PALGRAVE STUDIES IN DIGITAL BUSINESS

AND ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

SERIES EDITORS: THEO LYNN · PIERANGELO ROSATI

Digital Sustainability
Leveraging Digital
Technology to Combat
Climate Change
Edited by
Theo Lynn · Pierangelo Rosati ·
David Kreps · Kieran Conboy
 Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling
Technologies

Series Editors
Theo Lynn, Irish Institute of Digital Business, DCU Business School,
Dublin, Ireland
Pierangelo Rosati, J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics,
University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
This multi-disciplinary series will provide a comprehensive and coherent
account of cloud computing, social media, mobile, big data, and other
enabling technologies that are transforming how society operates and
how people interact with each other. Each publication in the series will
focus on a discrete but critical topic within business and computer science,
covering existing research alongside cutting edge ideas. Volumes will be
written by field experts on topics such as cloud migration, measuring the
business value of the cloud, trust and data protection, fintech, and the
Internet of Things. Each book has global reach and is relevant to faculty,
researchers and students in digital business and computer science with an
interest in the decisions and enabling technologies shaping society.
Theo Lynn · Pierangelo Rosati · David Kreps ·
Kieran Conboy
Editors

Digital Sustainability
Leveraging Digital Technology to Combat Climate
Change
Editors
Theo Lynn Pierangelo Rosati
DCU Business School Lero – Science Foundation Ireland
Dublin City University Research Centre for Software
Dublin, Ireland University of Galway
Galway, Ireland
David Kreps
Lero – Science Foundation Ireland Kieran Conboy
Research Centre for Software Lero – Science Foundation Ireland
University of Galway Research Centre for Software
Galway, Ireland University of Galway
Galway, Ireland

ISSN 2662-1282 ISSN 2662-1290 (electronic)

Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies
ISBN 978-3-031-61748-5 ISBN 978-3-031-61749-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024. This book is an open access
publication.

Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Pattern © Melisa Hasan

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

If disposing of this product, please recycle the paper.

 Acknowledgements

This book was supported, in part, by Science Foundation Ireland Grant

13/RC/2094_P2 and co-funded under the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund through the Southern & Eastern Regional Operational
Programme to Lero—the Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre
for Software (www.lero.ie), by J.E. Cairnes School of Business and
Economics at the University of Galway, and by the Irish Institute of
Digital Business at DCU Business School. For the purpose of Open
Access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright licence to
any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

v
 About This Book

Digitalisation and environmental sustainability are two of the mega-

trends impacting industry and society. This open-access Pivot is a timely
exploration of some of the challenges and prospects related to digital
sustainability from two main perspectives: how digital technologies can
be used and maintained in a way that is environmentally sustainable
over the long term (greening of digital technologies), and how digital
technologies can be used to address climate change and improve envi-
ronmental and sustainability outcomes (greening by digital technologies).
The chapters included in this book are designed to provide some key
definitions and concepts related to digital sustainability and its evolution,
and more detailed insights on some of the key priority areas outlined in
the European Green Deal, namely energy, mobility, buildings, food, and
the circular economy. A critical review of these topics will summarise and
present different perspectives that challenge old assumptions and high-
light emerging trends and possibilities for digital sustainability. Industry
and society face significant challenges in the twin transition to digital and
green transformation, not least of which is the need to balance investment
in digital technologies with environmental sustainability. This open-access
book can serve as a primer for scholars, policymakers, and enterprise
decision-makers, providing insights on navigating innovation ecosystems
to support both green and digital objectives.

vii
 Contents

1 Digital Sustainability: Key Definitions and Concepts 1

Pierangelo Rosati, Theo Lynn, David Kreps,
and Kieran Conboy
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Tackling the Sustainability Challenge Through Digital
Transformation 4
1.3 What is Digital Sustainability? 5
1.4 Key Trends, Themes and Concepts in Digital
Sustainability 8
1.5 Perspectives on Digital Sustainability 10
1.6 Conclusion 16
References 17
2 Green IT: The Evolution of Environmental Concerns
Within ICT Policy, Research and Practice 25
Per Fors, David Kreps, and Ann O’Brien
2.1 Introduction 26
2.2 The Environmental Impact of ICT Along Its Value
Chain 27
Extraction of Raw Materials 28
Design, Manufacturing and Transportation 29
Use 30
Disposal 31

ix
x CONTENTS

2.3 The Evolution of Green IT and Sustainable ICT 32

2.4 The Relevance of Green IT Today and in the Future 36
The Environmental Effects of Emerging Technologies 36
The Environmental Impacts of the Data-Driven
Digital Revolution 37
Circularity of ICT: Refurbishing and the Right
to Repair 38
2.5 Conclusion 39
References 41
3 Integrating Digital and Sustainability Transformation
Through Artificial Intelligence: A Framework
for AI-enabled Twin Transformation 49
Carlotta Crome, Valerie Graf-Drasch,
Anna Maria Oberländer, and Stefan Seidel
3.1 Introduction 50
3.2 Twin Transformation: Converging the Problem
Spaces of Digital Transformation and Sustainability
Transformation 52
3.3 A Framework for AI-enabled Twin Transformation 53
3.4 Implications for Information Systems Research
and Practice 57
References 59
4 Digital Transformation and AI in Energy Systems:
Applications, Challenges, and the Path Forward 63
Eric Olson
4.1 Introduction 64
4.2 The Smart Grid and Deep Learning 65
4.3 Deep Learning, Batteries, and Stabilising the Smart
Grid 68
4.4 Cybersecurity and the Smart Grid 72
4.5 Conclusion 74
References 76
 CONTENTS xi

5 From Concrete Jungles to Smart Cities

and Digital Towns: Deploying Digital Technologies
for Environmental Sustainability 81
Theo Lynn, Pierangelo Rosati, and Jennifer Kennedy
5.1 Introduction 82
5.2 Smart Transportation 83
5.3 Building Energy Efficiency 85
5.4 Smart Waste Management 88
5.5 Environmental Monitoring 90
5.6 Conclusion 92
References 93
6 Smart Farming Technologies and Sustainability 99
Marilena Gemtou, Blanca Casares Guillén,
and Evangelos Anastasiou
6.1 Introduction 100
6.2 Smart Farming Technologies: Social, Environmental,
and Economic Benefits 101
Precision Farming 101
Water-Smart Agricultural Practices 102
Weather-Smart Practices 103
Carbon and Energy-Smart Practices 103
Knowledge-Smart Activities 104
6.3 Barriers and Drivers for the Adoption
of Climate-Smart Agriculture Practices and Technologies 105
Socio-demographic Factors 105
Psychological Factors 106
Farm Characteristics 107
Technology-related Factors 107
Systemic Factors 108
Policy Factors 108
6.4 International and European Regulatory Framework 109
International Perspective 109
European Perspective 111
6.5 Conclusion 113
References 115
xii CONTENTS

7 Digital Technologies for Sustainable Product

Management in the Circular Economy 121
Rupert J. Baumgartner, Katharina Berger,
and Josef-Peter Schöggl
7.1 Introduction 122
7.2 Application of Digital Technologies for Sustainable
Product Management and Product Service Systems 123
7.3 Application of Digital Technologies for Life Cycle
Assessment 128
7.4 Digital Product Passport for Electric Vehicle Batteries 130
Conceptualisation of a Digital Product Passport
for Sustainable Battery Management 132
Digital Product Passport Concept for Sustainable
Product Management 134
7.5 Conclusion 136
References 138

Index 145
 Notes on Contributors

Evangelos Anastasiou is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Agricultural

University of Athens, Greece. His research interests are focused on the
use of smart farming technologies and methods. He holds a Ph.D. in
precision agriculture from Agricultural University of Athens.
Rupert J. Baumgartner is Full Professor of sustainability management
and director of the Christian-Doppler-Research Laboratory for Sustain-
able Product Management at the Department of Environmental Systems
Sciences, University of Graz, Austria. His main research interests are
corporate sustainability management, sustainability strategies and busi-
ness models, sustainability assessment, circular economy, and sustainable
innovation.
Katharina Berger is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Christian Doppler
Laboratory for Sustainable Product Management in a Circular Economy
at the University of Graz, Austria. She holds a Ph.D. in Environ-
mental Systems Sciences with focus on Sustainability and Innovation
Management. Her research focuses on the use of digital technologies for
sustainable product management.
Kieran Conboy is a Professor in Business Information Systems in the
School of Business & Economics and is a co-Principal Investigator
of LERO, the SFI Research Centre for Software. Kieran is currently
Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Information Systems and has
published over 150 articles in leading international journals including

xiii
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Information Systems Research, the European Journal of Information

Systems, and Information Systems Journal. Kieran is also a board member
of the Irish Research Council and previously worked for Accenture
Consulting and the University of New South Wales in Australia.
Carlotta Crome is a doctoral student at the University of Bayreuth.
She works in the Branch Business & Information Systems Engineering
at Fraunhofer FIT and the Technical University Augsburg. She is also
affiliated with the FIM Research Center for Information Management.
Her main research focus is on Twin Transformation.
Per Fors is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Management at Uppsala
University. He specialises in the sustainability and ethics of technology,
particularly exploring the social and environmental impacts of ICT. His
empirical research extends to areas such as the sharing economy, the
electricity consumption of video gaming, and the repair of electronic
devices.
Marilena Gemtou is a Senior Researcher at Agricultural University of
Athens, Greece. She is a social scientist and holds a Ph.D. in Behavioural
decision-making and an M.Sc. degree in Management from the University
of Bath, UK. Her expertise lies in farmer decision-making processes and
behavioural changes towards sustainable agriculture.
Valerie Graf-Drasch is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of
Hohenheim. She holds a Ph.D. in Information Systems and her research
focuses on the intersection between sustainability and digitalisation.
Blanca Casares Guillén holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental
sciences and a master’s degree in Territorial Rural Development. Her
area of expertise includes Common Agricultural Policy, rural develop-
ment, environment, food systems, women, and European Structural and
Investment Funds (ESIF) and its evaluation.
David Kreps is Associate Professor in Digital Business and Society at the
University of Galway, Ireland. Combining philosophy with a background
in the arts, cultural theory, and sociology, to address a critical perspective
on systems theory, David is a critical philosopher of Information Systems.
David has published on a wide range of related topics including e-waste
and IS and climate change.
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xv

Theo Lynn is Full Professor of Digital Business at Dublin City Univer-

sity and Co-director of the Irish Institute of Digital Business. He was
formerly the Principal Investigator (PI) of the Irish Centre for Cloud
Computing and Commerce, and Director of the LINK Research Centre.
He specialises in the role of digital technologies in transforming business
processes and society with a specific focus on cloud computing, social
media, and data science.
Anna Maria Oberländer is an Assistant Professor at the University
of Bayreuth, holds a leading role in the Branch Business & Informa-
tion Systems Engineering at Fraunhofer FIT, and is Deputy Academic
Director at the FIM Research Center for Information Management. Her
research focuses on digital innovation, digital transformation, and Twin
Transformation.
Ann O’Brien is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the J.E. Cairnes School of
Business and Economics at University of Galway. Her research interests
include cocreated research, public engagement in research, and digital
equity.
Eric Olson holds a Ph.D. in Financial Economics and is the Mervin
Bovaird Foundation Endowed Professorship in Business and the School of
Cyber Studies at the University of Tulsa. He is the Director of the Center
for Energy Studies in the Collins College of Business. He has over 35
academic publications in respected, peer-reviewed journals.
Jennifer Kennedy is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Irish Institute of
Digital Business at DCU Business School. Dr. Kennedy specialises in
knowledge processes with a specific focus on how tacit knowledge is
transferred between novices and experts in the workplace.
Pierangelo Rosati is Associate Professor of Digital Business and Society
at the University of Galway and a Funded Investigator of LERO, the
SFI Research Centre for Software. His research interests include digital
sustainability, digital business, business value of IT, digital transformation,
and social media.
Josef-Peter Schöggl is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Christian
Doppler Laboratory for Sustainable Product Management at the Univer-
sity of Graz, Austria. Holding a Ph.D. in Environmental Systems Sciences,
his work spans sustainability assessment, sustainable product develop-
ment, and the digital circular economy.
xvi NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Stefan Seidel is Professor of Information Systems at the University of

Cologne. He studies how emerging technologies are implicated in organ-
isational and institutional change and innovation. Currently, he is a Senior
Editor for MIS Quarterly and holds an honorary professorship in Business
Information Systems at the University of Galway.
 Abbreviations

AGC Automatic Generation Control

AI Artificial Intelligence
AOT Array of Things
AR Augmented Reality
B2U Battery Second Use
BEMS Building Energy Management Systems
BoL Beginning-of-Life
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CE Circular Economy
CNN Convolutional Neural Network
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DDoS Distributed Denial of Service
DDPG Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient
DDPP Digital Decade Policy Programme
DER Distributed Energy Resource
DESI Digital Economy and Society Index
DL Deep Learning
DPP Digital Product Passport
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DRL Deep Reinforcement Learning
DT Digital Transformation
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EoL End-of-Life
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERDF European Regional Development Fund

xvii
xviii ABBREVIATIONS

EU European Union
EV Electric Vehicle
EVB Electric Vehicle battery
e-Waste Electronic Waste
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
GeSI Global e-Sustainability Initiative
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite Systems
GPU Graphics Processing Unit
GWh Gigawatt hours
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IoT Internet of Things
IS Information Systems
IT Information Technology
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
ITU International Telecommunication Union
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
LLM Large Language Model
LSTM Long Short-Term Memory
ML Machine Learning
MoL Middle-of-Life
MT Metric tons
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PC Personal Computer
PSS Product Service System
RES Renewable Energy Source
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RL Reinforcement Learning
RNNs Recurrent Neural Networks
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SME Small to Medium Enterprise
SPM Sustainable Product Management
SSD Solid State Drive
ST Sustainability Transformation
SWM Smart Waste Management
TBL Triple Bottom Line
TWh Terawatt Hours
UN United Nations
 ABBREVIATIONS xix

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

V2G Vehicle-to-Grid
VR Virtual Reality
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
ZB Zettabytes
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Framework for AI-enabled Twin Transformation 55

Fig. 3.2 Key questions about AI-enabled twin transformation
on three levels of analysis 57
Fig. 7.1 Classification of potential and application examples
of digital technologies by area of application and improved
SPM outcome (n = 146) (Rusch et al., 2023) 125
Fig. 7.2 Relative share of specific SPM activities by digital
technology (n = 120) (Rusch et al., 2023) 126
Fig. 7.3 Degree of use of product service systems for resource
efficiency. Question: To what extent does your company
use the following ways/options to use resources efficiently?
(N = 583) (Neligan et al., 2023) 128
Fig. 7.4 Overview of a Digital Product Passport concept
for sustainability-oriented Electric Vehicle Battery
management (Berger et al., 2022) 135

xxi
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Key terms and concepts in digital sustainability 11

Table 2.1 Evolution of Green IT 34
Table 3.1 Examples of AI-enabled solutions for twin transformation 56

xxiii
 CHAPTER 1

Digital Sustainability: Key Definitions

and Concepts

Pierangelo Rosati, Theo Lynn, David Kreps,

and Kieran Conboy

Abstract Current market dynamics require organisations to compete in

a hypercompetitive environment that is constantly reshaped by digital
transformation. At the same time, organisations face growing pressure to
implement more sustainable practices in their day-to-day operations and
contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This has led to two

P. Rosati (B) · D. Kreps · K. Conboy

Lero – Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software,
University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Kreps
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Conboy
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Lynn
DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 1

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_1
2 P. ROSATI ET AL.

discrete research fields in the wider sustainability domain, namely research

that explores and addresses (1) the environmental impact of Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) themselves (Green IT), and
(2) the design and promotion of applications of ICTs to reduce adverse
environmental impacts of ICTs (Green IS). While these fields have been
typically explored separately in the academic literature, recent studies have
proposed the idea of ‘digital sustainability’ which highlights the pres-
ence of potential valuable synergies between them. This chapter aims to
define what we mean by digital sustainability and discusses some of the
main trends, themes and concepts related to digital sustainability before
discussing the different topics covered in the remainder of the book.

Keywords Digital sustainability · Digital transformation · Green IS ·

Green IT · Climate change · Twin transformation

1.1 Introduction
In recent years, the concept of sustainability has transcended its tradi-
tional environmental roots and extended into the digital realm. This
chapter delves into the burgeoning domain of digital sustainability,
tracing its evolution and providing comprehensive definitions. As the
digital landscape continues to expand and evolve, understanding digital
sustainability becomes imperative for ensuring responsible and resilient
digital ecosystems.
The core ecological challenge of our era consists of three interlocking
crises, namely energy, economic growth, and extinction (Kreps, 2018).
While these challenges have been overlooked by corporations for a very
long time, there has been a clear shift in recent decades. For almost thirty
years, the awareness of the three ‘Ps’ (Profit, People, Planet) of the so-
called Triple Bottom Line (TBL) model (Elkington & Rowlands, 1999;
Savitz, 2013; Willard, 2012) has been reaching deeper and deeper into
business consciousness. The main argument behind this model is essen-
tially that organisations need to consider three distinct bottom-lines when
evaluating their business performance. Firstly, of course, the bottom line
of the profit and loss account. Secondly, the bottom line of a company’s
people account: a measure (and measuring this is not straightforward) of
how socially responsible an organisation has been and is being throughout
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 3

its operations. Corporate Social Responsibility and increasingly Corpo-

rate Data Responsibility are key elements of business practice for this
people account. Finally, the third bottom line is the company’s planet
account: a measure of how environmentally responsible the organisation
has been and is being. Thus, as Hart and Milstein (2003, p. 56) put it, “a
sustainable enterprise is one that contributes to sustainable development
by delivering simultaneously economic, social, and environmental bene-
fits—the so-called triple bottom line”, or as Savitz (2013, p. v) put it,
TBL “captures the essence of sustainability by measuring the impact of an
organisation’s activities on the world; including both its profitability and
shareholder values and its social, human and environmental capital”. For
Hart and Milstein (2003), there are four principal drivers for such a route,
namely (1) resource efficiency and pollution prevention, (2) Internet-
connected coalitions of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), (3)
distributed technologies and (4) social development and wealth creation
on a massive scale.
To enter a sustainable development pathway in accordance with the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations,
2015), vast societal changes are required. Sachs et al. (2019) group such
social changes into six main ‘transformations’: (1) education, gender and
inequality; (2) health, well-being and demography; (3) energy decarbon-
isation and sustainable industry; (4) sustainable food, land, water and
oceans; (5) sustainable cities and communities; and (6) digital revolution
for sustainable development. This chapter, and this book more generally,
aims to contribute to the discussion on the sixth of these transformations
by exploring digital sustainability through the lenses of different perspec-
tives and applications. The remainder of this chapter is structured as
follows: Sect. 1.2 discusses the intersection between digital transformation
and sustainability. Section 1.3 defines digital sustainability. Section 1.4
provides a summary of key themes in digital sustainability research and
provides an overview of key terms and concepts related to digital sustain-
ability that appear in this book and in the wider academy and industry
discussion on this topic. Section 1.5 presents a summary of the topics
discussed in the remaining chapters of this book. Finally, Sect. 1.6 presents
some final remarks to conclude the chapter.
4 P. ROSATI ET AL.

