In the northwest corner of a Saudi Arabian desert, a city of the future is taking shape—or so we are told. NEOM, the brainchild of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is a centerpiece of his Vision 2030 plan. The plan aims to diversify Saudi Arabia’s economy beyond oil and to draw positive attention to the regime’s portfolio of in-progress megaprojects. The NEOM project’s projected nearly $1 trillion price tag promises cutting-edge technology, sustainable living, and revolutionary urban design.
The Line, easily the most ambitious element of MBS’ Vision 2030 plan, envisions a 170-kilometer mirrored city slicing through the desert. It will be car-free, walkable, and powered by artificial intelligence. Innovations like flying taxis and floating structures are planned. The vision is audacious, but can NEOM deliver on these lofty promises? Historical success rates of projects like this, practical challenges, and ethical concerns suggest skepticism may be warranted.
Read on to explore with us the question of whether NEOM is the future of urban life—or another extravagant, unfulfilled dream.
The Line: Aiming to Reshape Urban (Desert) Living
At the heart of Project 2030 lies The Line, a concept so bold it has drawn comparisons to science fiction. It is designed to house 9 million people in two parallel skyscrapers that stretch 170 kilometers across the desert. The city’s initial footprint intends to occupy just 34 square kilometers, with residents promised seamless access to green spaces, services, speedy transportation, and AI-powered support systems.
Turning such an ambitious vision into reality has proven far more complex than originally anticipated. Officials originally projected that The Line would house 1.5 million residents by 2030, but that figure has since been revised to under 300,000. Construction delays have also tempered expectations. By 2030, less than three kilometers of the project are expected to be completed by the promised deadline—far from the ambitious 170 kilometers originally proposed.
The practical challenges of building such a dense, vertical city in the desert are daunting. Questions about resource management, energy supply, and livability have so far gone unanswered. Is it possible for NEOM to deliver water, energy, and waste management systems that align with its sustainability claims in any way? And can millions of people truly thrive in such a confined urban space, especially one in the middle of an arid Saudi desert?
Human Costs: Relocations and Labor Concerns
Mega-projects often come with a human toll, and NEOM is no exception. To clear the way for construction, over 20,000 members of the Huwaitat tribe were forcibly displaced from their ancestral lands. These evictions have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations condemning the removals as unjust and heavy-handed.
Concerns extend beyond displacements. Investigations by outlets like Bloomberg and The Nation have documented troubling reports about the working conditions for NEOM’s migrant labor force. Allegations of unsafe environments and substandard living conditions have surfaced. Claims of a “staggering number” of worker deaths exist, though the exact figures remain unclear.
The Saudi government has defended its practices and denied the accuracy of the extensive death and injury toll. Government officials have stated that contractors must comply with NEOM’s Code of Conduct, which aligns with international labor standards. That said, enforcement appears inconsistent. Without robust oversight, these government assurances do little to address concerns about labor rights and safety pertaining to this project.
Environmental Contradictions
NEOM’s sustainability pitch is one of its most publicized selling points. The project claims to prioritize renewable energy, conservation, and eco-friendly living. Yet the realities of building and operating a megacity in the desert necessarily raise serious environmental questions. Even in large cities like Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada, in the United States, residents frequently encounter issues like water shortages during the hottest summer months.
Just one example of infrastructure issues that could rear an ugly head here: Desalination plants will be essential to supply water for NEOM’s residents and operations. These facilities require vast amounts of energy and produce brine that can harm marine ecosystems. Meanwhile, the carbon footprint of constructing mirrored skyscrapers stretching for kilometers and maintaining a city in such a harsh climate cast serious doubts on the likelihood that Saudi Arabian officials will be able to meet the project’s promises of environmental harmony.
Critics of this project portfolio also point to the disruption of local ecosystems presented by the construction of The Line. NEOM’s massive scale requires clearing vast tracts of land, which could threaten biodiversity and fragile habitats. While Saudi officials highlight their commitment to sustainable development, the environmental trade-offs seem at odds with the project’s green branding.
Mega-Projects and the Risk of Overreach
NEOM isn’t the first audacious mega-project the world has seen. Grand visions often attract global attention, but they also come with a history of failure. Consider Dubai’s World Islands, an artificial island designed to resemble a map of the world. It was envisioned as a luxury destination but became a cautionary tale when financial difficulties halted construction. Today, most of the islands remain unfinished, their initial promise unfulfilled.
Another example is Malaysia’s 1MDB development fund, which aimed to finance national infrastructure projects. Instead, it became synonymous with corruption and financial mismanagement. Billions intended for development vanished through fraudulent deals, leaving Malaysia with a massive debt burden. NEOM risks following a similar trajectory. With its unprecedented scale and opaque financing, it faces challenges common to overambitious projects: cost overruns, delays, and a lack of practical outcomes.
The Transparency Problem
Skepticism about NEOM centers on the issue of transparency. The project is funded by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), which manages billions of dollars earmarked for the kingdom’s economic transformation. However, the lack of public accountability regarding PIF’s spending raises questions. Saudi Arabia is infamously unfriendly to journalists who express frank criticism or well-meaning skepticism of its promises and plans.
