Content uploaded by René Bohnsack
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by René Bohnsack on Jun 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Jonatan Pinkse
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonatan Pinkse on Dec 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
EDITORIAL
Sustainability in the digital age: Intended and unintended
consequences of digital technologies for sustainable
development
1|INTRODUCTION
Digitalization and sustainability are currently “hot”topics for
policymakers and practitioners. Scholars working on their interaction
have been cautious in their optimism, though. Not all digitalization
contributes to the creation of sustainable value. Some forms of digita-
lization accelerate consumption and inequalities and exacerbate
growth patterns that further breach the planetary boundaries. The
German Advisory Council on Global Change, for example, warns of
the dangers in its report Towards Our Common Digital Future
(WBGU, 2019), while the Club of Rome (2019) recommended in an
open letter to the EU President that we need to ensure that exponential
technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), and digitalization are optimized
for people, planet, and prosperity through the delivery of a low-carbon,
sustainable, socially just, well-being-oriented circular society.
Traditionally, sustainability has been viewed from a triple bottom
line perspective (i.e., environmental, social, and economic sustainabil-
ity). Sustainability in the digital age blurs the boundaries of the triple
bottom line and transcends the dimensions of sustainable value.
Assessing whether digital technology creates or destroys sustainable
value requires a more nuanced perspective, accounting for issues such
as ownership of identity, data safety, and digital waste, which coa-
lesce the physical and digital world. Digital technologies hold much
potential for solving some of society's most pressing problems such as
climate change, poverty, and resource depletion. Smart algorithms,
connected devices, and big data support the reorganization of supply
chains, enable resource- and energy-efficient consumption, and accel-
erate the diffusion of sustainable innovation. Yet, digitally enabled
work formats, ubiquitous e-commerce, and the sharing economy also
raise new issues that cast doubt on the digital economy's net effect
on sustainability, such as an increase in energy use and resource usage
to produce hardware (Itten et al., 2020).
This introductory article and the articles included in this special
issue look beyond the direct effects of digital technologies and cast
light on the unintended consequences of digital technologies for sus-
tainable development. In the following, we discuss the positive and
negative impacts of digital technologies for sustainability, the different
levels at which they arise, and show their relation in an organizing
framework. We conclude by positioning the special issue articles
within the framework and outline avenues for future research on the
intersection of digitalization and sustainability.
2|INTENDED AND UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF DIGITALIZATION FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
2.1 |The ambiguity of digital technologies
New sustainable technologies afford advantages as they bring more
comfort or enable more efficient production processes. Yet, they also
have drawbacks. The “dust-to-dust”analysis of electric vehicles (EVs)
shows, for instance, that EVs reduce emissions, especially when
renewable energy is used to charge the battery. However, EV
manufacturing creates higher strains on natural resources, primarily
due to the greater use of (rare) metals and energy needed for battery
production (Del Pero et al., 2018). Similar issues arise for other sus-
tainable technologies. Carbon capture usage and storage might lead
to a reduction in carbon emissions but prolongs the lifetime of indus-
tries that cause lots of other forms of pollution (Volkart et al., 2013).
Trade-offs in sustainability are common because it encompasses many
different (rival) objectives (Hahn et al., 2010).
Digital technologies are ambiguous in their impact, too. They
offer positive effects when they create more efficient processes
(e.g., smart farming can save up to 60% of fertilizers and with that
energy use), enable more social inclusivity by being borderless
(e.g., virtual events let anyone in the world participate), and create
transparency and accountability (e.g., via reviews). Digital products
can be used longer than physical products when their software is
upgraded, and they can be created at low cost and large scale. Digital
technologies spark creativity and form the basis of novel sustainable
solutions such as platforms against food waste (Ciulli et al., 2020), dig-
ital payment systems (e.g., M-Pesa), or shared mobility platforms.
However, digital technologies have a dark side. Their use can lead
to severe negative consequences as they do not only enable the
creation but also the destruction of sustainable value (Bocken
et al., 2013). Recent studies have shown that “climate change impacts
of ICT manufacturing have doubled and the material footprint has
quadrupled”(Itten et al., 2020, p. 2094). Global ICT uses almost 10%
of global energy, which is expected to rise to 20%, and Big Tech's
dominance (e.g., GAFA—Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) central-
izes tremendous power in the hands of a few (Andersen et al., 2021).
Digital technologies raise social and ethical concerns, too, such as data
privacy and consumer lock-in (Acquier et al., 2017). Intelligent
DOI: 10.1002/bse.2938
Bus Strat Env. 2021;1–4. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse © 2021 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1
algorithms have proven to create bias for gender and skin type
(MIT, 2018), and social media platforms allow the spreading of fake
news (Vosoughi et al., 2018).