1.2 Tackling the Sustainability

Challenge Through Digital Transformation
ICT and information systems (IS) are often presented as both a cause
and a potential solution to the climate crisis. In fact, data centres and
the wider communications sector are set to be responsible for 20% of the
world’s electricity use in the coming years (Andrae, 2017). Moreover, it
has been argued that “the vast majority of information systems research
is motivated and positioned as being of value to corporate stakeholders,
often paraphrased by authors in their research contributions as ‘man-
agers’” (Davison, 2023, p. 1). Such a focus upon profit maximisation in
IS discourse has been largely to the exclusion of social and environmental
concerns. However, both IT and IS can play a critical role in supporting
businesses to improve capabilities that deal with sustainability challenges
(Hanelt et al., 2017). Korte et al. (2012) have pointed out that identi-
fying and engaging all stakeholders in a sustainability focus in information
systems management can be key to its success.
The response in respect of the climate crisis from research on digital
technologies has, to date, been twofold: (1) attempts to address the
carbon footprint of ICT themselves, sometimes referred to as ‘Green
IT’ (e.g., Bose & Luo, 2011; Butler, 2011; Desautels & Berthon, 2011;
Elliot, 2011; Watson et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011), and (2) research
towards the design and promotion of applications of technology and
systems (Elliot & Webster, 2017) to “reduce the adverse environmental
impacts of business activities” (Nishant et al., 2017, p. 543) sometimes
referred to as Green IS (Chow & Chen, 2009; Cooper & Molla, 2017;
Gholami et al., 2016; Hedman & Henningsson, 2016; Loeser et al.,
2017; Malhotra et al., 2013; Melville, 2010).
More recently, IS scholarship has turned also to other aspects of
sustainability, including smart cities (Ismagilova et al., 2019), the circular
economy (Zeiss et al., 2021), the high energy consumption of blockchain
(Hughes et al., 2019), IS for the promotion of ecologically responsible
behaviours (Corbett, 2013; Loock et al., 2013) and, last but not least, the
importance of responding to the United Nations SDGs in the IS discipline
(Corbett & Mellouli, 2017; Pan & Zhang, 2020; Watson et al., 2021).
For Lawler (2012), however, for an organisation to truly embark on the
sustainability journey, they should practice and integrate sustainability in
all of their operations, which implies that sustainability is integrated into
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 5

the very fabric of an organisation and everything that proceeds out of it.
This is a key realisation for sustainability transformation.
An emerging strand of the academic literature spanning across multiple
disciplines focuses on the interplay between digital transformation and
sustainability and refers to this combination as ‘digital sustainability’
(George & Schillebeeckx, 2021; Pan & Zhang, 2020; Stuermer et al.,
2017). Digital transformation can be defined as “a process that aims
to improve an entity by triggering significant changes to its properties
through combinations of information, computing, communication, and
connectivity technologies” (Vial, 2021, p. 118). As such, it describes
a firm-wide change which affects the way an organisation does busi-
ness and impacts its value creation processes (Gölzer & Fritzsche, 2017;
Verhoef et al., 2021). Traditionally, most of the interest in digital trans-
formation has been driven by its potential to deliver financial benefits
to the organisation through increases in sales or productivity, business
model innovations, and novel ways to connect with customers and other
stakeholders, among others (Downes and Matt et al., 2015; Nunes,
2013). Matt et al. (2015), for instance, present ‘financial aspects’ as
one of the four essential dimensions of digital transformation strate-
gies. More recently though, researchers have called for more attention
to the non-financial benefits of digital transformation to include not only
direct organisational non-monetary benefits but also societal and envi-
ronmental benefits of these transformation initiatives (see, for example,
von Kutzschenbach & Daub, 2020; Zimmer & Järveläinen, 2022). In
addition to this, a growing number of studies discuss digital transforma-
tion and sustainability transformation as synergistic rather than competing
phenomena within organisations (George & Schillebeeckx, 2021; George
et al., 2021; Mair & Gegenhuber, 2021; Pan & Zhang, 2020; Zimmer &
Järveläinen, 2022).

1.3 What is Digital Sustainability?

Bencsik et al., (2023, p. 3) refer to digital sustainability as “a nascent
research strand with several blind spots”. As it often happens in emerging
research streams, one of such blind spots is represented by the lack of a
unique shared definition of key concepts; digital sustainability is no excep-
tion. In fact, a number of definitions of digital sustainability have been
proposed in various academic disciplines, from entrepreneurship (e.g.,
George et al., 2021) to marketing (e.g., Bencsik et al., 2023), information
6 P. ROSATI ET AL.

systems (e.g., Kotlarsky et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2022), and management
(e.g., Falcke et al., 2024). Industry participants (e.g., Deloitte, 2023;
KPMG, 2024) and international organisations (e.g., United Nations,
2024) have not shied away from this growing discussion either and have
contributed to the growing debate on what digital sustainability means
and the value it may potentially deliver for different stakeholders.
In the simplest way, digital sustainability can be defined as the conver-
gence of digital transformation and sustainability transformation (also
referred to as ‘Twin Transformation’ in Chapter 3 of this book) (Kotlarsky
et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2022; United Nations, 2024). However, this
definition does not communicate the whole breath of digital sustain-
ability activities and their potential impacts and implications. Sparviero
and Ragnedda (2021) argue that to better conceptualise digital sustain-
ability it is important to understand where the concept of sustainability
came from. While ‘digital’ sustainability has been under the spotlight
in recent years, it is the result of an “on-going international interac-
tion between new social movements, academia, politics and business”
(Huber, 2000, p. 270) engaged in the so-called Rio process which has
brought sustainability to the attention of industry participants, academic
researchers, and the overall society more generally (Tulloch & Neilson,
2014). With this perspective in mind, digital sustainability builds on the
same key values of sustainability (Sparviero, 2021; Sparviero & Ragnedda,
2021), namely:

• Equality: respect for equal rights of all without distinction for race,
sex, language or religion, but also equality of opportunities for both
present and future generations so they should all have access to the
necessary resources to fulfil their needs (United Nations General
Assembly, 2015).
• Harmony: the optimal end-state of a balanced and a collabora-
tive process leading to better quality of life for everybody and to
a common sense of shared responsibility (United Nations General
Assembly, 2015).
• Self-determination: a sense of empowerment and of being in control
of one’s environment that not only characterises responsible citi-
zens that are keen to participate in the protection of such an
environment, but it also applies to social communities and coun-
tries that promote the respect for territorial integrity and political
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 7

independence (Tsosie, 2009; World Commission of Environment &

Development, 1987).

In this context, digital sustainability may be defined as a set of values that

“are the same values as sustainability, so that, if applied to the creation
and adoption of new digital technologies, they contribute to a sustainable
future” (Sparviero & Ragnedda, 2021, p. 221). This definition of digital
sustainability, however, fails to highlight the three typical perspectives of
sustainability, namely:

• Environmental sustainability: it mostly focuses on decreasing

consumption of natural resources and engaging in practices aimed at
improving the long-term health of the planet (Melville, 2010). Envi-
ronmentally sustainable activities mostly aim to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and prioritise the use of renewable resources
to sustain all forms of life (Ekins, 2011; Melville, 2010).
• Economic sustainability: it relates to approaches that foster enduring
economic prosperity while safeguarding natural resources and
enhancing societal well-being (Anand & Sen, 2000; Foy, 1990;
Spangenberg, 2005).
• Social sustainability: it involves nurturing robust societal advance-
ments by fostering the growth of civil communities and fulfilling
the present needs of society without jeopardising the well-being of
future generations (Vallance et al., 2011). The main objective of
social sustainability is to promote compatibility amidst cultural and
social diversity while elevating individuals’ standards of living and
responsibly addressing the societal implications of business activities
(UN Global Compact, 2024).

An alternative definition that somewhat overcomes such a limitation has

been proposed by George et al., (2021, p. 1000) who define digital
sustainability as “organisational activities that seek to advance the sustain-
able development goals through creative deployment of technologies that
create, use, transmit, or source electronic data”. As this definition points
to the ‘deployment’ of digital technologies for advancing sustainable
development, it mostly speaks to the concept of ‘Green IS’ or, to put it in
different words, to sustainability by digital. As such, it essentially ignores
the overall discussion around the sustainability of digital technologies
8 P. ROSATI ET AL.

which mostly focuses on the ‘development’ of more sustainable digital

technologies (also referred to as ‘Green IT’). More recently, Kotlarsky
et al. (2023, p. 938) have defined digital sustainability as “the develop-
ment and deployment of digital resources and artifacts toward improving
the environment, society, and economic welfare”.
This definition, although quite simple and concise, overcomes the
outstanding limitations of other definitions that were proposed in the
past however does not fully acknowledge the importance of sustainability
across the lifecycle of the digital resources and artefacts. In some cases,
shutting down or decommissioning digital artefacts and resources may
be the most sustainable outcome. Furthermore, it does not underscore
the need for adaptability in such solutions. Consequently, we propose
an extension of this definition which we adopt as the main definition of
digital sustainability in this chapter and, more generally, in this book:

Digital sustainability refers to the design, development, configuration,

deployment, and decommissioning of digital resources and artifacts toward
improving the environment, and economic welfare.

1.4 Key Trends, Themes and Concepts

in Digital Sustainability
Based on our discussion on the definitions of digital sustainability, it
clearly emerges that this field of research is evolving rapidly and attracts
significant attention from academia and industry alike. Interestingly, even
though digital sustainability represents a relatively recent research area,
it builds on concepts, values and theories that have already been devel-
oped in more established areas of the academic literature such as Green IS
and Green IT (Kotlarsky et al., 2023). These provide digital sustainability
researchers with robust theoretical and methodological foundations and
will likely accelerate the development of this stream of research.
Most of the literature on sustainability generally and, more specifi-
cally, on digital sustainability focuses on environmental sustainability and
climate change (Kotlarsky et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2022). This is somewhat
unsurprising given the sustainability discussion at an international level
was primarily established in response to growing concerns about the state
of health of our planet and the detrimental long-term impacts of irrespon-
sible use of natural resources (Sparviero & Ragnedda, 2021). Kuntsman
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 9

and Rattle (2019) present a systematic review of the existing literature

on digital sustainability and climate change and classify studies across four
categories based on how digital and sustainability were conceptualised:
(1) digital as a tool of sustainable innovation; (2) digital as a facilitator
of change in people’s behaviour through education; (3) digital as a facil-
itator of change in people’s consumption patterns; and (4) digital as a
material object. Articles framing digital as a facilitator of change account
for the majority of the studies, followed by studies in on e-waste (digital
as a material object) and studies picturing digital as a tool of sustain-
able innovation. More interestingly though, the authors highlight that a
bias towards the positive outcomes of digital is commonly present across
all categories. The authors refer to this phenomenon as ‘digital solu-
tionism’ and call for “a systematic account of global and local material
damages of devices, platforms and data systems adopted into sustainability
research and practice […]” and “[…] a reconceptualization and denatu-
ralisation of the digital itself as a default solution” (Kuntsman & Rattle,
2019, p. 579). Overall, this suggests that, even though environmental
sustainability has attracted most of the research effort so far, significant
research opportunities still exist in this area particularly in relation to
the potential environmental impact of the transition from old to new
technologies, and development and large-scale deployment of energy-
demanding digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), cloud
computing, blockchain and quantum computing.
Moving beyond the narrow view of environmental sustainability to
include the economic and social perspectives of sustainability, Guandalini
(2022) summarises existing literature across four key themes, namely
(1) digitalisation strategies for sustainability purposes, (2) applicability
of digital sustainability to specific industries or sectors (e.g., smart agri-
culture, industry 4.0, etc.), (3) applicability of digital sustainability to
different types of organisations (e.g., public vs private sector, large vs
small to medium enterprises, etc.) and stakeholders (e.g., communities,
consumers, etc.), and (4) sustainability through specific digital technolo-
gies or functionalities (e.g., big data, digital twins, Internet of Things,
etc.). Despite the relatively large number of studies considered in this
review (given the emerging nature of this literature), several research gaps
still remain. In this context, potential avenues for future research may
include, for example, the implementation of multidisciplinary approaches
looking at the implementation of digital sustainability from both a
technical (e.g., computer science) and non/less technical domain (e.g.,
10 P. ROSATI ET AL.

management, organisational behaviour, etc.) (Guandalini, 2022), the

investigation of organisational strategies for digital sustainability that may
provide more transferable findings across different sectors and contexts
(Falcke et al., 2024), cross-country comparisons of digital sustainability
practices and outcomes in different empirical contexts (Delgosha et al.,
2021), the mapping of value capturing strategies and business model
blueprints for digital sustainability (Bencsik et al., 2023), and the design
of performance measurement frameworks for digital sustainability initia-
tives that take into account various business and societal stakeholders
(Kotlarsky et al., 2023). Finally, some key terms and concepts in the
digital sustainability that appear in this book and in the wider digital
sustainability discussion are presented in Table 1.1.

1.5 Perspectives on Digital Sustainability

The other six chapters of this book offer varied viewpoints and valu-
able insights that contribute to our comprehension and interpretation of
digital sustainability. They illustrate that, despite considerable intellectual
endeavours in conceptualising digital sustainability, we are still at an early
stage of theoretical development and empirical research. More impor-
tantly, they emphasise the necessity for actionable outcomes that can
inform and guide practical applications and support both organisational
and individual decision-making. They are presented as follows.
Chapters 2 and 3 are dedicated to sustainability of digital technologies
and the interplay between digital transformation and the sustainability
challenges that organisations face in the current market environment.
More specifically, Chapter 2 discusses the evolution of Green IT and
how organisations have embedded this concept into their activities along
the entire value chain in response to growing environmental concerns
associated with ICT. The chapter then highlights the environmental chal-
lenges posed by emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain, and
the growing emphasis on circular economy principles (repair, reuse and
refurbish). Overall, the authors suggest that the growing interest in these
emerging issues may be interpreted as a renewed focus on mitigating the
negative impacts of ICT within Sustainable ICT.
Chapter 3 introduces the concept of ‘Twin Transformation’, a combi-
nation of digital and sustainability transformation that enables organisa-
tions to leverage the strengths of digital technologies to reach sustain-
ability objectives and vice versa. The authors put particular emphasis
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 11

Table 1.1 Key terms and concepts in digital sustainability

Term Definition

Carbon footprint Carbon footprint represents the total

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
produced directly or indirectly by an
activity or accumulated over the lifecycle
of a product (Shi & Yin, 2021)
Carbon offsetting Carbon offsetting refers to “an activity
when a company or other actor
purchases carbon credits, retires them,
and claims the climate benefit as part of
its climate action” (Helppi et al., 2023,
p. 925)
Circular economy Circular economy refers to an economic
system aimed at minimising waste and
maximising the reuse, recycling and
repurposing of resources, including
digital devices and components that is
enabled by an alliance of stakeholders
(e.g., industry, consumers, policymakers,
researcher) and their technological
innovations and capabilities (Kirchherr
et al., 2023)
Deep renovation Deep renovation is a renovation that
captures the full economic energy
efficiency potential of all improvement
works to existing residential buildings
that leads to a very high energy
performance and significant energy
savings (Lynn et al., 2021)
Digital divide Digital divide refers to the gap between
individuals and communities that have
different access to digital technologies
often due to socioeconomic factors,
geographical location or infrastructure
limitations, leading to disparities in
opportunities and outcomes (Lynn et al.,
2022; Philip et al., 2017)
Digital literacy Digital literacy refers to the ability to
access, evaluate and effectively use digital
technologies and information resources
for personal, social and professional
purposes (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006)

(continued)
12 P. ROSATI ET AL.

Table 1.1 (continued)

Term Definition

Digital transformation “A process that aims to improve an

entity by triggering significant changes to
its properties through combinations of
information, computing, communication,
and connectivity technologies” (Vial,
2021, p. 118)
Electronic waste (or e-waste) Electronic waste refers to discarded
electronic devices and components, such
as computers, smartphones and
appliances, that pose environmental and
health risks (Amankwah-Amoah, 2016)
Environmental impact assessment Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
refers to a multi-stage assessment
framework for identifying and
systematically evaluate the environmental,
social and economic impacts of
significant developments (Northmore &
Hudson, 2022)
Environmental monitoring Environmental monitoring refers to the
systematic collection, analysis and
interpretation of data concerning various
environmental parameters, such as air
and water quality, noise pollution,
temperature and humidity, using
advanced technologies and IoT devices
(Catlett et al., 2017)
Green computing Green computing refers to the practice
of designing, manufacturing and using
computer systems and IT resources in an
environmentally sustainable manner
therefore minimising energy
consumption, reducing electronic waste
and promoting the use of renewable
energy sources in computing operations
(Kurp, 2008)
Green IT Green IT refers to the practice of
designing, manufacturing, using and
disposing of information technology in
an environmentally responsible manner
(Murugesan, 2008; Molla, 2013;
Thomas et al., 2016)

(continued)
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 13

Table 1.1 (continued)

Term Definition

Green IS Green IS refers to the use of technology

to achieve environmental objectives while
maintaining or improving the
performance and functionality of digital
infrastructures and services (Hedman &
Henningsson, 2016; Leidner et al.,
2022; Loeser et al., 2017; Malhotra
et al., 2013)
Intelligent transportation systems or smart Intelligent Transportation Systems or
(transportation) Smart Transportation refers to the
application of advanced sensor,
computer, electronics, and
communication technologies, and
management strategies in an integrated
manner to improve the safety and
efficiency of the surface transportation
system (McGregor et al., 2003)
Life cycle assessment Life cycle assessment is a systematic
analysis of the environmental impacts
associated with a product, service or
process throughout its entire life cycle,
from raw material extraction to
end-of-life disposal (Finnveden et al.,
2009)
Smart building Smart building refers to cyber-physical
solutions able to support and aid the
daily routines of users and/or to
optimise the management of the building
(Vale et al., 2023)
Smart city Smart cities leverage digital technologies
to enhance efficiency, sustainability and
quality of life for residents, often
incorporating initiatives related to energy
management, transportation and public
services (Albino et al., 2015; Batty et al.,
2012)

(continued)
14 P. ROSATI ET AL.

Table 1.1 (continued)

Term Definition

Smart grid Smart grids leverage digital technologies,

such as sensors, connected meters and
analytics, to optimise the generation,
distribution and consumption of
electricity, enabling efficiency
improvements, demand response and
integration of renewable energy sources
into the power grid therefore
contributing to sustainability and
resilience in the energy sector (Tuballa &
Abundo, 2016)
Smart waste management Smart waste management (SWM) is the
use of enabling ICTs for more efficient,
effective and sustainable operations of
waste management (Zhang et al., 2019)
Sustainability transformation It refers to the comprehensive and
systemic changes in societal, economic
and environmental systems aimed at
achieving long-term sustainability goals.
This involves, for example, shifting
towards more sustainable practices,
policies and behaviours to address
pressing global challenges such as climate
change, biodiversity loss and social
inequality (Elliot, 2011; Melville, 2010)
Sustainable design Sustainable design involves creating
products, services and systems with
minimal environmental impact
throughout their lifecycle, from
conception to disposal (He et al., 2018;
McLennan, 2004)
Sustainable innovation Sustainable innovation involves
developing novel solutions, products and
business models that address societal and
environmental challenges while creating
long-term value for stakeholders,
fostering resilience and competitiveness
in the economy (Cillo et al., 2019; Tello
& Yoon, 2008)
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 15

on the use of AI to foster twin transformation initiatives thanks to its

ability to leverage ever-increasing data flows to deal with complex and
multi-faceted challenges which are typical of sustainability. The chapter
concludes with the presentation of a framework for AI-enabled Twin
Transformation and a call for more studies at the intersection of AI-
enabled systems, information systems for environmental sustainability
(Green IS and Green IT) and digital transformation to provide more
theoretical and practical insights on how to best harness the potential
of both digital transformation and sustainability transformation.
The second part of this book focuses on four of the eight priority
areas for sustainability identified in the European Green Deal (European
Commission, 2019), namely energy (Chapter 4), sustainable mobility
(Chapter 5), sustainable food (Chapter 6) and the circular economy
(Chapter 7).1 Chapter 4 discusses the role of digital transformation in
enhancing efficiency, sustainability and resilience in power generation,
transmission and consumption. More specifically, the chapter focusses on
how deep learning and reinforcement learning can be used to enable
smart grids and better manage the production, storage and usage of elec-
tricity from renewable sources, and to protect the energy infrastructure for
malicious cyberattacks. The author argues that, if implemented correctly,
these technologies can act as catalysts for the transition to smarter, more
efficient, resilient and sustainable energy systems.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to the implementation of sustainable practices in
the urban environment, whether in cities or towns. The chapter discusses
four key research themes relating to digital sustainability in smart cities
and towns, namely smart transportation systems, building energy optimi-
sation, smart waste management and environmental monitoring. As such,
it encompasses a wide range of the European Green Deal’s priority areas.
The authors conclude highlighting that the road leading to the realisa-
tion of smart cities and towns is not without challenges. These can only
be overcome implementing an inclusive, long-term and multi-stakeholder
collaborative approach which will provide us with the opportunity to
create a more digital, sustainable and liveable future for generations to
come.

