---
title: "OpenClaw | Ethical Stack"
url: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/
catalog_version: f6baff2119d0e9158520da7fbe4232011dac79f25bd08757436d7a1dbd593db2
---

# OpenClaw

Self-hostable agent gateway that connects chat channels, tools, sessions and memory to configurable model providers.

Canonical profile: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/

Scope: Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Published overall: 5.4; 5/6 dimensions rated.

Round the equal-weight mean of available numerical ratings to one decimal; require at least four of six for an overall score. BDS status stays outside the mean; for eligible profiles, a boycott target caps the final score at 2/10 and a pressure target subtracts one point (minimum 1). Not listed and not checked do not adjust the score.

## Energy practices

Finding: 4/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#energy

OpenClaw exposes host/provider choice, model context/output limits and subagent concurrency settings; it publishes no route-specific electricity or energy measurement.

Reason: 1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 2 controls = 4/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

Argument: The docs describe where the gateway and model endpoint can run and provide controls over context, generated tokens and subagent concurrency. The reviewed evidence contains no task-level energy result or mapping from remote inference to electricity sources; controls indicate operator practice, not measured reductions.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Gateway hardware use and remote provider model, region, facility and electricity mix remain deployment-dependent and unmeasured.

```json
{
  "method": "practices-transparency-v1",
  "scope": "Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.",
  "components": {
    "disclosure": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "OpenClaw documents a gateway hosted by the operator and configurable local or remote inference endpoints, but no route-level environmental report.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/local-models",
        "https://docs.openclaw.ai/concepts/model-providers/custom-providers"
      ]
    },
    "electricity": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "Operator-controlled hosting and selectable inference endpoints do not identify the power mix of the host or any remote model provider.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/local-models",
        "https://docs.openclaw.ai/concepts/model-providers/custom-providers"
      ]
    },
    "demand": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "The model manifest exposes context and output-token ceilings, and subagent settings expose concurrency limits; these can bound workload size but are not measured physical savings.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://docs.openclaw.ai/plugins/manifest/models",
        "https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/config-tools/sessions-and-subagents"
      ]
    }
  },
  "actualImpactMeasured": false
}
```

- [Local models](https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/local-models) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Custom providers and local runtimes](https://docs.openclaw.ai/concepts/model-providers/custom-providers) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [OpenClaw model context and output limits](https://docs.openclaw.ai/plugins/manifest/models) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [OpenClaw session and subagent controls](https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/config-tools/sessions-and-subagents) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Training data

Finding: Depends on the model

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#training-rights

The product can route tasks through multiple models or providers, so no single training corpus applies to this agent entry.

Reason: Select and assess the exact model and provider route before assigning corpus rights; do not infer permission from a no-training-on-prompts control.

Argument: The product can route tasks through multiple models or providers, so no single training corpus applies to this agent entry. Model version, provider, and any fine-tuning or post-training sources must be checked for the selected route; a client privacy setting does not establish training-material permission.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Exact model, version, provider, inherited base, and fine-tuning corpus vary by route or are not disclosed in the reviewed product sources.

```json
{
  "method": "training-rights-evidence-v1",
  "scope": "The stated training release or selected model",
  "components": null,
  "routeDependency": "Select and assess the exact model and provider route before assigning corpus rights; do not infer permission from a no-training-on-prompts control.",
  "modelReference": null
}
```

- [Custom providers and local runtimes](https://docs.openclaw.ai/concepts/model-providers/custom-providers) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [OpenClaw official repository](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Your data & privacy

Finding: 6/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#privacy

OpenClaw runs its gateway, sessions, workspace and memory on the configured host; prompts still go to the selected model provider unless a local model is used.

Reason: 6/10 is a middle-band judgment: the operator can host gateway state and choose a local model, but remote model, channel, plugin and gateway exposure settings materially alter who processes or can access data.

Argument: Official docs describe OpenClaw as a local-first control plane with local workspace and session history, and support local inference endpoints. Local hosting does not itself keep prompts local when a cloud model is configured, and plugins/channels share the gateway trust boundary.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Gateway exposure, backups, channel providers, external model endpoint, plugins and sandbox settings depend on the deployment.

- [What is OpenClaw?](https://docs.openclaw.ai/help/faq/what-is-openclaw) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Local models](https://docs.openclaw.ai/gateway/local-models) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Security policy](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/SECURITY.md) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Memory overview](https://docs.openclaw.ai/concepts/memory) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Openness

Finding: 9/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#openness

OpenClaw’s official repository identifies the project as MIT-licensed open source.

Reason: 9/10 reflects the publicly available MIT-licensed gateway code; selected model weights, hosted APIs and connected services retain independent terms.

