unremarkable scenes of daily life, but a massive change is occurring behind the scenes.

Your bank account, your job search, your child's school lunch—all of these are beginning to be filtered through specific values. Moreover, this is happening not through laws or elections, but through a technical mechanism called 'measurement metrics'.

The 'Climate Factor' system introduced by the European Central Bank in July 2025 is a classic example. It quantifies a company's environmental performance and reduces the value of bonds from poorly rated companies by up to 20% when used as collateral. Oil and steel companies face pressure to be shut out of financial markets simply because they are 'bad for the environment,' regardless of their actual business performance.

“But isn't environmental protection important?”

It is understandable to think so. The issue is not environmental protection itself, but ratherwho decides the criteria and how they are implemented.

It is not elected politicians who perform these evaluations. International organizations such as the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), ISO (International Organization for Standardization), and IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) set the standards under the guise of being 'scientific and objective.' However, looking at the actual evaluation process, which elements are emphasized and how they are weighted is based entirely on subjective political judgment.

Ideological Control Orchestrated by the Financial System

“Your savings and pensions are being used for value-based investing without your knowledge” — even if told this, many people would not grasp the reality.

When banks and pension funds make investments, they refer to 'top-tier company lists' created by index companies such as MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) and FTSE (Financial Times Stock Exchange). What is used in this selection process is ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) evaluation.

However, this evaluation criterion has a clear political bias built into it. Fossil fuel companies are automatically given low ratings regardless of technological innovation or profitability and are excluded from investment targets. On the other hand, renewable energy companies receive high ratings even if their management is unstable.

Even more blatant is that ESG evaluationassesses a company's political stance as well.Efforts to promote diversity, responses to human rights issues, and attitudes toward climate change—these are inherently matters involving political values. Yet, they are being forced upon companies as 'scientific and objective evaluations.'

What is actually happening in the field of investment? According to 2022 data, the total assets of ESG investments have reached approximately $35 trillion (about 5 quadrillion yen) globally. This corresponds to about one-third of all investment assets. Even if you are not aware of it, there is a high probability that a portion of your savings and pensions is being used for investments aligned with specific political values.

The Value-Enforcement System Known as Government Procurement

The most familiar and easy-to-understand example is the enforcement of values through government procurement.

Let's consider the example of school lunch providers for local governments. Previously, price and quality were the main selection criteria. Now, it is different. Compliance with dozens of 'social value' items—such as the source of ingredients, fuel efficiency of delivery vehicles, gender ratio of employees, and human rights considerations in the supply chain—has become a mandatory requirement.

These criteria are explained as 'scientific and objective.' But in reality, they are political judgments reflecting a specific ideology. Why are locally sourced ingredients superior? Why are electric vehicles more environmentally friendly? Why is the gender ratio important? Despite the fact that there are various objections to these, they are treated as 'scientific facts' that are beyond debate.

Government procurement is a massive market that accounts for 13% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in developed countries. In Japan, it amounts to approximately 20 trillion yen annually. Being shut out of this market is, for a company, effectively equivalent to an economic death sentence.

Moreover, the impact does not end there. Prime contractors dealing with the government demand the same standards from their subcontractors. Even in transactions between private companies, the same standards are adopted because it is more cost-effective to align with government criteria. As a result, society as a whole becomes unified under the same set of values.

The Reality of Perception Manipulation Through Data Blockades

The most cunning method is indirect censorship through restricted access to research data.

Under the international treaty known as the Nagoya Protocol, data concerning biodiversity is strictly managed under the guise of 'protecting indigenous rights' and 'genetic resource sovereignty.' While this may seem like a legitimate reason at first glance, in actual practice, it functions to obstruct research that is inconvenient.

Researchers seeking alternative explanations for climate change abandon their studies because they cannot access the necessary biodiversity data. Even when attempting to examine different approaches to health policy, access to data is denied on the grounds of protecting indigenous data.

This is not direct censorship. It is a clever mechanism where 'what cannot be researched cannot be discussed, and what cannot be discussed does not exist as a policy option'.

In fact, similar control is advancing in the world of scientific research. The allocation of research funding, the peer-review system of academic journals, and opportunities for presentation at conferences—all of these are now determined by whether they conform to specific values. Researchers are being forced into a situation where they must prioritize 'political conformity for funding' rather than the 'pursuit of scientific truth.'

The 'Sustainability' Fraud Exposed by the WTO

Internationally, the problem of this value-enforcement system is also surfacing.

In the WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute settlement procedures, procurement standards under the guise of sustainability have been invalidated in successive cases as 'disguised protectionism.' It has been exposed that under the beautiful name of environmental protection, these measures actually function as discriminatory actions that favor domestic companies and exclude foreign ones.