1 Other priority areas have been discussed in other publications. See, for example, Lynn
et al. (2023) for an in-depth discussion on the role of digital technologies in the context
of building renovation.
16 P. ROSATI ET AL.

Chapter 6 is dedicated to implementation of digital sustainability

within food systems. More specifically, this chapter focusses on smart
farming technologies and discusses how these technologies can lead to
the development of more sustainable farming practices and to more
resilient food systems. The authors provide an overview of the main
barriers and drivers to the realisation of sustainable digital agriculture and
discusses international visions of future food systems as proposed by inter-
national agencies such as the United Nations (UN), Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the World Bank, and European Union (EU).
Finally, Chapter 7 discusses the principles of the circular economy and
of sustainable product management (SPM). The authors focus on the
application of four key technologies (AI, analytics, the Internet of Things
and blockchain) for SPM and on how they can be applied in the context
of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Product Service Systems. Finally, the
authors present the use of digital product passports in an SPM context
using electric vehicle batteries as an exemplar use case.

1.6 Conclusion
Digitalisation creates unique opportunities for organisations to prosper
but it also poses significant threats to how they transact and interact;
climate change is a significant threat to society. To survive, organi-
sations and society need to balance both a digital and sustainability
transformation. Extant literature clearly differentiates between research
on the environmental impact of digital technologies and the potential
of digital technologies to contribute to reducing the adverse impact of
business and societal activities on the environment. These should not
be viewed as mutually exclusive activities but rather as interrelated and
inter-dependent, a twin transformation that mutually motivates and accel-
erates the other. Notwithstanding this, digital sustainability is a relatively
new term in scholarly literature whose definition remains nascent. In
this chapter, we discuss current conceptualisations of digital sustainability
and define it as the design, development, configuration, deployment and
decommissioning of digital resources and artefacts towards improving the
environment and economic welfare. The remainder of the book presents
snapshots of research on key themes in digital sustainability both on
Green IT and Green IS, separately and together.
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 17

The transition to a society that builds on both digitalisation and

sustainability provides us with substantial opportunities and significant
challenges. We face the challenge of transitioning to an ‘information
society’ permeated by digital technologies without not only compro-
mising environmental values but actively contributing to the reversal of
the adverse effects of climate change. Yet despite the potential of digital
technologies and the existential threat of climate change, our progress
is retarded by a lack of awareness, access, adoption and use of digital
technologies to achieve sustainable outcomes. Accelerating digital sustain-
ability requires addressing these issues in a coordinated and integrated
way. Reframing and refocusing enterprise strategies to accelerate climate
action and sustainability through better designed and purposeful digital
technologies is a good start.

References
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions,
dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1),
3–21.
Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2016). Navigating uncharted waters: A multidimensional
conceptualisation of exporting electronic waste. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 105, 11–19.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability.
World Development, 28(12), 2029–2049.
Andrae, A. (2017). Total consumer power consumption forecast. Nordic Digital
Business Summit, 10, 69.
Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A.,
Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis, G., & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the
future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214, 481–518.
Bencsik, B., Palmié, M., Parida, V., Wincent, J., & Gassmann, O. (2023). Busi-
ness models for digital sustainability: Framework, microfoundations of value
capture, and empirical evidence from 130 smart city services. Journal of
Business Research, 160, 113757.
Bose, R., & Luo, X. (2011). Integrative framework for assessing firms’ potential
to undertake Green IT initiatives via virtualization–A theoretical perspective.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(1), 38–54.
Butler, T. (2011). Compliance with institutional imperatives on environmental
sustainability: Building theory on the role of Green IS. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 20(1), 6–26.
Catlett, C. E., Beckman, P. H., Sankaran, R., & Galvin, K. K. (2017). Array
of things: A scientific research instrument in the public way: platform design
18 P. ROSATI ET AL.

and early lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop

on science of smart city operations and platforms engineering (pp. 26–33).
Chow, W. S., & Chen, Y. (2009). Intended belief and actual behavior in green
computing in Hong Kong. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(2),
136–141.
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Under-
standing sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5), 1012–1025.
Cooper, V., & Molla, A. (2017). Information systems absorptive capacity
for environmentally driven IS-enabled transformation. Information Systems
Journal, 27 (4), 379–425.
Corbett, J., & Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG battle in cities: How
an integrated information ecosystem can contribute to the achievement of
the 2030 sustainable development goals. Information Systems Journal, 27 (4),
427–461.
Davison, R. M. (2023). Impact and implications for practice. Information Systems
Journal, 33(2), 187–191.
Delgosha, M. S., Saheb, T., & Hajiheydari, N. (2021). Modelling the asym-
metrical relationships between digitalisation and sustainable competitiveness:
A cross-country configurational analysis. Information Systems Frontiers, 23,
1317–1337.
Deloitte. (2023). Tech-enabled sustainability: The digital path to sustainability
and net zero. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Del
oitte/de/Documents/risk/Deloitte_Paper_Digitalisierung_und_Nachhalti
gkeit.pdf (visited on 29 March 2024).
DesAutels, P., & Berthon, P. (2011). The PC (polluting computer): Forever a
tragedy of the commons? The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(1),
113–122.
Downes, L., & Nunes, P. (2013). Big bang disruption. Harvard Business Review,
44–56.
Ekins, P. (2011). System innovation for environmental sustainability: Concepts,
policies and political economy. International economics of resource efficiency:
Eco-innovation policies for a green economy (pp. 51–88). Physica-Verlag HD.
Elkington, J., & Rowlands, I. H. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom
line of 21st century business. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), 42.
Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability:
A resource base and framework for IT-enabled business transformation. Mis
Quarterly, 197–236.
Elliot, S., & Webster, J. (2017). Special issue on empirical research on infor-
mation systems addressing the challenges of environmental sustainability: An
imperative for urgent action. Information Systems Journal, 27 (4), 367–378.
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 19

European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. Available

at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-
8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (visited on 29 March
2024).
Falcke, L., Zobel, A. K., Yoo, Y., & Tucci, C. (2024). Digital sustainability strate-
gies: Digitally enabled and digital-first innovation for net zero. Academy of
Management Perspectives, (ja), amp-2023.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg,
S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in
life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1–21.
Foy, G. (1990). Economic sustainability and the preservation of environmental
assets. Environmental Management, 14, 771–778.
George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2021). Digital sustainability
and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate
change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
45(5), 999–1027.
George, G., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2021). Digital sustainability and its implica-
tions for finance and climate change. Macroeconomic Review, 20(1), 103.
Gholami, R., Watson, R. T., Hasan, H., Molla, A., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2016).
Information systems solutions for environmental sustainability: How can we
do more? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17 (8), 2.
Gölzer, P., & Fritzsche, A. (2017). Data-driven operations management: Organ-
isational implications of the digital transformation in industrial practice.
Production Planning and Control, 28(16), 1332–1343.
Guandalini, I. (2022). Sustainability through digital transformation: A systematic
literature review for research guidance. Journal of Business Research, 148, 456–
471.
Hanelt, A., Busse, S., & Kolbe, L. M. (2017). Driving business transformation
toward sustainability: Exploring the impact of supporting IS on the perfor-
mance contribution of eco-innovations. Information Systems Journal, 27 (4),
463–502.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 17 (2), 56–67.
He, B., Niu, Y., Hou, S., & Li, F. (2018). Sustainable design from functional
domain to physical domain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197 , 1296–1306.
Hedman, J., & Henningsson, S. (2016). Developing ecological sustainability: A
green IS response model. Information Systems Journal, 26(3), 259–287.
Helppi, O., Salo, E., Vatanen, S., Pajula, T., & Grönman, K. (2023). Review
of carbon emissions offsetting guidelines using instructional criteria. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28(7), 924–932.
20 P. ROSATI ET AL.

Huber, J. (2000). Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a

concept of ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning, 2(4), 269–285.
Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Misra, S. K., Rana, N. P., Raghavan, V., & Akella, V.
(2019). Blockchain research, practice and policy: Applications, benefits, limi-
tations, emerging research themes and research agenda. International Journal
of Information Management, 49, 114–129.
Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). Smart cities:
Advances in research—An information systems perspective. International
Journal of Information Management, 47 , 88–100.
Kirchherr, J., Yang, N. H. N., Schulze-Spüntrup, F., Heerink, M. J., & Hartley,
K. (2023). Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of
221 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 194, 107001.
Korte, M., Lee, K., & Fung, C. C. (2012). Sustainability in information systems:
Requirements and emerging technologies. In 2012 International Conference
on Innovation Management and Technology Research (pp. 481–485). IEEE.
Kotlarsky, J., Oshri, I., & Sekulic, N. (2023). Digital sustainability in information
systems research: Conceptual foundations and future directions. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 936–952.
KPMG. (2024). Digitalization can give direction to your sustainability trans-
formation. Available at: https://kpmg.com/be/en/home/insights/2021/
07/sus-digitalization-can-give-direction-to-your-sustainability-transformation.
html (visited on 29 March 2024).
Kreps, D. (2018). Against nature: The metaphysics of information systems.
Routledge.
Kuntsman, A., & Rattle, I. (2019). Towards a paradigmatic shift in sustainability
studies: A systematic review of peer reviewed literature and future agenda
setting to consider environmental (Un) sustainability of digital communica-
tion. Environmental Communication, 13(5), 567–581.
Kurp, P. (2008). Green computing. Communications of the ACM, 51(10), 11–13.
Lawler, E. (2012). Sustainability: It should be about more than the bottom line.
Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardlawler/2012/03/
15/sustainability-it-should-be-about-more-than-the-bottom-line/#359967
877cfc (visited on 29 March 2024).
Leidner, D. E., Sutanto, J., & Goutas, L. (2022). Multifarious roles and conflicts
on an interorganizational green IS. MIS Quarterly, 46(1).
Loeser, F., Recker, J., Brocke, J. V., Molla, A., & Zarnekow, R. (2017).
How IT executives create organizational benefits by translating environ-
mental strategies into Green IS initiatives. Information Systems Journal, 27 (4),
503–553.
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 21

Loock, C. M., Staake, T., & Thiesse, F. (2013). Motivating energy-efficient

behavior with green IS: An investigation of goal setting and the role of
defaults. MIS Quarterly, 1313–1332.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Conway, E., Curran, D., Fox, G., & O’Gorman, C. (2022).
Digital towns: Accelerating and measuring the digital transformation of rural
societies and economies (p. 213). Springer Nature.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Kassem, M., Krinidis, S., & Kennedy, J. (2023). Disrupting
buildings: Digitalisation and the transformation of deep renovation (p. 175).
Springer Nature.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Egli, A., Krinidis, S., Angelakoglou, K., Sougkakis, V.,
Tzovaras, D., Kassem, M., Greenwood, D., & Doukari, O. (2021). RINNO:
Towards an open renovation platform for integrated design and delivery of
deep renovation projects. Sustainability, 13(11), 6018.
Mair, J., & Gegenhuber, T. (2021). Open social innovation. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 19(4), 26–33.
Malhotra, A., Melville, N. P., & Watson, R. T. (2013). Spurring impactful
research on information systems for environmental sustainability. MIS Quar-
terly, 37 (4), 1265–1274.
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital
literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information
and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267.
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies.
Business and Information Systems Engineering, 57 , 339–343.
McGregor, R. V., Eng, P., & MacIver, A. (2003). Regional its architectures—
From policy to project implementation. Proceedings of the Transportation
Factor.
McLennan, J. F. (2004). The philosophy of sustainable design: The future of
architecture. Ecotone publishing.
Melville, N. P. (2010). Information systems innovation for environmental
sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 1–21.
Nishant, R., Teo, T. S., & Goh, M. (2017). Do shareholders value green infor-
mation technology announcements? Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 18(8), 3.
Northmore, L., & Hudson, M. D. (2022). Digital environmental impact
assessment: An exploration of emerging digital approaches for non-technical
reports. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 92, 106689.
Pan, S. L., Carter, L., Tim, Y., & Sandeep, M. S. (2022). Digital sustainability,
climate change, and information systems solutions: Opportunities for future
research. International Journal of Information Management, 63, 102444.
Pan, S. L., & Zhang, S. (2020). From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling
sustainable development goals: An opportunity for responsible information
22 P. ROSATI ET AL.

systems research. International Journal of Information Management, 55,

102196.
Philip, L., Cottrill, C., Farrington, J., Williams, F., & Ashmore, F. (2017). The
digital divide: Patterns, policy and scenarios for connecting the ‘final few’ in
rural communities across Great Britain. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 386–
398.
Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic,
N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable
development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814.
Savitz, A. (2013). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are
achieving economic, social and environmental success-and how you can too.
Wiley.
Shi, S., & Yin, J. (2021). Global research on carbon footprint: A scientometric
review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 106571.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2005). Economic sustainability of the economy: Concepts
and indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1–2), 47–
64.
Sparviero, S. (2021). The contribution of global media to ethical capitalism. In
The Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Globalization (pp. 55–65).
Routledge.
Sparviero, S., & Ragnedda, M. (2021). Towards digital sustainability: The long
journey to the sustainable development goals 2030. Digital Policy, Regulation
and Governance, 23(3), 216–228.
Stuermer, M., Abu-Tayeh, G., & Myrach, T. (2017). Digital sustainability: Basic
conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystems. Sustainability
Science, 12(2), 247–262.
Tello, S. F., & Yoon, E. (2008). Examining drivers of sustainable innovation.
International Journal of Business Strategy, 8(3), 164–169.
Tsosie, R. (2009). Climate change, sustainability and globalization: Charting the
future of Indigenous environmental self-determination. Envtl. & Energy L. &
Pol’y J ., 4, 188.
Tuballa, M. L., & Abundo, M. L. (2016). A review of the development of Smart
Grid technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, 710–725.
Tulloch, L., & Neilson, D. (2014). The neoliberalisation of sustainability.
Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 13(1), 26–38.
United Nations (2015). Global Sustainable Development Report. United
Nations. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/1758GSDR%202015%20Advance%20Unedited%20Version.pdf
(visited on 29 March 2024).
United Nations General Assembly (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030
agenda for sustainable development. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/203
0agenda (visited on 29 March 2024).
 1 DIGITAL SUSTAINABILITY: KEY DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS 23

United Nations (2024). Sustainable Digitalization. Available at: https://www.

unep.org/topics/digital-transformations/sustainable-digitalization (visited on
29 March 2024).
United Nations Global Compact (2024). Social Sustainability. Available
at: https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/social (visited on 29
March 2024).
Vale, Z., Gomes, L., & Ramos, C. (2023). An overview on smart buildings
(pp. 431–440). Elsevier.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability?
A Clarification of Concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q.,
Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisci-
plinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122,
889–901.
Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research
agenda. Managing digital transformation, 13–66.
von Kutzschenbach, M., & Daub, C. H. (2020). Digital transformation for
sustainability: A necessary technical and mental revolution. New trends in
business information systems and technology: Digitall innovation and digital
business transformation (pp. 179–192). Springer International Publishing.
Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M. C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information systems
and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and new
directions for the IS community. MIS Quarterly, 23–38.
Watson, R. T., Elliot, S., Corbett, J., Farkas, D., Feizabadi, A., Gupta, A., Iyer,
L., Sen, S., Sharda, R., Shin, N., Thapa, D., & Webster, J. (2021). How
the AIS can improve its contributions to the UN’s sustainability development
goals: Towards a framework for scaling collaborations and evaluating impact.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 42.
Willard, B. (2012). The new sustainability advantage: Seven business case benefits
of a triple bottom line. New Society Publishers.
World Commission of Environment and Development (1987). Report of the
world commission on environment and development: our common future.
Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
5987our-common-future.pdf (visited on 29 March 2024).
Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2021). Mobilising information
systems scholarship for a circular economy: Review, synthesis, and directions
for future research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 148–183.
Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019).
Barriers to smart waste management for a circular economy in China. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 240, 118198.
24 P. ROSATI ET AL.

Zhang, H., Liu, L., & Li, T. (2011). Designing IT systems according to envi-
ronmental settings: A strategic analysis framework. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 20(1), 80–95.
Zimmer, M. P., & Järveläinen, J. (2022, August). Digital–sustainable co-
transformation: introducing the triple bottom line of sustainability to digital
transformation research. In IFIP International Conference on Human Choice
and Computers (pp. 100–111). Springer International Publishing.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 CHAPTER 2

Green IT: The Evolution of Environmental

Concerns Within ICT Policy, Research
and Practice

Per Fors, David Kreps, and Ann O’Brien

Abstract This chapter delves into the environmental concerns associ-

ated with Information and Communications Technology (ICT) along its
value chain, understood as the series of activities that need to be under-
taken to produce, use and dispose of ICT. These activities have their

P. Fors (B)
Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Uppsala University,
Lägerhyddsvägen 1, 75237 Uppsala, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Kreps
Lero – Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software,
University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]
A. O’Brien
J.E. School of Business and Economics,
University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 25

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_2
26 P. FORS ET AL.

respective challenges in terms of environmental sustainability, including

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, pollution and waste. Furthermore, the
chapter offers an overview of practices and discourses, particularly within
the realm of information systems (IS), since the 1960s and onwards.
It traces the evolution of the Green IT, a concept that originated in
response to mounting environmental concerns and the widespread inte-
gration of ICT into various facets of society around the mid-2000s. The
chapter explores the translation of Green IT, which was mainly concerned
with the negative environmental impact of ICT, into Sustainable ICT,
a broader concept imbued with more optimistic narratives about the
environmental impact of ICT. Drawing from this extensive review, the
chapter highlights emerging issues, such as the energy consumption of
ICT with the advent of AI and cryptocurrencies, and a growing emphasis
on repair and refurbishment. The authors then interpret the interest in
these emerging issues as a renewed focus on mitigating the negative
impacts of ICT within Sustainable ICT.