Argument: The official OpenClaw repository publishes the code under MIT, enabling inspection, modification, and redistribution subject to the license. The selected model, model host, plugins, and deployment services keep their own terms and may be closed or hosted.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Releases and third-party extensions may add dependencies with separate licenses.

- [OpenClaw official repository](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [OpenClaw MIT license](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/LICENSE) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Worker protections

Finding: 1/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#labour

The open-source license does not establish working conditions for maintainers or contractors.

Reason: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1/10. Documented worker protections; missing disclosure is an evidence gap.

Argument: The reviewed official repository and security material document software licensing and security practices, but not pay, conditions, worker voice, contractor practices, or independent labor assurance. The gap is about available evidence, not a finding of mistreatment.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Maintainer employment relationships, contractor labor, and any annotation or moderation supply chain are not established.

```json
{
  "method": "worker-safeguards-evidence-v1",
  "entity": "harnesses/openclaw",
  "company": "",
  "scope": "The named developer or operator",
  "components": {
    "conditions": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "Reviewed project docs do not publish workforce pay or conditions.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
      ]
    },
    "voice": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No worker voice or remedy disclosures appear in the reviewed official project sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
      ]
    },
    "assurance": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No workforce-level independent assurance is disclosed in the reviewed sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": true
}
```

- [OpenClaw official repository](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Military ties

Finding: 7/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#military-contracts

No military relationship or product-specific restrictions are established by the reviewed project sources.

Reason: 7 base + 0 safeguard adjustment = 7/10 (0 of 9 safeguard points; every 3 adds 1). No military relationship was established in the cited sources. This ranks above known defense ties without claiming a verified clean record.

Argument: OpenClaw documents a self-hostable gateway and MIT-licensed software, but the reviewed sources do not identify defense contracts or a binding military-use restriction. Because users choose models and deployment environments, the project entry cannot establish every downstream use.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: Project-funding, government customer and downstream deployment records were not exhaustively established.

```json
{
  "method": "military-ties-priority-v2",
  "entity": "harnesses/openclaw",
  "company": "",
  "scope": "The named developer or operator",
  "components": {
    "restrictions": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "The reviewed project sources do not establish a binding military-use prohibition.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw",
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/SECURITY.md"
      ]
    },
    "oversight": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No military-specific review, enforcement or remedy is disclosed in the reviewed sources.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
      ]
    },
    "transparency": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "No defense customer or relationship disclosure is identified in reviewed project materials.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": true,
  "relationship": "not-established",
  "relationshipReason": "Official project materials reviewed did not establish a military contract, customer, or deployment.",
  "score": 7,
  "baseScore": 7,
  "safeguardPoints": 0,
  "safeguardAdjustment": 0,
  "rawScore": 7,
  "cap": null
}
```

- [OpenClaw official repository](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [What is OpenClaw?](https://docs.openclaw.ai/help/faq/what-is-openclaw) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Security policy](https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/blob/main/SECURITY.md) (primary; checked not recorded)

## BDS targets

Finding: Not listed

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/harnesses/openclaw/#israel-palestine

The OpenClaw project is not named in the two reviewed BNC target sources.

Reason: Campaign category, excluded from numerical scoring.

Argument: The official BNC guide and No Tech campaign name target companies; the OpenClaw project name does not appear in the reviewed lists. This bounded list check does not imply BDS approval or resolve relationships with providers, users, funders, or suppliers.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Gateway and workspace run on the selected host. Tool execution, chat channel, model endpoint, sandboxing and shared-gateway trust boundary are operator-configured.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: This is limited to the two official BNC campaign sources; it does not cover every local campaign, supplier, investment, or future change.

- [BNC consumer boycott and pressure guide](https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [BNC No Tech campaign](https://bdsmovement.net/no-tech-oppression-apartheid-or-genocide) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Reading the evidence

- Assessments are provisional editorial judgments. Cite the profile and the underlying sources, and retain confidence, scope and unknowns.

- Unknown, not-applicable and model-dependent are different states. Missing evidence does not establish good or bad conduct.

- Company-level evidence does not establish use of a particular product or model. Account plan, model, host and route can change an assessment.

- Energy scores describe documented practices and transparency, not measured request emissions. Zero component points can mean an evidence gap.

- Published overall scores require at least four of six numerical dimensions. Preserve coverage and BDS adjustments; BDS itself is categorical.

- No named BDS target found is limited to the reviewed campaign sources and is not approval. Personalized priorities do not change the published overall score.

- Review and source-check dates describe the research, not this deployment. Fetch current primary sources when the decision requires current verification.

Methodology: https://ethicalstack.ai/methodology/