The Western ‘Orwellian’ Perspective on the Chinese Social Credit System
By Matilda Ines Sorzana | 20th of March, 2026 | 6 min
Chinese women show the scores of their Zhima Credit of Alibaba’s Ant Financial in Hangzhou City on May 9, 2016
China’s corporate social credit system is a scoring system which is used to rate the data-driven ‘trustworthiness’ of businesses registered in China. Whilst around the world some other countries may carry out similar mechanisms; such as Italy’s, ‘smart citizen wallet’, or South Korea’s ‘Green Credit’ system - none can be compared to the extent to which China’s centralised credit scores function. The core aim before its formal launch as a nationwide project in 2014, was to create a ‘culture of creditworthiness’. The first observed data which was extracted was from Zhejiang, the first province in China to implement the CSCS. This would give insights into the following questions: (1) What are the determining factors of these corporate scores? and (2) How would the implementation of the CSCS affect the compliance and behaviour of firms?
The way it works is that it collects basic types of information that will be collected on each company when the CSCS is fully operational: a) public credit information which can be accessed by local governments and b) data regarding credit information which is generated by a multiplex of sources from the likes of credit-rating agencies, consumers and contract performances. Naturally, there is a way in which the results from these companies are categorised, and quite harshly so through the systems of rewards and punishments to which this system is linked. The first of these categories is the red listing, which awards the entity with a variation of benefits such as an increased access to loans and a reduction in the amount of inspections by the CSCS due to their rise in ‘trustworthiness’. Subsequently, the black listings come with a series of punishments such as market barriers, more inspections, and bans on acquiring credit or issuing stocks. However, this is seen from the perspective of the company and organisations - but what happens when you apply such a critical vigilance system on the individuals of a state?
According to ABC news (Carney, 2020), China is building a digital dictatorship. It is widely agreed amongst Chinese citizens that the Social Credit System boosts public morality and punishes fraud, however, this opinion is widely debated in the Western world. This is particularly due to the vast network of 200 million CCTV cameras across the country which ensures the thoroughness of the system. According to the documents which depict the outline, written by the CCP, the SCSC will ‘allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven [China] while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step’. This phrase is the picture of the ideological goal of the system - it is there to incentivise behaviour that aligns with the state’s definition of trustworthiness whilst discouraging disruptive behaviour. But, still to the Western mind there is something unsettling about being monitored 24/7, even if it is under the premise of giving up a slight fraction of our freedom for the ‘bettering’ of society. Notably, the UK already has credit checking systems such as data brokers from Experian (Kobie 2019).
The phrase “Orwellian tool” comes from George Orwell’s novel 1984. In the story, the government keeps strict control over society by constantly watching people and controlling. Today, the term is often used to describe technologies that could allow governments or powerful organisations to monitor individuals, influence behaviour, or limit personal freedoms. An example of this would be Facial recognition systems which allow computers to identify people by analysing their facial features. Law enforcement agencies sometimes use this technology to scan crowds or compare faces with large databases. Supporters argue that it helps prevent crime, but critics worry about privacy issues, possible misidentification, and the idea of being monitored in public without consent. This was highlighted by Vice President Pence in October 2018, who in a conservative think tank in the US accused the Chinese Communist Party of interfering in US politics and stealing US property in a digital sense (Matkasis, 2019). He portages that the Orwellian complex encapsulated by the ‘Chinese rulers’ controlled every facet of human life. However, his take can be seen as an example of an exaggerated narrative which is projected by Western states. This faces the need for many popular claims which need to be debunked: Firstly, that every Chinese citizen has a 3-digit social credit score which controls their life - this is only half wrong as it was briefly tried locally and then dissolved. Secondly, that ‘It’s all enforced by omniscient Palantir like AI and facial recognition’ - this is incorrect as the SCS is predominantly data-base driven and paperwork driven.
In conclusion, social governance in the age of digitalisation will always be amongst global discussion and debate. However, rather than instantly dismissing and judging China’s uncontroversial governance methodology, it is vital to understand why it is in place. For the past decades, the economic market in China has exponentially grown and people's living standards have also increased - however, so did fraud and technology-enabled economic crimes. Information was moving faster than sensors could keep up - and every few years a government scandal such as the Underreporting of the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2011 high speed rail crash would occur. Thus a system which commands trust is seen as the consequent and natural follow through. Indeed whilst it has blacklisted an estimated 10 million citizens and companies (Huotari, 2021), the global narrative portrayed by western newspaper and social media outlets depict the SCS as a ruthless totem of authoritarianism when in reality it is locally scoring systems.
Matilda Ines Sorzana is a first-year Global Law student.