Keywords Sustainable ICT · Green IT · Sustainable development ·

ICT · Evolution of Green IT

2.1 Introduction
Since the introduction of the first microprocessor in the 1970s, the
pervasive influence of Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) has reshaped the fabric of society. With regard to the envi-
ronment, it is often assumed that ICTs can potentially be used to
promote sustainability (Gholami et al., 2016; Malhotra et al., 2013),
e.g., through the dematerialisation of the economy, optimisation of indus-
trial processes and promoting sustainable behaviours and practices (Fors,
2019; Zapico, 2013). However, currently ICTs are predominantly used
for other reasons, such as to boost economic performance, thereby inten-
sifying the environmental impact of the technology (Lennerfors et al.,
2015). Therefore, it is vital that the technology itself is sustainable in
its production, use and disposal, which is currently not the case. On the
contrary, ICT presents a variety of challenges concerning environmental
sustainability, including the generation waste and carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions (Forti et al., 2020; Koot & Wijnhoven, 2021; Kreps & Fors,
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 27

2020; Perzanowski, 2022). While the potential for using ICT as green
tech (greening by ICT) is by far greater in theory and often emphasised
in contemporary discourse, we advocate for maintaining a strong focus
on the greening of ICT itself and its value chain(s).
This chapter provides an overview of the environmental concerns of
ICT and a historical narrative of these concerns in research and practice
since the 1960s. The review methodology is inspired by the hermeneutic
approach (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014). We argue that the battle
to consider even a human environmental context for information systems
(IS) took so long, and other developments such as the advent of the
Internet took up so much of scholars’ attention, that the impact of ICT
on the non-human environment only began to be appreciated in the
IS literature after the turn of the millennium. We chart the change in
conceptualisation of Green IT from being concerned largely with energy
efficiency and cost-effectiveness, to a Green IT that emphasises user
behaviours reflecting the changing perception of digital sustainability. The
remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. Section 2.2 presents
the current environmental challenges of the ICT value chain. Section 2.3
provides a historical narrative of environmental concerns within the ICT
industry since the advent of ICT. Section 2.4 turns the attention to
emerging trends, and to those concerns we deem likely to be of most
significance in the field of Green IT in the coming years. Finally, Sect. 2.5
concludes the chapter with some final remarks.

2.2 The Environmental Impact

of ICT Along Its Value Chain
Producing, using and disposing of ICT will always cause some level of
environmental harm, due to the physical nature of these products. The
impacts of these activities may range in their degree of harm and, at
best, be climate neutral, but they can never contribute positively to envi-
ronmental sustainability (Aebischer & Hilty, 2015; Berkhout & Hertin
2021). Greening of ICT—or simply Green IT in its original formulation
(Murugesan, 2008)—primarily focusses on minimising the environmental
impacts associated with ICT across the entire value chain. The value chain
of ICT products refers to the distinct phases of extraction of raw mate-
rials, design, manufacturing and transportation, use and disposal (Fors,
2019). The following subsections summarise the more harmful impacts
associated with ICT along its value chain.
28 P. FORS ET AL.

Extraction of Raw Materials

ICT devices are known for their complex material composition. A single
smartphone requires 75 different elements to produce, ranging from
plastic and copper to 16 of the 17 known rare earth elements (REEs)
(Humphries, 2016). While one device weighs approximately 128 grams
(Merchant, 2017), its production necessitates the extraction of 34 kilo-
grams of ore from the earth. This implies that roughly 99.97% of the
material extracted ends up as waste even before the device is disposed
of. Many ICT companies like to point out that their products consist
of recycled materials. Intel, which is one of the more outspoken ICT
companies in terms of their sustainability efforts, often talks about the
circularity of their products and business models (Intel, 2022). Apple
(2022), often described as the industry leader in terms of sustainability,
proudly presented in a recent sustainability report that they used up to
20% recycled materials in their products, meaning that 80% of the mate-
rial used in the 225 million iPhones and the 26 million MacBooks they
sold in 2022 were virgin materials. The waste generated from mining
activities can be toxic and pollute the land, air and water supplies in areas
where the ore is mined. Furthermore, industrial-scale mining activities
often make use of machinery powered by fossil fuels, which contribute to
climate change.
When ore is refined into useful materials, there are other environ-
mental issues that need to be taken into consideration. Refining ore is
a water-intensive process that threatens local supplies of drinking water
(Meißner, 2021). Furthermore, it creates various by-products that, if not
properly handled, can seep into nearby surroundings, leading to envi-
ronmental damage and posing health risks to individuals exposed to the
waste (Perzanowski, 2022). The fact that many of the materials used in
ICTs are extracted in developing countries, while the products themselves
are mainly used in developed countries, results in an unequal exchange
of resources and environmental impacts between rich and poor nations
(Hornborg, 2001; Lennerfors et al., 2015).
The ICT industry is heavily reliant on conflict minerals, such as tin,
tantalum, tungsten, gold (3TGs) (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015) and to some
extent coltan (Bleischwitz et al., 2012). These minerals are often sourced
from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where ICT companies
run the risk of funding militarised groups that control artisanal mines
in conditions akin to modern-day slavery. Many ICT companies have
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 29

claimed that to stop sourcing from the DRC is not a viable alternative
(Patel, 2016), and instead the region has been described as a laboratory
for various sustainable supply chain initiatives. However, the widespread
corruption in the country prevents transparency, leading researchers
to assume that these companies may still be indirectly supporting the
conflicts (Aula, 2020). While the problem of conflict minerals is mainly a
social issue, it may also have some implications for environmental sustain-
ability, since the corruption and the political fragility and instability of
the areas prevent policies and frameworks for environmentally conscious
extraction (Rhode, 2019).

Design, Manufacturing and Transportation

Designing and manufacturing ICT devices is both electricity and water
intensive, and will always result in various streams of waste and by-
products that need to be handled (Arushanyan, 2016). In the case of
most devices, particularly smaller ones such as laptops and smartphones,
the bulk of their carbon footprint has already been generated before they
reach the hands of the consumer (Perzanowski, 2022). For an iPhone,
approximately 81% of its total emissions stems from processes involving
the extraction of raw materials, production, manufacturing and the trans-
portation of the device (Greenly Institute, 2023), depending on the
electricity mix where the iPhone will later be used and the length of its
useful life. While the total figure is quite modest—approximately 70kg of
CO2 throughout its lifecycle—the immense number of units sold globally
translates to a significant overall environmental impact. A laptop, which
generally lasts longer than a smartphone but generates more emissions in
the use phase, emits approximately 200–500kg of CO2 emissions as it is
manufactured (Belkhir & Elmeligi, 2018). Freitag et al. (2021) suggest
that for most user devices (e.g., laptops and smartphones), approximately
half of the emissions are ‘embedded’, meaning that they occur in the
extraction and manufacturing phase. Today, especially the production of
Solid State Drives (SSDs) is extremely carbon intensive compared with
conventional mechanical hard drives (Tannu & Nair, 2023).
Because of the complex material composition of ICT devices, materials
need to be sourced from all around the globe, leading to increased emis-
sions from transportation both upstream and downstream in their supply
chains. Intel, for instance, contracts more than 9000 suppliers located in
89 different countries to, among other things, supply the materials for
30 P. FORS ET AL.

their manufacturing process (Intel, 2021). Most materials and compo-

nents are transported using oceangoing ships that emit not only CO2 but
other pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (Stathatou
et al., 2022). Although oceangoing vessels are known for their substantial
pollution, their capacity to transport large loads results in per-unit emis-
sions that are nearly negligible. Still, devices must be delivered to homes
and offices, and this is often done using medium-duty freight vehicles that
are much less efficient on a per-unit basis (Perzanowski, 2022). Amazon,
a prominent player in the delivery of such devices, was responsible for a
substantial 19 million metric tons of carbon emissions in a single year,
primarily attributable to their logistics operations (Ivanova, 2019).

Use
ICTs in their use phase contribute to an increasing portion of CO2
emissions globally. Freitag et al. (2021) conclude that the global CO2
footprint of ICTs, in the use phase, contributes to somewhere between
1.8 and 2.8% of the global emissions, which is in line with early esti-
mates by Gartner Institutes (Mingay, 2007). The emissions from most
user devices have been lowered substantially over the past 20–25 years
due to technological innovation and new legislation and policy, such as
the Energy Star1 and the TCO Certified2 certifications. Still, as the total
number of devices in use is constantly increasing, the overall emissions
from ICT in this phase are still on the rise (Allianz, 2023).
While some research suggests that the overall emissions from ICT in
the use phase might plateau due to energy-efficient servers and renew-
able energy sources (Malmodin, 2019), emissions from data centres
currently contribute to a substantial portion of the overall CO2 emis-
sions from ICT (Andre & Edler, 2015; Belkhir & Elmeligi, 2018). This
is mainly attributed to the usage phase, as these devices are energy
intensive and typically remain operational at all times (Freitag et al.,
2021). Media streaming contributes to the increased demand of data
centres, and emerging streaming-related practices and technologies, such
as ultra-high definition (UHD) streaming (Schwarz, 2022), ‘media multi-
tasking’ (Widdicks et al., 2019) and streamed video games (Marsden

1 https://www.energystar.gov/
2 https://tcocertified.com/
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 31

et al., 2020), may well result in increased emissions from data centres.
Emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and blockchain are
currently consuming immense amounts of electricity, with AI, in partic-
ular, expected to be a major driver of the rising electricity consumption
within the ICT sector in the foreseeable future (Ferré, 2023). In a recent
report, it is projected that, given current trends but assuming a rela-
tively unchanged electricity mix, ICTs could generate emissions exceeding
830 metric tons (MT) of CO2 by 2030 (Allianz, 2023), surpassing even
those of the airline industry. Nevertheless, there is a silver lining since
the emissions from ICT usage are intricately linked to the composition
of the electricity mix, implying that successful transitions to more sustain-
able energy systems by countries could substantially mitigate the adverse
environmental effects of the ICT industry.

Disposal
ICT devices consist of complex material compositions, but also software,
that make them difficult to repair, refurbish or recycle properly (Kreps &
Fors, 2020). ICT companies also have very little incentive to produce
long-lasting devices, as the business imperative is to have customers
replace their devices with new ones as quickly as possible (Perzanowski,
2022). According to the European Commission (2023), ICT products
are often disposed of prematurely, leading to 35 million tons of waste,
30 million tons of resource depletion and 261 million tons of GHG
emissions within the European Union (EU) annually. For many decades,
electronic waste (e-waste), which includes but is not limited to disposed
ICT devices, has for a long time been the fastest-growing waste stream
globally (Cucchiella, 2015). The waste is often toxic and can contain
arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxins, and only approximately 15% of
this waste undergoes proper recycling (Ruiz, 2023). The problem is also
unequally distributed among the world system (Lennerfors et al., 2015).
Despite measures to prevent illegal export of e-waste, much of the waste
accumulated in the Global North is exported to the Global South as
second-hand goods (Umair et al., 2016). Here, e-waste is informally recy-
cled without proper tools or protective equipment, leading to workers
being exposed to mercury fumes, dioxins and cadmium dust and pollu-
tants released into both the air and water reserves (Prakash et al., 2012;
Umair et al., 2016).
32 P. FORS ET AL.

E-waste contains a significantly higher percentage of valuable materials

compared to ore (Kreps & Fors, 2020). For example, one metric ton of
circuit boards may hold between 40 and 800 times the quantity of gold
and 30–40 times the amount of copper obtained from one metric ton of
ore (Bizzo et al., 2014). Still, ‘urban mining’ has not yet become econom-
ically feasible in the developed world, primarily due to the low cost of
sourcing virgin materials. This is just one of the many challenges that
currently prevent circularity within the ICT industry. Traditionally, the
focus has been on increasing the recycling rate, but as Perzanowski (2022)
shows, the sheer amount of new e-waste accumulated each year greatly
exceeds the capacity of the existing recycle infrastructure. It may therefore
be more sensible to reduce the rate of e-waste accumulation by designing
products with longer lifespans that can be easily repaired and upgraded.
As expressed by Patrignani and Whitehouse (2014, p. 84), promoting
environmentally friendly ICT necessitates embarking on a ‘quest to slow
down the ICT lifecycle’.

2.3 The Evolution of Green

IT and Sustainable ICT
Since the dawn of the environmental movement and the widespread adop-
tion of ICT, in parallel with the emergence of the field of IS in the
mid-twentieth century, the core ideas of Green IT have emerged—slowly,
and at times against the odds—in research, practice, and policy. Further-
more, once established, there has been a gradual shift from Green IT to
the more optimistic discourse of Sustainable ICT. The early days of ICT
coincided with the rise of the environmental movement in the 1960s, and
while global environmental concerns such as climate change were not
yet on the agenda, these first two decades saw first an increased aware-
ness of concerns such as electronic waste and toxic chemicals used in
the production processes. Later, primarily due to the oil crisis, attention
shifted to problems associated with the energy consumption of the large
mainframes adopted by organisations worldwide (see Table 2.1). Some
ICT companies during these decades implemented power-saving features
and even recycled the heat from their data centres into the central heating
system, or to heat nearby offices in order to save oil and money (Fors &
Lennerfors, 2018). The focus on decreasing energy consumption of ICT
continued in the 1980s and 1990s due to the rapid adoption of ICT,
not least personal computers (PCs) with over dimensioned power supplies
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 33

(Norford et al., 1988). An important realisation during these decades was

that most ICT products consumed almost as much power in stand-by
mode as when they were fully operational, and in particular in the 1990s,
the reduction of stand-by losses became the leitmotif of policy activities
in the field of ICT (Aebischer & Hilty, 2015), with examples such as
Energy Star and TCO Certified. The increase in power consumption of
ICT eventually gave rise to the concept of Green computing. Simpson
(1996) noted computers as the fastest-growing electrical load in business,
with a fivefold increase in energy consumption over a decade. E-waste
policy was also becoming more refined during these decades, with the
Basel Convention3 being adopted in 1989, which among other things
banned the export of e-waste to developing countries. Given the growing
concern for environmental sustainability within practice and policy in the
1980s and 1990s, surprisingly little attention was devoted to these issues
within the academic field of ICT during this time. In the ensuing decades,
public awareness grew regarding the significant contribution of the ICT
industry to global CO2 emissions.
While energy-conserving features and strategies had been implemented
earlier for cost-saving purposes, it was in the 2000s and 2010s that the
link between ICT and global warming became widely recognised. Melville
(2010) highlights that environmental sustainability was notably absent
from the contents of the ‘basket of 8’ IS journals until as late as 2003,
and in 2007—when Elliot (2007, p. 109) suggested that ‘environmental
sustainability of ICT should be seen as a sustainable topic in the main-
stream of IS research’—the concept of Green IT emerged. One could
say that it originated as a response to diverse environmental issues asso-
ciated with ICT, encompassing concerns like e-waste and the widespread
use of various chemicals in the industry. However, its primary emphasis
and key selling point were addressing the climate impact of ICT, which
at the time was estimated at two percent of the global emissions (Mingay,
2007). This marked a sudden realisation for the IS field where positivist
approaches, for many decades, had in various aspects been complicit in the
ICT-related factors contributing to climate change (Kreps, 2018). The
introduction of the concept grouped pre-existing strategies for fostering
environmentally sustainable ICT practices under the umbrella of Green
IT (Murugesan, 2008). While mitigating the negative effects of ICT was

3 https://www.basel.int/.
34 P. FORS ET AL.

Table 2.1 Evolution of Green IT

Time period Highlights from practice Highlights from IS research

1960s and • Establishment of the US • Hirschheim and Klein’s (2012)

70s Environmental Protection ‘First Era’
Agency (EPA) (1970) • Exclusively technological
• First UN Conference on the imperatives in Management of
Human Environment, Information systems (MIS)
Stockholm (1972) • Scant mention of the impact of
• Enactment of the US Resource ICTs upon human beings, let alone
Conservation and Recovery the non-human environment
Act (RCRA) (1976) • Gradual inception of sociotechnical
approaches (Bostrom & Heinen,
1977)
• 1st IFIP Human Choice and
Computers conference (1974)
• Technical Committee 9 on ICT
and Society (1976)
1980s and • Energy efficiency drives in • Hirschheim and Klein’s (2012)
90s response to rise in personal ‘Second’ and ‘Third Eras’
computers and related energy • 1st International Conference on
use—particularly in ‘stand-by’ Information Systems (ICIS) (1980)
mode • Founding of Association for
• Basel Convention on the Information Systems (AIS) (1994)
Control of Transboundary • Journals recognised later as the
Movements of Hazardous ‘Basket of 8’ begin to become
Wastes and Their Disposal established
(1989) • Positivism challenged by reference
• US EPA began addressing disciplines arriving in Information
e-waste informally (1990s) Systems: Philosophy of Technology
• Continued rising electricity (e.g., Kuhn 1962), Sociology of
consumption of ICT Technology (e.g., Mackenzie and
equipment promotes notion of Wajcman 1985), Science and
Green computing Technology Studies (e.g., Bijker,
• Promotion of user participation 1993), Foucault studies (e.g.,
in system development Discipline and Punish 1975) and
processes Bourdieu studies (e.g., Logic of
Practice 1990)
• Emphasis on user ‘acceptance’

(continued)
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 35

Table 2.1 (continued)

Time period Highlights from practice Highlights from IS research

2000s and • Notion of Green IT (2007) • Ethical goals and critical

2010s • Publication of the EU Waste approaches (Walsham, 2012) gain
Electrical and Electronic traction in IS
Equipment (WEEE) Directive • Responsible research and
(2003 then revised in 2012) innovation (Stahl, 2012)
• Notion of Circular Economy • Genuinely useful research (Rai,
promoted by the Ellen 2017)
MacArthur Foundation (2013) • Green IS tracks at AIS conferences
• Sustainability-related special issues
in the premier journals

the main objective for Green IT initiatives in the early days, the poten-
tial of ICT to be used to promote sustainability in other areas of society,
for example through the use of videoconferencing and telepresence tech-
nologies, or through carbon accounting and tracking (Mingay, 2007), was
soon recognised.
Although this facet was initially associated with Green IT, subse-
quent perspectives generally classify it under Green IS or Sustainable ICT.
This more optimistic discourse grew rapidly after the introduction of
Green IT, not least with the help of the Global e-Sustainability Initia-
tive’s (GeSI) inaugural SMART series reports. Well-received by industry
professionals, policymakers and scholars, these reports highlighted the
potential of the ICT sector to enhance the sustainability of society as a
whole, suggesting that ICT-based solutions decrease CO2 emissions by
up to 20% globally by 2030 (GeSI, 2015). A few years later, UNEP’s
International Resource Panel published a comprehensive report outlining
steps for achieving sustainable development. The report emphasised the
role of ICTs and technological solutions in decoupling economic growth
from carbon emissions, promoting environmental sustainability along-
side maintained economic growth (Hilty et al., 2011; UNEP, 2011).
We argue that this optimistic discourse about the relation between ICT
and sustainability took over in the late 2000s. However, in the 2020s—
perhaps due to reports of massive emissions stemming from data centres
worldwide as the result of video streaming, training AI models and main-
taining cryptocurrencies—the main arguments of Green IT are regaining
relevance.
36 P. FORS ET AL.

2.4 The Relevance of Green

IT Today and in the Future
Here we present a sample of contemporary issues that are currently
emphasised in research, practice and policy. The majority of these aspects
are not new per se, but interest in them has been renewed due to recent
events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the rise of
emerging technologies and the (un)availability of raw materials resulting
from various geopolitical tensions.