For example, in timber procurement, a standard of 'derived from sustainably grown forests' is set. While it appears rational at first glance, it actually functions as a mechanism that effectively mandates certificates from specific national certification bodies, thereby excluding companies from other countries. Even for timber of the same quality, the treatment changes based on political value judgments.

Many of the standards described as 'objective and scientific' are actually based on highly subjective and political judgments—this is the reality revealed through WTO disputes.

The Political Bias of Measurement Systems

So, why did this situation arise?

The key is the 'politics of measurement.' What to measure, how to measure it, and how to interpret the results—political value judgments are embedded in all of these. However, because they have a technical and scientific appearance, their political nature is concealed.

Let us consider the 'Better Life Index' promoted by the OECD as an example. What constitutes a 'better life' should inherently differ depending on diverse cultures and values. However, the OECD presents specific Western values as 'scientific and universal.'

The PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) scores for education indicators are the same. Measurements based on a specific view of education are imposed on various countries as the 'objective standard of education.' Countries with low scores are told that 'educational reform is necessary' and are pressured to introduce the OECD-style education system.

Environmental indicators show even more blatant political bias. Setting CO2 reduction targets, prioritizing the ratio of renewable energy, and turning fossil fuels into 'stranded assets' (excluding them from investment targets on the grounds that they will become worthless due to future environmental regulations)—these are all political choices based on specific environmental ideologies.

The true identity of the world government that no one elected

What emerges here is the existence of a world government that has never been elected by vote.

The OECD, ISO, IIASA, BIS (Bank for International Settlements), Financial Stability Board, and ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation)—these international organizations are working together to build a de facto global governance system.

They do not have direct legal authority. However, through technical standards, measurement methods, certification systems, financial regulations, and procurement criteria, they constrain the actions of national governments and companies more powerfully than laws do.

Politicians accept policy recommendations generated by these institutions as 'scientific and objective advice.' However, that 'scientific nature' and 'objectivity' are merely illusions. Behind them lie clear political values and vested interests.

In reality, the decision-making processes of these institutions are extremely opaque. Who the members are, what kind of discussions are taking place, and which stakeholders are exerting influence—the general public has no way of knowing.

The new reality companies face

How is this value-control system affecting the corporate front lines?

When I talk to managers of small and medium-sized enterprises, I hear a common voice of confusion.

'In the past, we could compete on quality and price. Now, unless we clear dozens of items on a checklist—environmental certification, human rights considerations, diversity promotion—we can't even stand on the playing field of competition.'

'It costs several million yen a year to obtain certification. That's not a problem for large corporations, but it's a heavy burden for us.'

'The standards keep changing. Even if we clear them this year, new items will be added next year.'

What is interesting is the existence of experts (consultants) who are well-versed in these standards. They provide 'compliance support' to companies and are making enormous profits. The structure is such that every time new regulations or standards are created, new business opportunities are born.

The side that creates the regulations and the side that supports compliance with those regulations have formed a de facto profit-sharing community—this is the current situation.

Changes happening at the individual level

The impact is beginning to appear not only at the corporate level but also at the individual level.

In job hunting, a company's 'value alignment' has become emphasized. At companies that promote ESG management, there are increasing instances of being asked about one's thoughts on environmental and social issues during interviews. Knowing the 'correct answer' is becoming a condition for hiring.

Even in mortgage screenings, the energy efficiency performance of a property is now being considered. For properties with low environmental performance, interest rates may be higher or loan amounts may be restricted.

Furthermore, some countries are moving forward with the introduction of personal 'social credit score' systems. Environmental awareness, social contribution activities, and the degree of cooperation with government policies—these are quantified and influence access rights to various services.

Digital identity systems are also beginning to fulfill similar functions. Vaccination history, environmentally friendly behavior, and the degree of social contribution—this information is linked to a digital ID and checked during every transaction or movement.

The Difficulty and Sophistication of Resistance

Why is it so difficult to resist this system?

First, it is the fact that it does not use legal coercion. You are not prohibited from doing anything by law. However, if you do not comply, it becomes difficult to receive financial services, finding employment becomes hard, you cannot secure government work, and social participation is restricted. Formally, it is 'free choice,' but in reality, it is close to coercion.

Second, it is the fact that it masquerades as moral legitimacy. Environmental protection, respect for human rights, social justice—who could oppose these? If you oppose them, you are labeled an 'environmental destroyer,' a 'human rights skeptic,' or an 'enemy of society.' Expressing dissenting opinions itself becomes a target for social sanctions.