Critics worry about potential misuse or inefficiency in managing such a vast sum. In a system where the Crown Prince holds significant power and decision-making is centralized, there are few checks and balances to ensure that funds are allocated wisely. Transparency isn’t just about money. It extends to timelines, environmental impacts, and governance. For a project as complex as NEOM, public confidence depends on clear communication and visible progress. Without these, skepticism will continue to grow.
Legacy or Non-starter Mega-Project?
For MBS, NEOM represents more than a city—it’s a legacy project. If successful, it could redefine Saudi Arabia’s global image, positioning the kingdom as a leader in innovation and sustainability and cementing its status as a transformative figure.
But the risks are equally significant. If NEOM falters, it could become a symbol of overreach and wasted resources.
Ambitious projects like this often straddle a fine line between visionary and vanity. The question is whether NEOM can deliver substance to match its spectacle. NEOM’s marketing emphasizes the future. It draws attention with buzzwords like “smart city” and “sustainability,” but tangible results must back these claims.
Compliance Concerns: Mega-Projects Require Mega Transparency
When public funds are at stake, as they are with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), clear oversight is essential to ensure resources are used efficiently and ethically. NEOM’s opacity risks undermining public trust, especially when billions of dollars are committed to an initiative with such grand ambitions.
International standards like the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises emphasize the need for transparency in large-scale projects. They require both the government and corporate partners to disclose funding allocations and progress reports regularly. Without this transparency, the project is vulnerable to mismanagement, fraud, or corruption, which could cost taxpayers and investors far more than anticipated.
Labor Standards, Oversight Requirements, and Responsibility
One of the most pressing compliance concerns surrounding NEOM is the treatment of migrant laborers involved in its construction. Reports of poor working conditions, safety violations, and even worker deaths cast doubt on whether the project complies with international labor laws. The International Labor Organization (ILO) sets clear guidelines for worker welfare, and any project that attracts global attention must be held to these standards.
Governments and corporations involved in construction projects—mega-projects or otherwise—must rigorously oversee their subcontractors to ensure that working conditions meet legal and ethical standards. Failing to address these concerns not only jeopardizes workers’ lives but also exposes businesses to reputational risks and potential legal action. Compliance with labor rights is a fundamental part of any large-scale project, especially in regions like Saudi Arabia, where labor laws are often criticized for not being robust enough.
Environmental Compliance: Sustainability vs. Reality
Projects of NEOM’s scale are frequently subject to frameworks like the Equator Principles, which guide the assessment of environmental and social risks in infrastructure projects. While NEOM claims to be committed to sustainable development, the environmental cost of building a city in such an extreme environment remains high. From energy consumption in desalination plants to the ecological impact of clearing vast swaths of land, the project must meet internationally recognized environmental standards to be deemed truly sustainable. Failing to do so could result in long-term ecological damage and potentially ruin NEOM’s environmental reputation.
Human Rights Due Diligence in Government Projects
NEOM’s displacement of the Huwaitat tribe is an example of how large-scale government projects can violate human rights. The alleged mistreatment of the members of this and other tribes indigenous to Saudi Arabia raise serious human rights concerns. International human rights frameworks, like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, mandate that both governments and corporations involved in such projects conduct thorough due diligence before proceeding. The forced evictions of entire communities to make way for NEOM not only infringe on the rights of these individuals but also pose a long-term risk to the project’s image and public perception of the nation of Saudi Arabia.
Governance Frameworks for Public Investment Funds
The Saudi government’s funding of NEOM through the Public Investment Fund (PIF) raises important questions about the governance frameworks in place to manage such a vast and complex initiative. The lack of transparency and independent oversight of PIF’s operations presents significant risks.
Global standards like the Santiago Principles, which promote accountability and transparency in sovereign wealth funds, provide a framework for ensuring the effective management of large-scale public investments. Without adhering to these principles, NEOM could become a textbook case of mismanagement, with funds diverted away from critical project components or misused for personal interests.
The Private Sector’s Role in Compliance
The companies involved in NEOM must adhere to strict ethical and legal standards to avoid the potential risks of corruption, labor violations, and environmental harm. As multinational players, they must comply with international laws and ethical norms. These include the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act, which prohibit corrupt dealings in international projects.
By adhering to these standards, the private sector partners working on the NEOM project can help ensure that it is legally compliant and ethically sound. This level of compliance is necessary to safeguard against reputational damage and mitigate the potential for public backlash should the project fail to live up to its promises.
The Bottom Line: NEOM’s Potential and Pitfalls
NEOM is undeniably a bold vision, but it faces significant risks that could overshadow its potential. The project’s ambitious plans to integrate cutting-edge technology and sustainability face obstacles that could derail its success. Mismanagement, corruption, and environmental contradictions loom large, making NEOM’s future uncertain. Whether it becomes a global model of innovation or an embarrassing failure will depend on how well the kingdom navigates the complexities of governance, compliance, and ethics. For now, NEOM remains a dream suspended between hope and skepticism.