The Environmental Effects of Emerging Technologies

Since the late 2010s there has been a rapid development of AI,
blockchain, Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR and VR). These tech-
nologies alter how we engage with and navigate the boundaries between
the virtual and the physical, and find applications across gaming, enter-
tainment, education, healthcare and production. It is assumed that these
technologies may help to further sustainability efforts in various ways in
the future (Davis et al., 2023), including minimising the necessity for
travelling (Krupnova et al., 2020; Talwar et al., 2022). However, they
also present new sets of environmental challenges (Leffer, 2023).
AR and VR devices pose environmental challenges including the
demand for rare and critical materials, and specifically new e-waste chal-
lenges due to device repair difficulties. This is because wearable devices
need to be light and extremely compact, which limits the possibilities of
repair (Perzanowski, 2022). For instance, it was recently found in a review
of Apple’s new VR headset Apple Vision Pro by the Phone Repair Guru
(2024) that the device is currently unrepairable.
While AI has seen extensive use in certain industrial sectors and in
finance, healthcare and education, the general public started to encounter
and actively engage with AI with the release of Large Language Models
(LLMs) and various image generating applications. The penetration of
these applications in society has given rise to discussions concerning ethics
and sustainability. Van Wynsberghe (2021) and Crome et al. (2024) argue
that research tends to focus on the potential of AI to solve various
sustainability-related problems and overcome sustainability-related chal-
lenges in various sectors, including agriculture, banking, healthcare and
energy. Coeckelbergh (2021), for example, argues that AI has the poten-
tial to help mitigate climate change and various other environmental
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 37

concerns, and Ludvigsen (2023) shows how using AI models to write or

to generate images could potentially save energy compared with manual
labour. Still, as both Coeckelbergh (2021) and Van Wynsberghe (2021)
show, the impact of AI on environmental sustainability is predominantly
negative at present, since AI contributes to increased energy consump-
tion. OpenAI has disclosed that it used 25,000 Nvidia GPUs (Graphics
Processing Units) for 100 days, consuming approximately 50 Gigawatt
hours (GWh)) of energy, in the process of training a single LLM, GPT-
4 (Patel & Wong, 2023). Lai (2023) concludes that the energy used to
train the specific language model is equivalent to the energy consumption
of 1000 average US households over five-to-six years.
Blockchain technologies are perceived as potentially beneficial in supply
chain management, voting systems and healthcare. Davis et al. (2023)
present positive applications of blockchain for environmental sustain-
ability, demonstrating instances such as utilising excess heat from data
centres for wood drying and incentivising clean energy production.
Today, the technology is mainly used to enable cryptocurrencies, most
notably Bitcoin. Much research has focussed on the immense electricity
consumption of this currency, which has been compared to that of a small
country. The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (2024) recently
estimated that the power demand of Bitcoin in 2023 was approximately
121.13 Terawatt hours (TWh). Limiting the negative climate impact
of this immense electricity consumption, for example through transi-
tioning towards more energy-efficient consensus algorithms, is therefore
considered a high priority (Saleh, 2021; Varavallo et al., 2022).

The Environmental Impacts of the Data-Driven Digital Revolution

There is a widespread assumption that digitalisation generally will play
a pivotal role in contributing to several of the United Nations’ (UN)
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Initiatives to improve educa-
tion, healthcare and clean energy production often rely heavily on ICT,
especially on efficient transmission of data. Globally, the volume of data
generated, captured, duplicated and consumed has increased almost expo-
nentially, especially since the pandemic, from 41 zettabytes (ZB) in 2019
with a projected growth to 181 ZB in 2025 (Statista, 2023). While the
growth in data generation and transmission can be attributed mainly
to cloud computing and media streaming, we must now also take into
account the high-performance computing power required to analyse the
38 P. FORS ET AL.

vast amounts of data generated by the Internet of Things (IoT) as more

devices in both industries and households contribute to data generation
and transmission (Gray, 2018). While access to new information provided
by this data can identify important insights for decision making, the
impact of this energy consumption is said to be in the region of 23%
of the total CO2 emissions from ICT (Ganesan et al., 2020). Mitigating
this huge increase, virtual machine consolidation in green cloud software
engineering has been used to support energy-efficient cloud infrastruc-
ture (Ganesan et al., 2020). As the number of data centres multiplies to
accommodate increasing demand, the use of cloud computing becomes
ubiquitous, the greening of the cloud becomes even more important; this
includes resource allocation mechanisms that aim to efficiently use and
distribute cloud resources (Kumar et al., 2022).
While energy efficiency in data centres has increased significantly, the
need for data transmission is increasing even faster, leading to increased
climate impact in absolute terms (Andrae & Edler, 2015). Policy initia-
tives that aim to support data-driven initiatives are just starting (Lucivero
et al., 2020). Organisations heavily dependent on data centres are often
hesitant to disclose data on their environmental impact, as there are
limited incentives for them to make such information publicly available
(Crawford et al., 2019). In order to exploit the sustainability-related
potential of the data-driven digital revolution, it is essential to address
the escalating energy consumption of data centres globally. Therefore, the
European Commission (2020a) has recently decided that energy-efficient
cloud computing should be a top priority in Europe, and sets out to
achieve climate-neutral data centre operations no later than 2030.

Circularity of ICT: Refurbishing and the Right to Repair

Perzanowski (2022) shows how manufacturers of technological devices
have deliberately created obstacles, including design, business and legal
barriers, to impede repairs, thus compelling consumers to buy new devices
rather than extending the lifespan of their current ones. In 2020, the
European Commission (2020b) adopted the new Circular Economy
Action Plan (CEAP) that introduces initiatives along the value chain of
different products, including ICTs. It targets how these products are
designed and produced, used, reused and discarded. As part of the CEAP,
European Commission (2023) recently adopted a new proposal aiming
to promote the repair of electronic products. The proposal seeks to
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 39

encourage more sustainable business models among manufacturers by

instituting more extensive obligations. Various similar laws have been
enacted in US states such as Minnesota, Massachusetts and New York.
Another related trend is refurbishing of ICT products, which refers to
the practice of restoring pre-owned ICT devices to a like-new condition,
often including repairs, upgrades and quality assurance checks. In recent
years, companies have emerged in the EU and in the US that collect
smartphones, laptops, servers and other ICT products that they refurbish
and resell to both companies and private consumers. According to the
French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME, 2022),
choosing a refurbished smartphone reduces, on average, waste by 89%,
while also reducing water usage and CO2 emissions significantly. The
demand for refurbished ICT increased during the COVID-19 pandemic
as people transitioned to remote work and study, and had to acquire new
laptops, headsets and webcams. Simultaneously, production challenges in
China resulted in a decreased supply of newly produced ICTs, leading
people to search for alternatives. Even before the pandemic, there was
a shortage of certain components, particularly GPUs, attributed to the
growing interest in Bitcoin mining (Lim & Wibowo, 2022). Given the
continued volatility in the market due to various geopolitical concerns, it
is safe to assume that the market for refurbished devices will continue to
rise in the foreseeable future. In a recent report, CMI (2022) assessed the
refurbished device market at about USD 52.34 billion in 2021 and antic-
ipates it to rise to USD 64.10 billion in 2022, with a projected increase
to roughly USD 146.43 billion by 2030.

2.5 Conclusion
Despite the environmental movement gaining momentum as early as the
1960s, the ICT industry largely avoided the level of criticism directed at
other polluting sectors, at least until the mid-2000s (Lennerfors et al.,
2015), when the concept of Green IT was first introduced and the field
of IS started to emphasise these issues. Yet the topic of energy efficiency in
ICT was a subject of discourse as far back as the 1970s during the oil crises
(Fors & Lennerfors, 2018). The e-waste problem also started to gain
increased attention in the 1970s, focussed on the hazardous substances
that posed threats to human health and wildlife. Discussion of the human
environment around ICTs in the 1970s and 1980s in the IS literature laid
the groundwork to expand into consideration of the environment. Thus,
40 P. FORS ET AL.

in the historical narrative in this chapter we have presented how initia-

tives promoted by Green IT to improve the environmental sustainability
of ICT had already been implemented and discussed to some extent
within policy, research and practice albeit, usually, for economic, political
or regulatory reasons or to promote social sustainability. Improved envi-
ronmental sustainability played a relatively small part in the endeavours
employed to make ICT green, until the mid-2000s, when environmental
concerns began to be used to promote change. Even then, relatively few
genuinely new solutions were developed or invented; instead, existing
ideas were often repurposed, repackaged or recontextualised as Green IT
(Fors, 2019).
For a relatively short period of time, Green IT focussed almost exclu-
sively on mitigating the negative effects of ICT production, use and
disposal (Murugesan, 2008). However, the concept acted as a bandwagon
towards new understandings of and discourses about the intersection
of ICT and environmental sustainability (Fors, 2019). This led to an
eventual shift in discourse where ICT was described as having relatively
minor negative impacts on the environment during production, use and
disposal, but could contribute substantially to furthering environmental
sustainability during its use phase (GeSI, 2015). This more favourable
perspective on ICT and sustainability prevailed until new discussions
about emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain, video streaming
and cloud computing once again put the focus on the negative environ-
mental impact of ICT due to its electricity use. Recent policy initiatives
that prioritise the promotion of the circular economy emphasise extending
the lifespan of ICT devices and encouraging repairability, with a specific
emphasis on e-waste reduction (European Commission, 2023). We inter-
pret that the pendulum is once more swinging towards a more active
consideration of the negative impact ICT has on the environment.
To conclude, we argue that the potential for ICT to contribute to
environmental sustainability remains mainly theoretical. Truly Sustainable
ICT, with the power to greatly reduce the negative environmental impact
of other polluting sectors of society, has, as of yet, not been deployed
on a large scale, and it is difficult to say whether this potential will be
unleashed (Börjesson Rivera, 2015). The long-term effects of certain
technologies are difficult to foresee (Hallonsten, 2023), not least since
their true impacts (or lack thereof) will reveal themselves only in decades
to come, oftentimes in unexpected ways and contexts (Mazzucato, 2021).
Therefore, we cannot be sure whether these emerging technologies will
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 41

prove beneficial for environmental sustainability purposes or not. What we

do know is that they currently pose a direct threat to the environment,
today. We must therefore ensure that their direct negative effects along
their respective value chains are mitigated, now.

References
ADEME (Agence de la Transition Écologique). (2022). Evaluation de l’impact
environnemental d’un ensemble de produits reconditionnés. Available at:
https://librairie.ademe.fr/dechets-economie-circulaire/5241-evaluation-de-
l-impact-environnemental-d-un-ensemble-de-produits-reconditionnes.html.
Accessed: 2023–12–18.
Aebischer, B., & Hilty, L. M. (2015). The energy demand of ICT: A historical
perspective and current methodological challenges. In ICT Innovations for
Sustainability (pp. 71–103). Springer International Publishing.
Allianz. (2023). More emissions than meet the eye: Decarbonizing the ICT
sector. Report. Available at: https://www.allianz.com/en/economic_res
earch/publications/specials_fmo/decarbonizing-information-technologies.
html. Accessed: 2023–12–18.
Andrae, A. S., & Edler, T. (2015). On global electricity usage of communication
technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges, 6(1), 117–157.
Apple. (2022). Apple expands the use of recycled materials across its products.
Available at: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apple-expands-
the-use-of-recycled-materials-across-its-products/. Accessed: 2023–10–02.
Arushanyan, Y. (2016). Environmental impacts of ICT: Present and future
(Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
Aula, I. (2020). Due diligence as a conflict prevention tool in Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, issue 125
(September 2020), pp. 61–85.
Belkhir, L., & Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint:
Trends to 2040 and recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177 ,
448–463.
Bijker, W. (1993). The social construction of technological system. MIT Press.
Bizzo, W. A., Figueiredo, R. A., & De Andrade, V. F. (2014). Characteriza-
tion of printed circuit boards for metal and energy recovery after milling and
mechanical separation. Materials, 7 (6), 4555–4566.
Bleischwitz, R., Dittrich, M., & Pierdicca, C. (2012). Coltan from Central Africa,
international trade and implications for any certification. Resources Policy,
37 (1), 19–29.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for
conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 34(12), 257–286.
42 P. FORS ET AL.

Boivie, P. E. (2007). Global standard: Om hur TCO-loggan hamnade på

dataskärmar jorden runt. Premiss.
Börjesson Rivera, M. (2015). Practice makes perfect? Sustainable practices with
ICT and daily travel (Lic. dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
Bostrom, R., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-
technical perspective—part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (2024). Cambridge bitcoin electricity
consumption. Available at: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci. Accessed: 2024–03–
01.
CMI (Custom Market Insights) (2022). Global refurbished and used mobile
phones market 2023–2032. Available at: https://www.custommarketinsights.
com/report/refurbished-used-mobile-phones/. Accessed: 2024–03–01.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2021). AI for climate: Freedom, justice, and other ethical and
political challenges. AI and Ethics, 1(1), 67–72.
European Commission. (2015). First circular economy action plan. Available
at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/first-circular-
economy-action-plan_en#objectives. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
European Commission. (2023). Right to repair: Commission introduces new
consumer rights for easy and attractive repairs. Available at: https://ec.europa.
eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1794. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
Crawford, K., Dobbe, R., & Dryer T., et al. (2019). AI Now 2019 Report. Avail-
able at: https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2019_Report.html. Accessed:
2023–10–23.
Crome, C., Graf-Drasch, V., Oberländer, A. M., & Seidel, S. Twin transfor-
mation. In P. Rosati, T. Lynn, D. Kreps, & K. Conboy (Eds.). Digital
sustainability. Palgrave.
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Koh, S. L., & Rosa, P. (2015). Recycling of WEEEs:
An economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 263–272.
Davis, M., Grassman, R., Bracamonte, V., & Sato, M. (2023). A block in the
chain of sustainability? On blockchain technology and its economic, social,
and environmental impact. In T. T. Lennerfors & K. Murata (Eds.), Ethics
and sustainability in digital cultures (pp. 225–249). Routledge.
Elliot, S. (2007). Environmentally sustainable ICT: A critical topic for IS
research. PACIS 2007 Conference Proceedings.
European Commission. (2020b). Circular economy action plan. Avail-
able at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-
plan_en. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 43

European Commission. (2020a). Energy-efficient cloud computing technologies

and policies for an eco-friendly cloud market. Available at: https://digital-str
ategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/energy-efficient-cloud-computing-technolog
ies-and-policies-eco-friendly-cloud-market. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
Ferré, I. (2023). Energy consumption ‘to dramatically increase’ because of
AI. yahoo! finance. Available at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-con
sumption-to-dramatically-increase-because-of-ai-114541309.html. Accessed:
2023–10–23.
Fitzpatrick, C., Olivetti, E., Miller, T. R., Roth, R., & Kirchain, R. (2015).
Conflict minerals in the compute sector: Estimating extent of tin, tantalum,
tungsten, and gold use in ICT products. Environmental Science & Technology,
49(2), 974–981.
Fors, P. (2019). Problematizing sustainable ICT (Doctoral dissertation, Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis).
Fors, P., & Lennerfors, T. T. (2018). We started building green IT back in
the 1970s: Making sense of sustainable ICT through organizational history.
Sustainability, 10(8), 2668.
Forti, V., Balde, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The global e-waste monitor
2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. Report. Avail-
able at: https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GEM_
2020_def_july1_low.pdf. Accessed: 2024–02–08.
Foucault, M. (1975/1991). Discipline and punish: The Birth of the prison.
Penguin.
Freitag, C., Berners-Lee, M., Widdicks, K., Knowles, B., Blair, G. S., & Friday,
A. (2021). The real climate and transformative impact of ICT: A critique of
estimates, trends, and regulations. Patterns, 2(9), 100340.
Ganesan, M., Kor, A.-L., Pattinson, C., & Rondeau, E. (2020). Green cloud
software engineering for big data processing. Sustainability, 12(21), 9255.
GeSI. (2015). 2030: ICT solutions for 21st century challenges. Report. The
Global eSustainability Initiative. (GeSI).
Gholami, R., Watson, R. T., Hasan, H., Molla, A., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2016).
Information systems solutions for environmental sustainability: How can we
do more? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17 (8), 521–536.
Gray, C. A. (2018). Energy consumption of Internet of Things applications and
services (Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne).
The Phone Repair Guru. (2024). The apple vision pro is… unrepairable? Avail-
able at: https://youtu.be/vZPzz0N-J38?si=eZSyJ79_aIi7PhoY. Accessed:
2024–03–01.
Hallonsten, O. (2023). Empty innovation: Causes and consequences of society’s
obsession with entrepreneurship and growth. Springer Nature.
Hilty, L., Lohmann, W., & Huang, E. M. (2011). Sustainability and ICT-an
overview of the field. Notizie Di POLITEIA, 27 (104), 13–28.
44 P. FORS ET AL.

Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history

of the information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 13(4), 5.
Hornborg, A. (2001). The power of the machine: Global inequalities of economy,
technology, and environment. Rowman Altamira.
Humphries, M. (2016). Human Life Requires 26 Essential Elements, an iPhone
Requires 75. Available at: https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/86348/
human-life-requires-26-essential-elements-an-iphone-requires-75. Accessed:
2023–10–02.
Greenly Institute. (2023). What is the Carbon Footprint of the iPhone? Avail-
able at: https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/what-is-the-carbon-
footprint-of-the-iphone. Accessed: 2023–10–02.
Intel (2021). 2020–2021 Corporate responsibility report. Supply Chain
Overview. Available at: http://csrreportbuilder.intel.com/pdfbuilder/pdfs/
CSR-2020-21-Supply-Chain-Summary.pdf. Accessed: 2023–10–02.
Intel (2022). How Intel supports a circular economy. Available at: https://www.
intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/how-intel-supports-cir
cular-economy.html#gs.6fssfb. Accessed: 2023–10–02.
Ivanova, I. (2019). How free one-day shipping is heating up the planet.
CBS News. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-prime-
day-one-day-shipping-has-a-huge-carbon-footprint/. Accessed: 2023–10–02.
Koot, M., & Wijnhoven, F. (2021). Usage impact on data center electricity
needs: A system dynamic forecasting model. Applied Energy, 291(1), 16798.
Kreps, D. (2018). Against nature: The metaphysics of information systems.
Routledge.
Kreps, D., & Fors, P. (2020). A resource perspective on e-waste: A global
problem with local solutions?. In L. Strous, R. Johnson, D. A., Grier, &
D. Swade (Eds.) Unimagined futures—ICT opportunities and challenges. IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol. 555). Springer.
Krupnova, T., Rakova, O., Lut, A., Yudina, E., Shefer, E., & Bulanova, A.
(2020). Virtual reality in environmental education for manufacturing sustain-
ability in Industry 4.0. In Proceedings of 2020 Global smart industry
conference (GloSIC) (pp. 87–91). IEEE.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970)[1962]. The structure of scientific revolutions. Enlarged.
University of Chicago Press.
Kumar, C., Marston, S., Sen, R., & Narisetty, A. (2022). Greening the cloud: A
load balancing mechanism to optimize cloud computing networks. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 39(2), 513–541.
Lai, C. (2023). AI is harming our planet: addressing AI’s staggering energy cost.
Numenta. Available at: https://www.numenta.com/blog/2023/08/10/ai-
is-harming-our-planet-2023/. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 45

Leffer, L. (2023). The AI Boom could use a shocking amount of electricity.

Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/art
icle/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/. Accessed:
2023–10–23.
Lennerfors, T. T., Fors, P., & van Rooijen, J. (2015). ICT and environmental
sustainability in a changing society: The view of ecological World Systems
Theory. Information Technology & People, 28(4), 758–774.
Lim, H. W., & Wibowo, T. (2022). Cryptocurrency mining effects anal-
ysis on semiconductor shortage on pc owner community. In Proceedings of
CoMBInES-Conference on Management, Business, Innovation, Education and
Social Sciences (pp. 324–331).
Lucivero, F., Samuel, G., Blair, G., Darby, S. J., Fawcett, T., Hazas, M.,
Ten Holter, C., Jirotka, M., Parker, M., Webb, H., & Yuan, H. (2020).
Data-driven unsustainability? An interdisciplinary perspective on governing the
environmental impacts of a data-driven society.
Ludvigsen, K. G. A. (2023). ChatGPT’s electricity consumption. Medium. Avail-
able at: https://towardsdatascience.com/chatgpts-electricity-consumption-
7873483feac4. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
MacArthur, E. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 2(1), 23–44.
MacKenzie, D. A. & Wajcman, J, (Eds.) (1999) [1985]. The social shaping of
technology. Open University Press.
Malhotra, A., Melville, N. P., & Watson, R. T. (2013). Spurring impactful
research on information systems for environmental sustainability. MIS Quar-
terly, 37 (4), 1265–1274.
Malmodin, J. (2019). Energy consumption and carbon emissions of the ICT sector.
Presentation given at Energimyndigheten.
Marsden, M., Hazas, M., & Broadbent, M. (2020). From one edge to the other:
Exploring gaming’s rising presence on the network. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (pp. 247–254).
Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capi-
talism. Penguin.
Meißner, S. (2021). The impact of metal mining on global water stress and
regional carrying capacities—A GIS-based water impact assessment. Resources,
10(12), 120.
Melville, N. P. (2010). Information systems innovation for environmental
sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1–21.
Merchant, B. (2017). The one device: The secret history of the iPhone. Little,
Brown.
Mingay, S. (2007). Green IT: The new industry shock wave. Gartner RAS Research
Note G, 153703(7).
46 P. FORS ET AL.