2.2 |Properties of digital technologies and their
unintended consequences
The sustainability impact of digital technologies is ambiguous and dif-
ficult to establish. But why is it difficult to disentangle their positive
and negative consequences for society? The reason is that digital
technologies have specific properties: They have reprogrammable
functionality, as they can be updated while in use, and they homoge-
nize data, as everything can be stored in 0's and 1's (Yoo et al., 2010).
This combination of properties creates two effects: convergence and
generativity (Yoo et al., 2012). Convergence implies that industry
boundaries get blurred and digital ecosystems emerge, while gener-
ativity refers to “unprompted change driven by large, varied, and
uncoordinated audiences”(Zittrain, 2006, p. 1980). While digital
technology connects people in new ways and lets them participate,
for example, in content creation, this process is largely uncoordinated.
As a result, the introduction of digital technologies can have
unpredictable effects on individuals, industry, and society which can
fast spiral out of control (Hanelt et al., 2021). Their introduction can
create entirely new paths—that is, new avenues for creating or
destroying value—which those originally introducing the technology
did not intend (Bohnsack et al., 2021). When new paths compromise
or marginalize the net effect of the intended sustainable outcome,
digital technologies can unintendedly lead to the disruption of social,
economic, or political arrangements and trigger ethical dilemmas
(Xiaowei et al., 2016).
In fact, new technologies have always led to unintended conse-
quences. The industrial revolution improved daily lives, made work
cheaper, and employed many people; yet it also led to exploitation,
overpopulation, and environmental damage. One could argue, though,
that digital technologies' unintended consequences are different
because previous waves of change were triggered by physical tech-
nologies and the negative effects were somewhat predictable. Digital
technologies have a more unpredictable and generative impact on
society. With an element of chance and scale, they create entirely
new issues that are without precedence. These unintended conse-
quences can be positive or negative and benefit or hamper the initial
intended outcome of technologies. Moreover, digital technologies can
create entirely new paths, altogether.
2.3 |Toward an organizing framework
Figure 1 presents an organizing framework that summarizes the
potential impact of digital technologies for sustainability. First, a digi-
tal technology's introduction has first-order consequences for sustain-
able value creation as intended positive impacts are realized or not.
While a technology has deliberate sustainable benefits on introduc-
tion, it only becomes clear when in use whether these benefits are
realized (Pinkse & Bohnsack, 2021). A technology's sustainable bene-
fits are often amplified when the technology enters the market but
might get marginalized when it is not used appropriately. The technol-
ogy can also prove unsuccessful and be abandoned, leading to neither
positive nor negative outcome. Second, due to generativity, a digital
technology's introduction also has unintended consequences for sus-
tainability: It creates positive or negative side effects that either cre-
ate additional sustainable value or destroy existing sustainable value
instead. These unintended consequences can add to the realized out-
come or create entirely new paths. Our framework purports that it is
these new paths that trigger important positive or negative second-
order consequences for individuals, industry, or society which might
FIGURE 1 Digital technologies' intended and unintended consequences for sustainability [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
2EDITORIAL
well trump the first-order consequences. Insight into the impact of
digital technology on sustainability thus requires assessing both direct
effects (first-order consequences) and indirect effects (second-order
consequences).
The articles in this special issue shed light on the different effects
of and the interplay between digital technologies' intended and
unintended consequences for sustainable development. In the first
article, Reuter (2021) shows how the intended outcome of a digital
technology (Point 1 in Figure 1) is moderated by the underlying logic
of a firm's business model, that is, for-profit, for-purpose, or a combi-
nation. Based on a case study of the electricity firm Piclo Flex, the
article shows that digital platforms can integrate multiple design
themes within hybrid business models to tackle tensions between for-
profit and for-purpose objectives. However, as Di Maria et al. (2021)
survey results reveal, even when the intentions are there, full sustain-
able benefits will only be realized under certain conditions (Point 2).
Their study provides evidence that adopting Industry 4.0 technologies
in supply chains (i.e., smart manufacturing technologies and data
processing technologies) can have positive circular economy results
but requires stakeholder collaboration to realize the full sustainable
outcome.
