The Fair Impact Work Group is a proposed governance model for keeping human dignity and fair contribution central as automation and AI reshape labor. It addresses a specific pressure: when machines and agents perform more of the work, the question of who is recognized — and fairly treated — for the impact produced becomes easy to lose.
Principle
Automation changes what work is, but it must not be allowed to erase who contributed or to strip the dignity from contribution. Impactivism's directive names ending non-consensual exploitation as a defining aim; as labor is reshaped by systems that can obscure the human hand behind an outcome, protecting fair contribution becomes an active governance task rather than a safe assumption. The model exists to hold that task open — to keep the human stake in work visible while the nature of work is in flux.
What the model addresses
- Attribution through the change. Impact produced with the help of automation still traces to the people who directed, enabled, and are accountable for it — contribution is recognized, not absorbed into the tool.
- Dignity as a condition, not a cost. How people are treated and compensated as their roles shift is a fairness question governance must answer, echoing the I-Corp's workforce-transparency commitment.
- Fair contribution under automation. The value of human work — including the non-market contributions the wider economy renders invisible — is kept legible as machines take on more of the visible tasks.
Guards against
Dignity erosion under automation — the drift by which efficiency displaces fair recognition, and people become inputs to a process rather than participants in it whose contribution is seen and honored.
Status: Draft
This is the least settled of the six models, and its status says so plainly. Its concern is clear and its grounding in the Prime Directive is firm, but its form — whether it operates as a standing body, a standard, a review function, or some combination — is not yet decided. It is recorded here as a Draft: a commitment the movement has named and intends to develop, not a mechanism it claims to have built.