Murugesan, S. (2008). Harnessing green IT: Principles and practices. IT

Professional, 10(1), 24–33.
Norford, L. K., Rabl, A., Harris, J., & Roturier, J. (1988). The sum of megabytes
equals gigawatts: Energy consumption and efficiency of office PCs and related
equipment. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
Patel, D., & Wong, G. (2023). GPT-4 Architecture, infrastructure, training
dataset, costs, vision, MoE. SemiAnalysis. Available at: https://www.semian
alysis.com/p/gpt-4-architecture-infrastructure. Accessed: 2024–03–01.
Patel, P. (2016). Intel’s Carolyn Duran ensures conflict-free minerals supply
chain. MRS Bulletin, 41, 849–853.
Patrignani, N., & Whitehouse, D. (2014). Slow Tech: A quest for good, clean
and fair ICT. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society,
12(2), 78–92.
Perzanowski, A. (2022). The right to repair: Reclaiming the things we own.
Cambridge University Press.
Prakash, S., Liu, R., Schischke, K., & Stobbe, P. L. (2012). Early replace-
ment of notebooks considering environmental impacts. In Proceedings of 2012
Electronics Goes Green. IEEE.
Rai, A. (2017). Editor’s comments: Avoiding type III errors: Formulating IS
research problems that matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii–vii.
Rhodes, C. J. (2019). Endangered elements, critical raw materials and conflict
minerals. Science Progress, 102(4), 304–350.
Ruiz, A. (2023). Latest global e-waste statistics and what they tell us. The
Roundup. Available at: https://theroundup.org/global-e-waste-statistics/.
Accessed: 2023–10–03.
Saleh, F. (2021). Blockchain without waste: Proof-of-stake. The Review of
Financial Studies, 34(3), 1156–1190.
Schwarz, B. (2022). Op-Ed: 8K and sustainability. 8K Association. Avail-
able at: https://8kassociation.com/industry-info/8k-news/op-ed-8k-and-sus
tainability/. Accessed: 3 October 2023.
Simpson, W. (1996). A guide to green computing. Strategic Planning for Energy
and the Environment, 15(3).
Stahl, B. (2012). Responsible research and innovation in information systems.
European Journal for Information Systems, 21, 207–211.
Stathatou, P. M., Bergeron, S., Fee, C., Jeffrey, P., Triantafyllou, M., & Gershen-
feld, N. (2022). Towards decarbonization of shipping: Direct emissions and
life cycle impacts from a biofuel trial aboard an ocean-going dry bulk vessel.
Sustainable Energy and Fuels, 6(7), 1687–1697.
Statista. (2023). Volume of data/information created, captured, copied, and
consumed worldwide from 2010 to 2020, with forecasts from 2021 to
2025. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-
data-created/. Accessed: 2023–10–23.
 2 GREEN IT: THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL … 47

Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Nunkoo, R., & Dhir, A. (2022). Digitalization and sustain-
ability: Virtual reality tourism in a post pandemic world. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–28.
Tannu, S., & Nair, P. J. (2023). The dirty secret of SSDs: Embodied carbon.
Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.10793.pdf. Accessed: 2023–12–19.
Umair, S., Anderberg, S., & Potting, J. (2016). Informal electronic waste recy-
cling in Pakistan. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management,
42(3), 222–235.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2011). Decoupling natural
resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. UNEP/
Earthprint.
Van Wynsberghe, A. (2021). Sustainable AI: AI for sustainability and the
sustainability of AI. AI and Ethics, 1(3), 213–218.
Varavallo, G., Caragnano, G., Bertone, F., Vernetti-Prot, L., & Terzo, O. (2022).
Traceability platform based on green blockchain: An application case study in
dairy supply chain. Sustainability, 14(6), 3321.
Walsham, G. (2012). Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on
a future agenda for the IS field. Journal of Information Technology, 27 (2),
87–93.
Widdicks, K., Hazas, M., Bates, O., & Friday, A. (2019, May). Streaming, multi-
screens and YouTube: The new (unsustainable) ways of watching in the home.
In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 1–13).
Zapico, J. L. (2013). Hacking for sustainability. (Doctoral dissertation, Royal
Institute of Technology, KTH).
48 P. FORS ET AL.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 CHAPTER 3

Integrating Digital and Sustainability

Transformation Through Artificial
Intelligence: A Framework for AI-enabled
Twin Transformation

Carlotta Crome, Valerie Graf-Drasch,

Anna Maria Oberländer, and Stefan Seidel

Abstract “Twin Transformation” is characterised by synergistic lever-

aging of efforts towards digital and sustainability transformation. It relies
on digital transformation to develop digital solutions that can improve
sustainability and on sustainability transformation to provide the goals and
insights that are required to design these digital solutions. This integrated
approach uses data streams and the predictive and generative capabilities
of systems enabled by Artificial Intelligence (AI). These systems help to
overcome the boundaries of human rationality in addressing the complex

C. Crome · V. Graf-Drasch · A. M. Oberländer (B)

FIM Research Center for Information Management, Alter Postweg 101, 86159
Augsburg, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 49

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_3
50 C. CROME ET AL.

problem space that exists at the intersection of digital and sustainability

transformation. This chapter provides a framework for AI-enabled Twin
Transformation and calls for a joint discourse to master what are arguably
the two key transformations of this and the following decades.

Keywords Digital transformation · Sustainability transformation · Twin

transformation · Artificial intelligence · AI-enabled systems

3.1 Introduction
Digital transformation (DT) and sustainability transformation (ST) are
dominant transformational forces. In the past few years, DT has been
driven by rapid advancements in digital technologies and has had
profound impacts on individuals, organisations, and society (e.g., Vial,
2019; Wessel et al., 2021). Emerging digital technologies, such as digital
platforms and Artificial Intelligence (AI), are advancing the ability to
collect and process ever-larger volumes of data, make predictions based
on that data, and generate solutions. Current DT research mainly focuses
on such technological progress changing value creation paths and related
positive and negative impacts on different levels of analysis (Hanelt et al.,
2021; Vial, 2019). At the same time, concerns about environmental

C. Crome
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Graf-Drasch
e-mail: [email protected]
A. M. Oberländer
Branch Business and Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT,
Bayreuth, Germany
S. Seidel
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
A. M. Oberländer
University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
 3 INTEGRATING DIGITAL AND SUSTAINABILITY … 51

degradation, social inequality, as well as economic instability shape market

dynamics and have accelerated discussions about digital sustainability and
digital resilience (Boh et al., 2023; Kotlarsky et al., 2023). ST depends
on the vital role of digital technologies such as AI-enabled systems in
addressing environmental and societal challenges to facilitate the devel-
opment of innovative solutions and systemic changes (Lehnhoff et al.,
2021; Watson et al., 2010). AI-enabled monitoring and analysis of data
like CO2 levels and forecast data of extreme weather events play major
roles in environmental concerns of ST.
Given the need to pursue both key transformations simultaneously,
some businesses and regulators (e.g., European Commission, 2022) have
identified a synergistic relationship between DT and ST. Businesses that
use an integrated approach to deal with both transformations at once
appear to be more successful than those that focus on one at a time
(Ollagnier et al., 2021). The European Commission (2022) identifies
several applications for an integrated DT and ST approach, including
systematic management of supply chains and financial flows, developing
monitoring frameworks that measure well-being beyond economic goals,
and advancing secure data-sharing frameworks.
Despite these potential synergies, the academic discourse on DT and
ST has evolved in relative isolation. Only recently information systems
(IS) research started to discuss the potential of an integrated trans-
formation of DT and ST, using the label Twin Transformation (e.g.,
Christmann et al., 2024; Graf-Drasch et al., 2023). Christmann et al.,
(2024, p. 7) characterise Twin Transformation as “a value-adding inter-
play between digital and sustainability transformation efforts that improve
an organisation by leveraging digital technologies for enabling sustain-
ability and leveraging sustainability for guiding digital progress.” Thus,
Twin Transformation leverages DT to develop digital solutions that
improve ST to provide the goals and insights that are required to design
those digital solutions.
In this chapter, we argue that IS researchers and practitioners can play
a role in further integrating DT and ST to capitalise on their synergistic
potential, acknowledging that IS are embedded in larger systems where
human action affects and is affected by the natural environment (Christ-
mann et al., 2024). Specifically, we highlight how AI—the ever-evolving
frontier of computational advancement (Berente et al., 2021)—will play
a pivotal role in realising Twin Transformation. We develop a framework
for AI-enabled Twin Transformation to show how AI-enabled systems
52 C. CROME ET AL.

can help to overcome the boundaries of human rationality in addressing

the complex problem space that exists at the intersection of DT and ST.
The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. Section 3.2
outlines the Twin Transformation concept and highlights how the
problem spaces of DT and ST overlap. Section 3.3 describes the role
of AI-enabled systems in contributing to DT’s and ST’s joint solution
space. Finally, Sect. 3.4 concludes the chapter with a discussion of our
framework’s implications for IS research and practice.

3.2 Twin Transformation: Converging

the Problem Spaces of Digital Transformation
and Sustainability Transformation
Twin Transformation integrates DT’s and ST’s problem spaces providing
a joint solution space at their interface. These problem spaces comprise
the respective challenges of the individual transformations, while they are
addressed in an integrated manner in the Twin Transformation solution
space. Such integration may appear contradictory at first, as DT initiatives
typically focus on economic concerns (e.g., efficiency improvement, sales
increase) (Vial, 2019), whereas ST initiatives are motivated by social and
environmental concerns (Schoormann, 2020; Seidel et al., 2013).
The DT problem space refers to digital innovations that transform
aspects of private and professional lives, organisations’ value propositions
(Wessel et al., 2021), and society’s interconnectedness (Mousavi Baygi
et al., 2021). At the individual level, digital technologies redefine commu-
nication, collaboration, workplace design, and work practices (sometimes
referred to as the future of work). At the organisation level, DT affects
processes, products, services, and business models (Vial, 2019). At the
societal level, an interconnected techno-society unfolds in which digital
technologies create and shape reality instead of only representing it
(Baskerville et al., 2019). At all levels, DT involves continuous change
and causes significant tensions between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ (Drech-
sler et al., 2020), requiring flexibility and acceptance of a new culture
(Svahn et al., 2017). As a result, the success of DT is often only partial—
but the partial success is also because its complex drivers and effects are
still poorly understood (Gurbaxani & Dunkle, 2019).
 3 INTEGRATING DIGITAL AND SUSTAINABILITY … 53

The ST problem space refers to social, environmental, and economic

sustainability issues related to individuals, organisations, and society. Indi-
viduals can have a positive impact on sustainability by making sustainable
consumption choices, while organisations can contribute by empow-
ering individuals to make sustainable consumption choices and to use
their power to improve global sustainability. The effect of organisational
behaviour should not be underestimated, as, for example, the energy
sector in the European Union (EU) is responsible for two thirds of
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the EU (European Parliament,
2023). At the societal level, legislators use regulations to steer individu-
als’ and organisations’ behaviour and support intergenerational justice by
mitigating biodiversity losses and natural disasters to ensure that future
generations can continue to live in a world worth living in (Ekardt et al.,
2023). Overall, ST uses the underlying mechanisms and links among the
three levels of sustainability to shape and guide its means and ends.
Building on insights from IS research on DT and ST problem spaces,
recent publications focus on the intersection where solutions address
DT- and ST-related problems simultaneously. Zimmer and Järveläinen
(2022), for instance, apply the triple-bottom line of economic, environ-
mental, and social sustainability to DT research and provide a framework
for sustainable and digital co-transformations. Graf-Drasch et al. (2023)
analyse Twin Transformation on various organisational levels using an
integrative work system perspective to describe the interplay of DT and
ST and guide organisations in their Twin Transformation. Christmann
et al. (2024) examine dynamic capabilities of making DT sustainable and
enabling the digitalisation of ST processes to realise Twin Transformation.
In this context, particularly because of their learning abilities, AI-enabled
systems are recognised as the current technological frontier for developing
dynamic capabilities in transformational DT and ST, and the specific role
of AI in Twin Transformations warrants our attention.

3.3 A Framework for AI-enabled

Twin Transformation
Twin Transformation is rooted in two complex and overlapping problem
spaces, each rife with multidimensional problems that are too complex
and too large for humans to navigate. DT and digital technologies like
AI-enabled systems open many opportunities to address the multi-layered
challenges of sustainability, which are often characterised by uncertain
54 C. CROME ET AL.

interdependencies and nonlinearities (Malhotra et al., 2013; Schoormann,

2020; Watson et al., 2010;). The complexity that results from DT’s
almost infinite opportunities and ST’s multidimensional dependencies
make it difficult for humans to evaluate the value of a (digital) solu-
tion design (Rai, 2017), so Twin Transformation is a prime example of
problems that require application of AI-enabled solutions’ predictive and
generative capabilities to overcome the boundaries of human rationality
(Berente et al., 2021). Through their capacity to learn, make predictions,
support decision-making, and generate new solutions, AI can help to
build socio-technical systems that have the requisite variety (Ashby, 1991)
needed to address complex economic, environmental, and social concerns
simultaneously.
The interplay between DT and ST is enabled by networks of sensi-
tised objects, which generate the data streams that provide fodder for
AI-enabled systems. AI-enabled systems can process large amounts of data
that form the basis for their ability to learn (i.e. improve through data and
experience) and to be autonomous (i.e. having the ability to act without
human intervention) in an expanding range of contexts (Agrawal et al.,
2018; Berente et al., 2021). Moreover, AI-enabled systems can provide
predictions and generate design options that can inform design decisions
and lead to new data streams. They can find patterns in large amounts
of unstructured data and generate novel artefacts (e.g., through genera-
tive AI), thus helping to clarify phenomena related to sustainability and
informing appropriate design interventions (Padmanabhan et al., 2022).
ST requires AI-enabled systems to learn about a transformation’s conse-
quences, such as the gains that are likely from implementing aspects of
the Circular Economy (Zeiss et al., 2021).
In the AI-enabled Twin Transformation solution space, AI-enabled
systems facilitate identification of patterns and structuring of pertinent
data (streams), thereby catalysing Twin Transformation efforts (Christ-
mann et al., 2024). AI-enabled solutions for Twin Transformation learn
from incoming data streams from DT, while the ST aspect is reflected in
providing goals and occasions for generating that data, thereby guiding
the design of new solutions (Graf-Drasch et al., 2023). Figure 3.1
captures the dual dynamics that underlie AI-enabled Twin Transforma-
tion, including the role of data streams and AI-enabled systems.
We conceive of the AI-enabled Twin Transformation solution space
as being realised through AI-enabled solutions at the individual, organ-
isational, and societal levels. AI-enabled Twin Transformation solutions
 3 INTEGRATING DIGITAL AND SUSTAINABILITY … 55

AI-enabled Twin
Transformation
Learning Solution Space

Digital Sustainability
Transformation Transformation
Problem Space Problem Space

Designing

Data streams and AI-enabled systems

Fig. 3.1 Framework for AI-enabled Twin Transformation

are based on the capabilities of AI-enabled systems, while their design is

guided by sustainability principles or purpose. Table 3.1 highlights exam-
ples of such AI-enabled solutions for Twin Transformation at these three
levels of analysis. The examples show that DT and ST interact synergisti-
cally, which results in contributions to sustainability objectives as well as
a positive impact on digitalisation.
Recognising that AI-enabled Twin Transformation is a boundary-
spanning, holistic transformation, questions for research, and practice
arise at the three levels of analysis (Fig. 3.2). First, individual-level
behaviour represents the basis for change on all other levels. Individual-
level Twin Transformation involves both leveraging data streams and
AI to learn about individual behaviour’s impacts on sustainability, and
designing digital applications to guide individuals towards sustainability-
oriented behaviour (Bashir, 2022) while ensuring technology acceptance
(Venkatesh et al., 2016). Organisation-level research and practice should
56 C. CROME ET AL.

Table 3.1 Examples of AI-enabled solutions for twin transformation

Level of analysis Example Description and exemplary impact

Individual level Plant Jammer1 Plant Jammer helps individuals to reduce food
waste in everyday life through providing users
customised recipes based on the ingredients they
have at home. By leveraging AI-enabled systems,
Plant Jammer personalises recipes by understanding
users’ eating habits and preferences
Digitalisation impact
Smarter and more versatile cooking with available
ingredients
Sustainability impact
Decreasing individuals’ food waste
Organisational The Climate The Climate Choice Platform facilitates AI-driven
level Choice2 screenings of suppliers to decrease an organisation’s
negative impact on climate and encourage suppliers
to improve their own climate-related performance
Digitalisation impact
Data-based assessment of suppliers’
(sustainability) performance
Sustainability impact
Identifying GHG emitters in the supply chain and
reducing emissions
Societal level Rainforest The data- and AI-powered Guardian Platform helps
Connection to protect the rainforest from illegal logging and
Guardian poaching by using solar-powered acoustic streaming
Platform3 devices to monitor and analyse the sounds of the
rainforest for abnormalities
Digitalisation impact
Guiding rangers more effectively in the search for
poachers
Sustainability impact
Safeguarding the rainforest and global biodiversity

use AI-enabled systems to explore pattern identification and the impact

of organisational activities on sustainability to support the design of cost
and resource-efficient digital processes, products, services, and business
models (El Hilali et al., 2020). Societal-level Twin Transformation inte-
grates DT’s impact on sustainability and ST’s impact on digitalisation

1 https://www.plantjammer.com/empty-your-fridge/inspiration.
2 https://theclimatechoice.com.
3 https://rfcx.org/guardian.
 3 INTEGRATING DIGITAL AND SUSTAINABILITY … 57

How can we learn through AI about digital regulations’ impacts on

sustainability?
How should AI regulations that reward integrated digital and
sustainable initiatives be designed?
Societal
Regulation
How can we learn through AI about organisations’ digitalisation and
digital innovation impacts on sustainability?
How should AI-enabled digital business models and innovations
Organisational targeting sustainability be designed?
Change
How can we learn through AI about individual behaviour impacts on
sustainability?
How should AI-enabled digital applications that guide sustainable
Individual behaviour be designed?
Behaviour

Fig. 3.2 Key questions about AI-enabled twin transformation on three levels
of analysis

to influence regulations that measure and reward integrated DT and ST

initiatives (European Commission, 2022).