While the first two articles study direct effects, the remaining
articles show that indirect effects are at play, too, when digital tech-
nologies are adopted, which create unintended consequences (Point
3) or new paths (Point 4). Knight et al. (2021) examine how firms use
social media to communicate their sustainability efforts. While firms
adopt social media with the intention to brush up their sustainability
profile, their qualitative comparative analysis reveals that information
quality and credibility of sources affect whether messages are indeed
shared and, more importantly, whether they are perceived as green-
washing, an unintended consequence. Further to this point, Cappa
et al. (2021) show that, for cities, leveraging citizen science and big
data creates a double-edged sword for sustainable urban develop-
ment. While these technologies encourage citizen engagement and
generate tax savings, they also lead to privacy concerns due to the
storage of personal information in the cloud. As Hellemans et al.
(2021) illustrate, the very design of digital technologies and the inter-
actions they facilitate could also create entirely new paths (Point 4). In
their qualitative study of a digital platform to tackle food waste, they
show that the platform's design choices are key not only to stimulate
engagement but also to avoid entirely unintended consequences such
as discrimination and bad working conditions. While platform design
facilitates knowledge exchange, if diversity is not managed properly,
new paths will emerge that only bring together like-minded people,
thus further excluding people who are already marginalized.
2.4 |Outlook and opportunities for future
research
Since digital technologies have become pervasive, sustainability
scholars need to get a better understanding of their consequences for
sustainable development. This special issue shows how various digital
technologies including social media, Industry 4.0 technologies, digital
and sharing platforms, and citizen science show promise and have
their drawbacks. Our organizing framework stresses the need to not
only reckon with first-order but also second-order consequences,
which might very well derail or amplify initial positive impacts.
Research at the intersection of digitalization and sustainability is
only starting, and the articles in this special issue make important
contributions to the debate on how digital technologies can be a
force for good. While the articles focused on digital technologies for
sustainable development, sustainability in the digital age involves
the entire digital economy. Recent examples such as the introduc-
tion of face recognition for pupils' lunch payment (Vincent, 2021),
blockchain-enabled contracts, and the emerging Metaverse
(Hackl, 2021) show how digital transformation is rapidly changing
society with myriad consequences for sustainability that need to be
better understood.
Three streams of research are particularly relevant for sustainabil-
ity scholars: societal dynamics, firm dynamics, and individual
dynamics. Like corporate sustainability (Whiteman et al., 2013), the
consequences of digital technologies must be understood at multiple
levels. Digitalization's positive effects for firms will not automatically
translate into positive effects for individuals or society. It is important
to understand first- and second-order consequences on and across
different levels. Although generativity makes it impossible to fully
forecast second-order consequences and new paths, a first step is to
disentangle effects on each level. On an individual level, a key ques-
tion is which consequences digital technologies have for lifestyles,
decision-making, and social interactions and how they affect the func-
tioning of organizations and societies. Digital technologies like track-
ing devices can facilitate sustainable lifestyles but reduce the need for
physical, local contacts, thus changing the way communities form and
function. On an organizational level, it is critical to not only keep track
of the direct consequences of digital transformation for production
and coordination processes of a focal firm but also of implications for
users, suppliers, competitors, employees, and society. While it is
important to study how digital technologies make the creation and
capture of value more sustainable, a comprehensive analysis should
also identify potential trade-offs such as rebound effects in energy
consumption or privacy concerns related to AI. On a societal level,
there are questions around the governance of digital technologies and
their use for solving societal challenges which cannot be answered
without understanding the consequences digital technologies have on
individuals and organizations. To grasp how digital technologies can
support sustainable development, future research should trace their
effects across levels and find analysis tools that allow to link micro,
meso, and macro levels.
To conclude, then, understanding what sustainability means in a
digital age is crucial to prevent that the planetary boundaries are
breached any further. The organizing framework and contributions in
this special issue provide a novel lens to guide practitioners and
researchers to develop critical thinking and not only consider the
opportunities but also the drawbacks of digitalization. We hope that
this special issue will kick-start further analysis and debate, as there is
EDITORIAL 3
still limited understanding whether digitalization is a blessing or a
curse for sustainable development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the authors and reviewers for their continu-
ous work on and support of this special issue despite the COVID-19
pandemic. We would further like to thank the participants of the
GRONEN2020 Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, the conference that
gave rise to the idea of guest editing this special issue.
René Bohnsack
1
Christina M. Bidmon
2
Jonatan Pinkse
3
1
Cat
olica Lisbon School of Business & Economics, Lisbon, Portugal
2
Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK
Correspondence
Réne Bohnsack, Cat
olica Lisbon School of Business & Economics,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Email: r.bohnsack@ucp.pt
REFERENCES
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of
the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change,125,1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.07.006
Andersen, A. D., Frenken, K., Galaz, V., Kern, F., Klerkx, L., Mouthaan, M.,
Piscicelli, L., Schor, J. B., & Vaskelainen, T. (2021). On digitalization and
sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transi-
tions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.09.013
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for
sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance,13, 482–497.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2013-0078
Bohnsack, R., Kurtz, H., & Hanelt, A. (2021). Re-examining path depen-
dence in the digital age: The evolution of connected car business
models. Research Policy,50(9), 104328.