Third, it is the fact that it systematically eliminates alternative options. Independent research, evaluation systems based on different values, and alternative financial systems—these are rendered dysfunctional through data access restrictions, difficulties in fundraising, and exclusion from platforms.

Fourth, it is the difficulty of understanding due to complexity. The entire system is so complex that it is difficult for the general public to understand. ISO standards, ESG evaluations, prudential regulations, procurement guidelines—in this forest of technical jargon, grasping the big picture is an extremely difficult task.

The Completed Form of Thought Control

Let us step back here and view the situation from a broader perspective.

This may be the completed form of thought control.

Traditional authoritarian regimes restricted people's behavior through physical violence or legal coercion. However, modern systems are much more sophisticated. They adopt a technical and scientific appearance, claim moral legitimacy, and while making it look as if there is freedom of choice, they actually force obedience to specific values.

Moreover, mechanisms are built in that make resistance extremely difficult. Dissenting opinions are dismissed as 'science denial' or 'conspiracy theories,' alternative systems are excluded as 'unfeasible,' and critics are attacked as 'vested interests.'

What is most frightening is that many people accept this system as 'progress' or 'improvement.' Measures against environmental destruction, correction of social inequality, holding corporations accountable—on the surface, these look like wonderful ideals.

But in reality, it may be a system where a small group of elites with a specific worldview forces their values onto the world under a technical guise.

The State of Penetration in Japan

In Japan, too, the penetration of this system is steadily progressing.

In corporate governance, the Tokyo Stock Exchange's Corporate Governance Code is revised periodically, and the disclosure of ESG factors is being made mandatory in stages. For companies listed on the Prime Market, the disclosure of climate change risks has become effectively mandatory.

In the financial sector, the Bank of Japan has published its basic approach to promoting sustainable finance, indirectly encouraging green investment by financial institutions. The Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) has clearly stated its intention to expand ESG investment.

In government procurement as well, the scope of items subject to the Green Purchasing Law is being expanded and standards are being strengthened toward the realization of 2050 carbon neutrality. At the local government level, procurement that considers sustainability is also being promoted.

In the field of education, SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) education has been incorporated into the Courses of Study, teaching children specific values as 'universal truths.' Education, which should foster critical thinking, may in fact be used for the indoctrination of specific ideologies.

Changes in Media and the Public Sphere

A similar control system is beginning to function in the information environment as well.

The increase in fact-checking organizations may appear at first glance to be a qualitative improvement in information. However, in reality, it functions as a mechanism to concentrate the authority to determine 'correct information' and 'incorrect information' into specific organizations.

On social media platforms, accounts with specific viewpoints are restricted under the guise of 'misinformation countermeasures.' Dissent regarding climate change, questions about vaccine safety, and criticism of government policies—these are treated as 'science denial' or 'conspiracy theories,' and their visibility is suppressed by algorithms.

In academia as well, the selection of research themes, the allocation of funds, the peer review of papers, and presentations at academic conferences—everything is becoming determined by whether it conforms to specific values.A situation is emerging where 'political conformity' is prioritized over the 'pursuit of scientific truth.'

Independent media and individual journalists are facing economic pressure through restrictions on advertising revenue, exclusion from platforms, and denial of access to payment processing systems. Indirect control through economic means is being carried out rather than direct censorship.

The Completion of Non-Democratic Rule Beyond the Law

'It's complicated, so it should be left to the experts,' 'Not all ESG investment is bad,' 'It can't be helped if we want to protect the global environment'—it is precisely this 'rational' and 'mature' attitude that has concealed their extraterritorial power and enabled its continuation.

Remember what they did during the COVID pandemic. They forced an experimental gene therapy called mRNA vaccines by falsely claiming it was 'safe and effective,' killing and injuring countless people. They thoroughly censored effective treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and intimidated doctors into silence. Through lockdowns, they systematically bankrupted small and medium-sized businesses, triggered a mental health crisis, and deprived children of educational opportunities.

And now, five years later, instead of reflecting, they are trying to further strengthen control through digital currencies, digital IDs, and AI-based surveillance systems.The same organizations, the same individuals, and the same networks are now building the next stage of the control system under the beautiful names of 'environmental protection' and 'sustainability.'

Under the pretext of responding to environmental issues, they are destroying ecosystems by covering them with solar panels, slaughtering wild birds with wind power generation, and expanding cobalt mining through child labor for electric vehicles. Is this 'solving complex global problems'? It should rather be seen as using them as a pretext to justify control while actually exacerbating the problems.

The social contract has already collapsed. It is an illusion that we are 'benefiting from the system.' When did we choose that system? Were we ever given a true alternative system as an option? While making it look as if we have the right to choose, in reality, most options are designed to serve their interests. I do not call that a benefit.