3.4 Implications for Information

Systems Research and Practice
To foster leadership and develop mitigation strategies related to the
current challenges for DT and ST, such as how to motivate individuals to
use new digital technologies or how to enable organisations to measure
their impact on climate change, IS researchers and practitioners should
focus on AI-enabled Twin Transformation. We identify three implications
of such a focus that emerge from this view.
First, Twin Transformation that builds on AI-enabled systems and data
streams requires capitalising on the learning and designing cycles simulta-
neously. Predictions facilitate better designs that can produce new streams
of economic, environmental, and social data. Bringing together DT and
ST perspectives can result in a virtuous cycle of learning and design activ-
ities. Not every IS study has to do both, but we suggest that they at
least build on each other cumulatively. Twin Transformation is complex,
and complexity can be dealt with through decomposition (Baldwin &
Clark, 2000; Simon, 1996). For instance, learning that a particular digital
component achieves a particular goal in a particular system (e.g., sensors
58 C. CROME ET AL.

that monitor the operation of production processes) can provide the foun-
dation for further, more complex designs that produce more complex data
streams (e.g., for assessing and certifying the GHG emissions generated
in the supply chain). Managing AI-enabled systems in Twin Transforma-
tion requires managing the learning and designing cycles that alternate or
blend.
Second, Twin Transformation research integrates DT and ST problem
spaces, thus opening a new solution space at their intersection, where
AI-enabled systems catalyse Twin Transformation solutions that learn
from DT to foster sustainability and exploit ST’s guidance for DT design
(Christmann et al., 2024; Graf-Drasch et al., 2023). However, using AI-
enabled systems can be resource-intensive (e.g., energy consumption) and
subject to social biases (e.g., gender bias), thus negatively affecting envi-
ronmental and social sustainability. Hence, practitioners and researchers
must account for address, and improve the sustainability of AI-enabled
systems across their entire lifecycle to exploit all of Twin Transformation’s
potential (van Wynsberghe, 2021).
Third, our research offers an outlook on the future of AI-enabled
systems and Twin Transformation’s interplay in practice. Individuals,
organisations, and society deal with the infinite possibilities of AI-enabled
solutions. Our framework supports individuals, organisations, and society
in connecting AI-enabled solutions and the objectives of Twin Transfor-
mation to leverage digital and sustainable advantages. By highlighting
the role of data streams and AI-enabled systems in Twin Transforma-
tion, our work presents practitioners with a fresh strategic perspective on
integrating DT and ST problem spaces.
In conclusion, we argue that Twin Transformation is the pivotal trans-
formation for this and the coming decades. Joint discourse grounded in
research on AI-enabled systems, IS for environmental sustainability (i.e.,
Green IS, Green IT), and DT can help to clarify the relationship between
the two transformations, namely digital and sustainability transformation,
and explorations of the AI-enabled Twin Transformation solution space
to unearth digital and sustainable results.
 3 INTEGRATING DIGITAL AND SUSTAINABILITY … 59

References
Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction machines: The simple
economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.
Ashby, W. R. (1991). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of
complex systems. In G. J. Klir (Ed.), Facets of systems science (pp. 405–417).
Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_28
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules. The MIT Press. https://
doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001.
Bashir, H. (2022). Leveraging technology to communicate sustainability-related
product information: Evidence from the field. Journal of Cleaner Production,
362(132508), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132508
Baskerville, R. L., Myers, M. D., & Yoo, Y. (2019). Digital first: The ontological
reversal and new challenges for information systems research. MIS Quarterly,
44(2), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14418
Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing artificial
intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433–1450.
Boh, W., Constantinides, P., Padmanabhan, B., & Viswanathan, S. (2023).
Special issue introduction: Building digital resilience against major shocks.
MIS Quarterly, 47 (1), 343–360. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol47/iss
1/14
Christmann, A.-S., Crome, C., Graf-Drasch, V., Oberländer, A. M., &
Schmidt, L. (2024). The twin transformation butterfly. Business and Infor-
mation Systems Engineering. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12599-023-00847-2
European Commission. (2022). Strategic foresight report: Twinning the green and
digital transitions in the new geopolitical context. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0289
Drechsler, K., Gregory, R., Wagner, H.-T., & Tumbas, S. (2020). At the cross-
roads between digital innovation and digital transformation. Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, 47 , 521–538. https://doi.org/10.
17705/1CAIS.04723
Ekardt, F., Günther, P., Hagemann, K., Garske, B., Heyl, K., & Weyland, R.
(2023). Legally binding and ambitious biodiversity protection under the
CBD, the global biodiversity framework, and human rights law. Environ-
mental Sciences Europe, 35(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-
00786-5
El Hilali, W., El Manouar, A., & Idrissi, M. A. J. (2020). Reaching sustainability
during a digital transformation: A PLS approach. International Journal of
Innovation Science, 12(1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2019-
0083
60 C. CROME ET AL.

Graf-Drasch, V., Kauffeld, L., Kempf, L., Oberländer, A. M., & Teuchert, A.
(2023). Driving twin transformation—The interplay of digital transforma-
tion and sustainability transformation. European Conference on Information
Systems (ECIS)(255), 1–18. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/SI-DigitalSustainabil
ityFINAL.pdf
Gurbaxani, V., & Dunkle, D. (2019). Gearing up for successful digital trans-
formation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.
17705/2msqe.00017
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic
review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for
strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5),
1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
Kotlarsky, J., Oshri, I., & Sekulic, N. (2023). Digital sustainability in information
systems research: Conceptual foundations and future directions. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 936–952. https://doi.org/10.
17705/1jais.00825
Lehnhoff, S., Staudt, P., & Watson, R. T. (2021). Changing the climate in infor-
mation systems research. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 63(3),
219–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00695-y
Malhotra, A., Melville, N., & Watson, R. T. (2013). Spurring impactful research
on information systems for environmental sustainability. MIS Quarterly,
37 (4), 1265–1274.
Mousavi Baygi, R., Introna, L. D., & Hultin, L. (2021). Everything flows:
Studying continuous socio-technological transformation in a fluid and
dynamic digital world. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.
25300/MISQ/2021/15887
Ollagnier, Jean Marc, Brueckner, M., Berjoan, S., & Dijkstra, S. (2021).
The European double up: A twin strategy that will strengthen competitive-
ness. https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-144/Accenture-The-Eur
opean-Double-Up.pdf
Padmanabhan, B., Fang, X., Sahoo, N., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Machine
learning in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 46(1), 3–19.
European Parliament. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions by countries and sectors.
European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/de/article/
20180301STO98928/treibhausgasemissionen-nach-landern-und-sektoren-inf
ografik
Rai, A. (2017). Editor’s comments: Diversity of design science research. MIS
Quarterly, 41(1), iii–xviii.
Schoormann, T. (2020). Social sustainability in IS. International Conference
on Information Systems (ICIS). https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/societal_imp
act/societal_impact/4
 3 INTEGRATING DIGITAL AND SUSTAINABILITY … 61

Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and sustain-
able practicing: Functional affordances of information systems in green
transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37 (4), 1275–1299.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innova-
tion in incumbent firms: How volvo cars managed competing concerns. MIS
Quarterly, 41(1), 239–253.
van Wynsberghe, A. (2021). Sustainable AI: Ai for sustainability and the sustain-
ability of AI. AI and Ethics, 1(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43
681-021-00043-6
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 17 (5), 328–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.
00428
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research
agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information systems
and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and new
directions for the IS community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23. https://doi.org/
10.2307/20721413
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind Jensen, T.
(2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-
enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Infor-
mation Systems, 22(1), 102–129. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00655.
Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2021). Mobilising information
systems scholarship for a circular economy: Review, synthesis, and directions
for future research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 148–183. https://
doi.org/10.1111/isj.12305
Zimmer, M. P., & Järveläinen, J. (2022). Digital–sustainable co-transformation:
Introducing the triple bottom line of sustainability to digital transforma-
tion research. In 15th IFIP International Conference on Human Choice and
Computers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15688-5_10.
62 C. CROME ET AL.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 CHAPTER 4

Digital Transformation and AI in Energy

Systems: Applications, Challenges,
and the Path Forward

Eric Olson

Abstract The integration of digital technologies like Machine Learning

(ML), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things is trans-
forming energy systems. This digital transformation aims to enhance
efficiency, sustainability, and resilience in power generation, transmission,
and consumption. A key focus is developing smart grids that leverage real-
time data and intelligent algorithms to optimise operations. In response,
deep learning and reinforcement learning techniques are being applied
to bolster cybersecurity in the energy sector. Deep learning excels at
detecting threats by identifying patterns in large datasets. Meanwhile,
reinforcement learning can simulate attack scenarios to train adaptive
defence strategies. However, cybersecurity threats pose a major risk
as energy infrastructure becomes more interconnected. The Colonial
Pipeline ransomware attack in 2021 demonstrated the vulnerabilities of

E. Olson (B)
Center for Energy Studies, Collins College of Business, The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, United States
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 63

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_4
64 E. OLSON

critical infrastructure to cyberattacks. Despite great potential, challenges

remain regarding model transparency, ethics, and data availability. Overall,
realising the promise of AI in the energy sector requires navigating tech-
nical complexities and prioritising explainable, trustworthy systems. If
implemented thoughtfully, these technologies can catalyse the transition
to smarter, more efficient, resilient, and sustainable energy systems.

Keywords Digitisation · Smart grid · Machine learning · Artificial

intelligence · Cybersecurity

4.1 Introduction
In the coming years, digitalisation is set to revolutionise energy infras-
tructure (Kang et al., 2023). Broadly, digitalisation denotes the increasing
integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) across
various sectors of the economy. This transformation is driven by advance-
ments in data processing and analytics, Machine Learning (ML), and
Artificial Intelligence (AI). Central to this transformation is the conflu-
ence of data, AI/ML, and the Internet of Things (IoT). The affordability
of sensors, coupled with expanded data storage capabilities, has spurred
rapid advancements in analytical techniques to better forecast energy
demand as well as predict outages (Potdar et al., 2018). The smart
grid represents a transformation in power system operations, driven by
integration of renewable energy, deployment of advanced sensors and
communication systems, active consumer participation, and increased
digitalisation (Dileep, 2020). However, conventional optimisation and
control techniques struggle to manage the complexity, dynamics, and
uncertainty inherent in modern smart grid operations. In fact, traditional
model-based methods rely on accurate system models and knowledge
of parameters, which are challenging in complex, stochastic environ-
ments (Glavic, 2019). This has motivated growing interest in AI and ML
techniques for smart grid applications.
Historically, the energy sector has been a pioneer in adopting techno-
logical innovations. For instance, during the 1970s, power utilities were
early adopters of technologies that bolstered grid management (Gross
et al., 2018). Similarly, oil and gas companies have consistently inte-
grated innovative digital tools to simulate exploration assets and curtail
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 65

maintenance costs. The energy sector’s adaptability and forward-thinking

approach have positioned it to harness the full potential of digital advance-
ments. A significant portion of the potential for digitalisation in the
energy sector stems from its capacity to synchronise energy demand and
supply more effectively (Baidya, 2021). The real-time data relay capa-
bilities of the IoT can substantially minimise energy wastage, thereby
curtailing carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.
This chapter examines applications of deep learning (DL) and rein-
forcement learning (RL) across major smart grid operations (domains
including optimal dispatch, electricity markets, and emerging areas like
cybersecurity and privacy). For each area, key papers are analysed to
provide an overview of implementations, results and limitations. Chal-
lenges and future directions are also discussed. The review illustrates that
while DL shows immense potential, further research is needed to address
issues like cybersecurity, scalability, and stability before large-scale deploy-
ment. Overall, DL models represent an important innovation for realising
the vision of efficient, reliable, and resilient smart grid operations. The
remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: Sect. 4.2 provides a
brief description of the smart grid and DL and RL; Sect. 4.3 provides a
description of DL applied to the batteries and the smart vehicle grid;
Sect. 4.4 examines DL and RL in the context of cybersecurity while
Sect. 4.5 provides some concluding remarks.

4.2 The Smart Grid and Deep Learning

The smart grid represents a significant advancement in contemporary
energy management. The integration of affordable sensors and moni-
toring devices has significantly improved the grid’s ability to monitor and
adjust processes. This gives operators the tools to analyse and leverage
data from sensors throughout the grid. As such, the smart grid is able
to minimise losses during energy transmission and distribution, thereby
improving resource utilisation and overall system efficiency (Wang et al.,
2023). The smart grid also improves grid reliability. In real-time, it
can respond to disruptions and outages. This is particularly important
due to the increased use of renewable energy sources such as solar
and wind (Wang et al., 2023). It effectively manages the intermittent
nature of these resources, balancing supply and demand, storing surplus
energy, and ensuring grid stability. This is instrumental in achieving
a cleaner and more sustainable energy future. However, conventional
66 E. OLSON

modelling, optimisation, and control techniques encounter substantial

challenges in managing the massive amount of data that comes from
the smart grid. As such, AI and ML have emerged as crucial compo-
nents in advancing the smart grid (Massaoudi et al., 2021). AI in the
energy space primarily refers to the creation of algorithms capable of
performing tasks that traditionally demanded human intelligence, such
as real-time monitoring, fault detection, and load forecasting (Cheng &
Tao, 2019). ML, a subset of AI, empowers machines to learn from data
and adapt without explicit programming, making it particularly valuable
for the smart grid. By processing vast amounts of data from various
sensors and sources, these models can optimise the grid’s operation,
reducing transmission losses and improving resource allocation. Addi-
tionally, they facilitate real-time monitoring, enabling rapid detection
and response to grid disruptions, ultimately minimising downtime, and
ensuring uninterrupted power supply.
Two particularly important types of ML have emerged as useful for
the smart grid: DL and RL (Zhang et al., 2018). Both fall under the
broader category of ML and came from the development of multi-layer
neural networks. While DL can encompass a broader range of applica-
tions, the term is commonly associated with neural networks with a large
number of layers. In RL, the core elements consist of an individual, an
overall environment, rewards or pay-outs, and actions. The goal within
RL is to optimise the accumulated rewards through a sequence of actions
depending upon how the environment changes. Both types of learning
have been studied in the academic literature for a while but have only
recently been applied to energy sector. Deep Reinforcement Learning
(DRL) combines DL and RL, leveraging neural networks for perception
and RL for sequential decision-making (Arulkumaran et al., 2017). This
enables DRL agents to learn control policies directly from data through
interactions with the smart grid, without requiring an explicit system
model (Cao et al., 2020).
Models, such as Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Long Short-
Term Memory (LSTM) networks, excel at forecasting tasks due to their
ability to process sequential data and learn from it. In integrated energy
systems, accurate demand forecasting is crucial. The fluctuating nature of
renewable energy sources like solar and wind presents a significant chal-
lenge to their integration into the energy mix. DL can mitigate this issue
by analysing consumption trends and predicting generation patterns by
combining different data sources (e.g., weather forecasts and commodity
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 67

prices), thus enabling grid operators to balance intermittent renewable

resources with natural gas, coal, and other hydrocarbons (Wang et al.,
2019). This balance is critical for maintaining grid stability and ensuring
a constant energy supply. Additionally, DL can optimise energy storage
systems, deciding when to store excess energy and when to release it
back into the grid, based on predictive models that take into account
future energy generation and consumption. Yang et al. (2021) used an
improved Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) framework for
lowering operation costs. Zhou et al. (2020) introduced DRL strategy
for the economic dispatch of combined heat and power. The improved
DRL algorithm (i.e., distributed proximal policy optimisation or DPPO)
demonstrated better performance in handling a variety of operating situ-
ations compared to conventional methods, all while providing real-time
optimal control strategies.
DRL also offers opportunities for enhancing demand-side manage-
ment by providing systems that can learn and adapt to dynamic energy
consumption patterns (Lissa et al., 2021). In demand-side management,
DRL agents are trained to optimise energy usage within a grid or a
local system by considering real-time variables such as current demand,
pricing, and the availability of renewable energy sources. The technology
can manage the operation of interconnected devices and systems, from
residential HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) units to
industrial machinery, adjusting their operation to align with changes in
the price as well as changes in the source of the energy being used. This
capability ensures that energy consumption is not only more econom-
ical but also more responsive to the intermittent nature of renewable
energy sources. As such, emissions may fall if individuals or manufac-
turers can adjust production depending on the type of electricity used. For
example, Zhong et al. (2021) applied DRL to dynamically optimise incen-
tives for electric heating integration and found cost savings for users and
companies, increased wind power consumption, and a more intelligent
system for regenerative electric heating by considering user behaviour and
differences.
Maintaining the equilibrium of electricity supply and demand is a
pivotal role of automatic generation control (AGC), which modulates
the power output from various generators. The synergy of ML and AI
with such devices equips AGC systems with the foresight and agility to
more effectively fine-tune the interplay between generation and demand,
thereby bolstering the grid’s flexibility and operational efficiency. DRL has
68 E. OLSON

been leveraged for AGC to enhance the tracking of unpredictable renew-

able energy sources and to augment system adaptability (Vijayshankar
et al., 2021). Li et al. (2020) employed hierarchical multi-agent DRL
to showcase its capability to adjust to fluctuating scenarios and to
perform economic optimisations. Despite these advancements, challenges
like system instability, hyperparameter sensitivity, and the complexity of
sample handling persist.