Cappa, F., Franco, S., & Rosso, F. (2021). Citizens and cities: Leveraging cit-
izen science and big data for sustainable urban development. Business
Strategy and the Environment (this issue).
Ciulli, F., Kolk, A., & Boe-Lillegraven, S. (2020). Circularity brokers: Digital
platform organizations and waste recovery in food supply chains.
Journal of Business Ethics,167, 299–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-019-04160-5
Club of Rome. (2019). Open letter in response to the European green deal.
https://www.clubofrome.eu/IMG/pdf/191212_cor_green_deal_
letter_uvdl_policy_input.pdf. Last accessed 02.11.2021
del Pero, F., Delogu, M., & Pierini, M. (2018). Life cycle assessment in the
automotive sector: A comparative case study of internal combustion
engine (ICE) and electric car. Procedia Structural Integrity,12, 521–537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.066
Di Maria, E., Di Marchi, V., & Galeazzo, A. (2021). Industry 4.0 technologies
and circular economy: The mediating role of supply chain integration.
Business Strategy and the Environment. (this issue)
Hackl, C. (2021). More than a trend: Entering the Metaverse will
become a necessity for brands. Forbes. ht tps://www.forbes.com/
sites/cathyhackl/2021/06/24/more-than-a-trend-entering-the-meta
verse-will-become-a-necessity-for-brands/?sh=5646785055abt. Last
accessed 30.10.2021
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in
corporate sustainability: You can't have your cake and eat it. Business
Strategy and the Environment,19, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.674
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A sys-
tematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and
implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies,58, 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
Hellemans, I., Porter, A., & Diriker, D. (2021). Harnessing digitalization
for sustainable development: Understanding how interactions on
sustainability-oriented digital platforms manage tensions and para-
doxes. Business Strategy and the Environment (this issue).
Itten, R., Hischier, R., Andrae, A. S., Bieser, J. C., Cabernard, L., Falke, A.,
Ferreboeuf, H., Hilty, L. M., Keller, R. L., Lees-Perasso, E., Preist, C., &
Stucki, M. (2020). Digital transformation—Life cycle assessment of dig-
ital services, multifunctional devices and cloud computing. The Interna-
tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,25, 2093–2098. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-020-01801-0
Knight, H., Haddoud, M. Y., & Megicks, P. (2021). Determinants of corpo-
rate sustainability message sharing on social media: A configuration
approach. Business Strategy and the Environment (this issue).
MIT. (2018). Study finds gender and skin-type bias in commercial artificial-
intelligence systems. https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-
type-bias-artificial-intelligence-systems-0212. Last accessed 29.10.2021
Pinkse, J., & Bohnsack, R. (2021). Sustainable product innovation and
changing consumer behavior: Sustainability affordances as triggers of
adoption and usage. Business Strategy and the EnvironmentIn press.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2793
Reuter, E. (2021). Hybrid business models in the sharing economy: The
role of business model Design for Managing the environmental para-
dox. Business Strategy and the Environment (this issue)..
Vincent, J. (2021). UK schools are using facial recognition to take pupils'
lunch money. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/18/
22732330/uk-schools-facial-recognition-lunch-payments-north-ayr
shire. Last accessed 30.10.2021
Volkart, K., Bauer, C., & Boulet, C. (2013). Life cycle assessment of carbon
capture and storage in power generation and industry in Europe. Inter-
national Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,16,91–106. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.03.003
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news
online. MIT Digital Economy Research Brief. https://ide.mit.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/2017-IDE-Research-Brief-False-News.pdf.
Last accessed 29.10.2021
WBGU. (2019). Towards our common digital future. Berlin: WBGU.
https://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu/publikationen/
hauptgutachten/hg2019/pdf/WBGU_HGD2019_S.pdf. Last accessed
02.11.2021
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecolog-
ical foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Stud-
ies,50,307–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x
Xiaowei, R. L., Jianjun, Z., & Marquis, C. (2016). Mobilization in the internet
age: Internet activism and corporate response. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal,59, 2045–2068.
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J. Jr., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing
for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science,23,
1398–1408. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—
The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for informa-
tion systems research. Information Systems Research,21, 724–735.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322
Zittrain, J. (2006). The generative internet. Harvard Law Review,119,
1974–2040.
4EDITORIAL