4.3 Deep Learning, Batteries,

and Stabilising the Smart Grid
Batteries will play an integral role in smart grid stability and emissions
reductions. Batteries are not merely storage devices; they are the corner-
stone of a sustainable, efficient, and reliable power system (Chang et al.,
2018). Their role in facilitating the transition to a low-carbon future
is becoming increasingly apparent, marking them as indispensable tools
in achieving global environmental goals. The future of energy is inex-
tricably linked to the advancement of battery technology, heralding a
new era of greener power and more sustainable living. Over the past
decade, the cost of lithium-ion batteries dramatically fell which signif-
icantly changed the economics of energy storage and electric vehicles
(EVs). Since 1991, the price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by
approximately 97% (Ziegler & Trancik, 2021). This steep decrease is
largely attributed to improved manufacturing processes, larger production
facilities, and advancements in the chemistry and design of the batteries
themselves, which have increased energy density and prolonged lifespan
(Ziegler & Trancik, 2021). Their ability to store surplus energy from
renewable sources like wind and solar is invaluable in mitigating the
inherent intermittency of renewables. Moreover, DL and RL learning
ensures a more consistent and reliable power supply, crucial for main-
taining grid stability. By storing energy during periods of low demand and
releasing it during peak consumption times, batteries effectively manage
load balancing (Muralitharan et al., 2016). This process, known as peak
shaving, reduces the burden on the grid and lessens the dependency
on carbon-intensive, peaking power plants, which are typically activated
during high demand periods. Moreover, the integration of batteries into
smart grids leads to more efficient grid operations. Modern smart grids,
equipped with advanced battery storage systems, optimise the use of
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 69

renewable resources and minimise dependence on outdated, less effi-

cient power generation facilities. Beyond grid stabilisation, batteries are
instrumental in the broader context of emission reduction. They opti-
mise power plant operations by reducing the need for plants to run in
less efficient, more emissive standby modes. Batteries enable power plants
to operate more steadily and efficiently, thus diminishing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (Jafari et al., 2022). Batteries also support the growth
of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), such as residential solar panels.
By storing energy generated locally, these batteries reduce transmission
losses and reliance on centralised power generation, which is often more
carbon-intensive. This localised energy production and storage model
enhances the efficiency of the power system and contributes to emission
reduction.
In the transportation sector, batteries are key to the electrification
of vehicles, which is a major avenue for cutting down emissions. EVs
not only contribute to cleaner air but may also serve as dynamic energy
storage units that can supply power back to the grid when needed. This
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) capability allows EVs to act as mobile energy reser-
voirs, further stabilising the grid and promoting the use of renewable
energy (Theissler et al., 2021). DL algorithms are also transformative for
the energy sector in the realm of EVs, especially for battery management
and monitoring. By processing historical battery performance data, DL
models can detect signs of battery degradation, thus enabling pre-emptive
maintenance actions to be scheduled (Theissler et al., 2021). This pre-
emptive model helps in devising intelligent battery management systems;
these then dynamically change charging protocols to safeguard battery
health while concurrently meeting the energy demands of EV owners.
DL contributes to the enhancement of state-of-charge and state-of-health
estimation models (Tian et al., 2021). These models are great at fore-
casting the dependable range of EVs and are instrumental in extending
the overall lifespan of the battery. The accuracy of these predictive models
is critical, as they directly influence the trust that users place in the EV’s
operational reliability. Moreover, DL models can integrate environmental
variables, such as temperature fluctuations, to refine the battery manage-
ment process. In fact, temperature is a salient factor that significantly
impacts battery performance, efficiency, and safety. Extreme cold can
hinder battery chemical reactions, leading to reduced range and slower
charging rates, while excessive heat can accelerate battery degradation and
pose safety risks (Jaguemont et al., 2016). Thus, DL models can anticipate
70 E. OLSON

and adjust to temperature-related battery performance variations, thereby

optimising charging strategies and operational guidance according to
real-time and forecasted weather conditions (Koohfar et al., 2023). RL
presents opportunities to incentivise owners to properly maintain their
vehicles. RL agents can be trained to maximise long-term rewards like
improved safety and reliability. Owners can receive cost savings or other
benefits for proactively maintaining their vehicle based on diagnostic
alerts. This positive feedback loop ensures owners prioritise maintenance,
vehicles operate optimally, and costs are reduced for manufacturers who
avoid warranty claims. RL models may also get smarter by incorporating
maintenance data, refining alert triggers and personalised incentives to
shape driver behaviour.
City planners can estimate how increased EV adoption will strain
the electrical grid under different charging behaviours (Deb, 2021).
Utilities can identify locations likely to require grid upgrades to meet
new EV load. With computational scenario modelling, DL provides the
necessary intelligence to scale infrastructure appropriately. It also aids
macro-level energy management and renewable integration by revealing
charging patterns. Intelligently expanding charging infrastructure relies
heavily on DL (Tuchnitz et al., 2021). High-dimensional spatial datasets
describing vehicle populations, existing stations, power grid capacity, and
land use can be utilised to determine ideal new charging locations. DL
algorithms can pinpoint placement that maximises accessibility and utili-
sation based on current EV owner charging habits derived from surveys
and public data. Compatible sites can be proposed at parking garages,
retail centres, and other high-traffic locations where drivers tend to stop
for 20 minutes or longer. DL may ultimately provide a way to imple-
ment a data-driven approach for strategic infrastructure growth, ensuring
charger availability keeps pace with EV adoption. DL also presents ample
opportunities to enhance electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure through
data-driven modelling and optimisation (Deb, 2021). A key application
is creating accurate models of EV energy consumption based on driving
conditions. Again, by analysing historical data, DL algorithms can learn
to predict future energy needs during a planned trip based on inputs
like road type and condition, traffic patterns, driving style, and weather.
Models can be personalised by learning from an individual driver’s past
trips to account for variations in acceleration, braking, and speed. With
granular energy consumption forecasts, DL provides a major improve-
ment over simplistic range estimation that relies on battery size alone
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 71

allowing EV drivers to better (and more accurately) plan routes and

charging stops.
Finally, DL enables robust V2G systems whereby EVs bi-directionally
transmit power between their batteries and the grid (Vadi et al., 2019).
DL optimises the timing and volume of energy flow in either direction.
By analysing usage patterns, a DL model can predict upcoming charging
demand during peak times. EVs can then be incentivised to delay charging
by a few hours to ease grid strain, or discharge energy back to the grid
if requested. Meanwhile, during periods of excess renewable generation,
EVs can absorb surplus clean energy to charge batteries. This avoids
curtailing sustainable power and uses EVs as dynamic storage assets. DL
can combine historical data with real-time grid and vehicle signals to
orchestrate V2G energy transfer. This balancing act reduces grid volatility
introduced by variable renewable sources, benefiting all ratepayers. It
also compensates EV owners for energy services that support the overall
system. An RL agent can monitor factors like electricity prices, renew-
able energy availability, and individual user patterns to determine optimal
charging. By receiving feedback on outcomes like minimising costs and
maximising battery lifespan, the system learns when and how much to
charge each vehicle. This personalised charging ensures efficient energy
use while satisfying individual mobility needs. Additionally, RL enables
intelligent demand response systems, where EVs interact with the grid to
balance supply and demand. The RL agent learns strategies for charging
or discharging vehicles in response to real-time grid conditions. For
instance, EVs can soak up excess renewable energy during sunny middays
when solar production peaks. Later in the evening when electricity
demand spikes, those same vehicles can discharge power back to relieve
grid strain. By optimising bi-directional energy flow, RL helps stabilise
an electrical grid incorporating more variable wind and solar generation
while compensating EV owners. At a broader level, RL can optimise
traffic signals in real-time to improve EV efficiency and reduce emissions.
An RL agent controlling traffic lights learns adaptive signalling strategies
based on traffic conditions. This dynamic approach reduces congestion
and keeps vehicles moving at steadier speeds compared to fixed timing
plans. Maintaining consistent speed enhances an EV’s energy efficiency,
as frequent starts and stops drain more battery charge. Smoother traffic
flow also diminishes brake wear and emissions. Additionally, optimising
traffic flow allows existing charging infrastructure to support more EVs.
72 E. OLSON

Battery technologies, pivotal in enhancing grid stability and powering

EVs, offer notable environmental benefits but also face certain challenges.
On the upside, they enable the integration of intermittent renewable
energy sources into the grid, facilitating a stable, continuous energy
supply and thus reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This integration is
instrumental in lowering GHG emissions, both in the energy sector
and in transportation, as EVs replace traditional, emission-heavy vehicles.
Batteries also promote energy efficiency by allowing for energy storage
during low-demand periods and usage during peak times, which dimin-
ishes the need for carbon-intensive peaking power plants. However, these
advantages come with challenges, including the environmental impact
of battery production and disposal, which involves resource-intensive
processes and potential issues with recycling and waste management.
There is also the concern of sourcing raw materials, often linked to
ecological and human rights issues. Moreover, the lifespan and energy
density of batteries are areas requiring ongoing technological advance-
ments to ensure long-term sustainability and practicality. Therefore, while
battery technologies are central to a more sustainable future in grid
management and transportation, addressing these production, disposal,
and material sourcing challenges is essential for maximising their environ-
mental benefits.

4.4 Cybersecurity and the Smart Grid

As we move towards smart grids, the critical issue of cybersecurity
emerges prominently. Cybersecurity is crucial for ensuring the environ-
mental sustainability of our energy systems, as threats can significantly
hinder the adoption and efficiency of smart grids. This indirectly impacts
our ability to integrate renewable resources and reduce emissions. A
notable example is the Russian cyberattack on Ukraine’s electricity grid,
which illustrates the potential for widespread disruption in critical energy
infrastructure.1 The integration of renewable resources and the prolif-
eration of IoT devices into the smart grid have significantly enhanced
the efficiency and reliability of energy distribution and consumption,
but they also introduce complex cybersecurity challenges (Kimani et al.,
2019; Gunduz et al., 2020). The threats range from data breaches

1 https://www.csis.org/analysis/responding-russian-attacks-ukraines-power-sector.
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 73

and privacy violations to coordinated attacks on energy infrastructure,

potentially causing widespread disruptions. For example, the Colonial
Pipeline hack, which occurred in May 2021, was a significant cyberattack
that targeted one of the largest pipeline operators in the United States
(Hobbs, 2021; Tsvetanov & Slaria, 2021). The pipeline carries gasoline,
diesel, and jet fuel along a 5,500-mile route from the Gulf Coast to
the New York metropolitan area. The perpetrators deployed ransomware
that successfully infiltrated and encrypted the pipeline’s computer systems
(Dudley & Golden, 2021). This did not just threaten data integrity; it
held the company’s operational capability at ransom, demanding a signif-
icant payment in cryptocurrency to provide the decryption key necessary
for recovery. Colonial Pipeline took decisive action to halt all pipeline
operations, triggering a supply shock across the Eastern United States and
leading to fuel shortages, panic buying, and heightened public anxiety
about energy security. The US Government declared a state of emer-
gency to ensure the continuation of fuel deliveries. The incident inflicted
significant economic damage and underscored the urgent necessity for
more robust cybersecurity defences and strategies tailored to the unique
challenges of the energy sector.
DL and RL have become imperative for enhancing cybersecurity in this
context. DL models are well-equipped to identify complex patterns that
could signify cybersecurity threats (Dixit & Silakari, 2021). In fact, DL
algorithms can process and analyse the data points generated by smart
grids and identify potential attacks before they manage to breach the
system. For example, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) can be
trained on network data to recognise the signatures of malware or intru-
sion attempts, while Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) can monitor
system logs for suspicious activities over time (Wang et al., 2019). More-
over, DL models can be used for anomaly detection, learning the normal
operational patterns of an energy system and then flagging deviations that
may indicate a cyber threat. This capability is crucial for early detection,
allowing for immediate containment and mitigation of potential breaches.
RL is particularly suited to help cybersecurity where the threat land-
scape is dynamic, and the attackers continually evolve their strategies
(Nguyen and Reddi 2021). By simulating cyberattack scenarios on the
smart grid, RL algorithms are trained to recognise patterns of intru-
sion and react in real-time to neutralise threats. This simulation-based
learning allows the algorithms to experience a wide range of attack
vectors, ensuring a comprehensive defence strategy. In energy systems,
74 E. OLSON

where infrastructure resilience is critical, RL’s ability to adapt to rapid

changes is invaluable. During an attack such as a Distributed Denial of
Service (DDoS), RL can efficiently manage resources and re-route traffic
to ensure minimal disruption. Over time, as the RL algorithm encoun-
ters more attacks, its strategy becomes more refined and robust, thereby
enhancing the overall security of the system.
The implementation of DL and RL in securing the smart grid comes
with its set of challenges. One of the primary concerns is the demand
for large volumes of high-quality training data, which can be difficult to
procure, especially in scenarios simulating sophisticated cyberattacks. The
computational intensity required for training and running these advanced
models also poses logistical and financial challenges. Additionally, there
is the risk of adversarial ML, where attackers may intentionally feed
misleading data to corrupt the learning process. The opaque nature of
these models, often referred to as ‘black boxes’, complicates the under-
standing of their decision-making processes. This lack of transparency
can be a significant hurdle in sectors like cybersecurity, where trust
and accountability are paramount. To address this, the development of
explainable AI/ML tools is crucial. Ensuring that these systems adhere to
ethical guidelines and regulations is essential to maintain public trust and
to safeguard against the misuse of technology. While DL and RL offer
transformative potential for cybersecurity in the energy sector, realising
this potential requires navigating technical complexities, ethical consid-
erations, and the need for explainable and trustworthy AI systems. As
these technologies continue to mature, their integration into the cyber-
security infrastructure will play a pivotal role in securing the future of
energy systems against the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats.

4.5 Conclusion
The digital transformation underway in the energy sector holds immense
potential to enhance efficiency, sustainability, and resilience. Integral
to this evolution is the integration of AI and ML, underpinned by
proliferating data and advanced analytics. The convergence of these tech-
nologies unlocks new capabilities that were previously unattainable. A
good example of this potential is the smart grid, which leverages real-
time data and intelligent algorithms to optimise generation, transmission,
and distribution. Another pivotal application relates to EVs, where AI
can improve battery management and charging patterns. But thin data
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 75

in nascent areas like predictive maintenance necessitates careful training

to avoid problems. As with smart grids, transparency and ethics are
vital to steer AI towards the public good. The path forward must also
address data availability and quality, as training robust models requires
vast datasets. Public–private partnerships could help overcome propri-
etary barriers to data sharing and sharing computing power and energy
demands also warrant consideration given AI’s intense computational
needs.
As outlined, DL and RL enable myriad grid enhancements spanning
forecasting, control, and cybersecurity. However, substantial obstacles
remain before large-scale adoption. Ensuring the safety and stability of
AI-based systems is paramount, as failure could trigger cascading black-
outs. Rigorous testing and validation are critical. The opacity of complex
neural networks also engenders concerns about accountability and ethics.
Developing explainable AI models to elucidate the rationale behind
autonomous decisions will be crucial for stakeholders’ trust.
As underscored by the Colonial Pipeline attack, cyber threats represent
the dark side of connectivity. AI-powered defence systems show promise,
but underestimating how nefarious actors may use AI adversary invites
failure. Adversarial ML could corrupt training data or exploit blind spots
in models. Ultimately there are no silver bullets in cybersecurity. Overall,
while AI enables step-changes in the energy sector, it is not a panacea.
Technology is only one piece of the puzzle. Realising a sustainable energy
future requires holistic thinking across policy, business models, culture,
and infrastructure. AI should augment human capabilities, not supplant
them. AI is a powerful tool, but not a replacement for human inge-
nuity, ethics, and leadership. Moving forward, striking the right balance
between innovation and regulation will be crucial. Effective governance
can steer AI towards the public good while giving it space to evolve
responsibly. Beyond technology, truly sustainable energy demands inte-
grating social science, especially economics, and humanities perspectives
into solution design. A shared vision for the future and willingness to
adapt will determine if AI lifts the energy sector to new heights or leads
it astray.
76 E. OLSON

References
Abdullah, H. M., Gastli, A., & Ben-Brahim, L. (2021). Reinforcement learning
based EV charging management systems–a review. IEEE Access, 9, 41506–
41531.
Arulkumaran, K., Deisenroth, M. P., Brundage, M., & Bharath, A. A. (2017).
Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey. IEEE Signal Processing Maga-
zine, 34(6), 26–38.
Baidya, S., et al. (2021). Reviewing the opportunities, challenges, and future
directions for the digitalization of energy. Energy Research and Social Science,
81, 102243.
Cao, D., Zhao, J., Hu, W., Ding, F., Huang, Q., & Chen, Z. (2021). Attention
enabled multi-agent DRL for decentralized Volt-VAR control of active distri-
bution system using PV inverters and SVCs. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, 12(3), 1582–1592.
Cesena, E. A. M., Loukarakis, E., Good, N., & Mancarella, P. (2020). Integrated
electricity–heat–gas systems: Techno–economic modeling, optimization, and
application to multienergy districts. Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(9), 1392–
1410.
Cheng, L., & Tao, Y. (2019). A new generation of AI: A review and perspective
on machine learning technologies applied to smart energy and electric power
systems. International Journal of Energy Research, 43(6), 1928–1973.
Deb, S. (2021). Machine learning for solving charging infrastructure planning:
A comprehensive review. In 2021 5th International Conference on Smart Grid
and Smart Cities (ICSGSC) (pp. 16–22). IEEE.
Dileep, G. J. R. E. (2020). A survey on smart grid technologies and applications.
Renewable Energy, 146, 2589–2625.
Dixit, P., & Silakari, S. (2021). Deep learning algorithms for cybersecurity appli-
cations: A technological and status review. Computer Science Review, 39,
100317.
Dudley, R., & Golden, D. (2021). The colonial pipeline ransomware hackers had
a secret weapon: self-promoting cybersecurity firms. MIT Technology Review
and ProPublica.
Fujiyoshi, H., Hirakawa, T., & Yamashita, T. (2019). Deep learning-based image
recognition for autonomous driving. IATSS Research, 43(4), 244–252.
Grigorescu, S., Trasnea, B., Cocias, T., & Macesanu, G. (2020). A survey of
deep learning techniques for autonomous driving. Journal of Field Robotics,
37 (3), 362–386.
Gross, R. et al. (2018). How long does innovation and commercialisation in the
energy sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention
to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end use technology.
Energy policy, 123: 682–699.
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 77

Gunduz, M. Z., & Das, R. (2020). Cyber-security on smart grid: Threats and
potential solutions. Computer Networks, 169, 107094.
Hobbs, A. (2021). The colonial pipeline hack: Exposing vulnerabilities in us
cybersecurity. SAGE Publications.
Jafari, M., Botterud, A., & Sakti, A. (2022). Decarbonizing power systems: A
critical review of the role of energy storage. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 158, 112077.
Jaguemont, J., Boulon, L., & Dubé, Y. (2016). A comprehensive review of
lithium-ion batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles at cold temperatures.
Applied Energy, 164, 99–114.
Kang, C., Kirschen, D., & Green, T. C. (2023). The evolution of smart grids.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 111(7), 691–693.
Kimani, K., Oduol, V., & Langat, K. (2019). Cyber security challenges for IoT-
based smart grid networks. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure
Protection, 25, 36–49.
Koohfar, S., Woldemariam, W., & Kumar, A. (2023). Prediction of elec-
tric vehicles charging demand: a transformer-based deep learning approach.
Sustainability, 15(3), 2105.
Lissa, P. et al. (2021). Deep reinforcement learning for home energy manage-
ment system control. Energy and AI , 3: 100043.
Massaoudi, M., et al. (2021). Deep learning in smart grid technology: A review
of recent advancements and future prospects. IEEE Access, 9, 54558–54578.
Muralitharan, K., Sakthivel, R., & Shi, Y. (2016). Multiobjective optimization
technique for demand side management with load balancing approach in
smart grid. Neurocomputing, 177 , 110–119.
Nguyen, T. T., & Reddi, V. J. (2021). Deep reinforcement learning for cyber
security. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.
Potdar, V. et al. (2018). Big energy data management for smart grids—
Issues, challenges and recent developments. Smart Cities: Development and
Governance Frameworks, 177–205.
Theissler, A., Pérez-Velázquez, J., Kettelgerdes, M., & Elger, G. (2021). Predic-
tive maintenance enabled by machine learning: Use cases and challenges in the
automotive industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 215, 107864.
Tian, J., Xiong, R., Shen, W., & Lu, J. (2021). State-of-charge estimation of
LiFePO4 batteries in electric vehicles: A deep-learning enabled approach.
Applied Energy, 291, 116812.
Tsvetanov, T., & Slaria, S. (2021). The effect of the Colonial Pipeline shutdown
on gasoline prices. Economics Letters, 209, 110122.
Tuchnitz, F., et al. (2021). Development and evaluation of a smart charging
strategy for an electric vehicle fleet based on reinforcement learning. Applied
Energy, 285, 116382.
78 E. OLSON

Vadi, S. et al. A review on communication standards and charging topologies of

V2G and V2H operation strategies. Energies, 12 (19): 3748.
Vijayshankar, S., Stanfel, P., King, J., Spyrou, E., & Johnson, K. (2021, May).
Deep reinforcement learning for automatic generation control of wind farms.
In 2021 American Control Conference (ACC) (pp. 1796–1802). IEEE.
Wang, H. et al. (2019). A review of deep learning for renewable energy
forecasting. Energy Conversion and Management, 198: 111799.
Wang, D., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., & Jin, L. (2019). Detection of power grid distur-
bances and cyber-attacks based on machine learning. Journal of Information
Security and Applications, 46, 42–52.
Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Tang, Y., Li, Q., & He, H. (2023). Cooperative energy
management and eco-driving of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle via multi-agent
reinforcement learning. Applied Energy, 332, 120563.
Yang, T., Zhao, L., Li, W., & Zomaya, A. Y. (2021). Dynamic energy dispatch
strategy for integrated energy system based on improved deep reinforcement
learning. Energy, 235, 121377.
Zhang, C. et al. (2018). Energy storage system: Current studies on batteries
and power condition system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82:
3091–3106.
Zhang, D., Han, X., & Deng, C. (2018). Review on the research and practice
of deep learning and reinforcement learning in smart grids. CSEE Journal of
Power and Energy Systems, 4(3), 362–370.
Zhong, S., Wang, X., Zhao, J., Li, W., Li, H., Wang, Y., Deng, S., & Zhu, J.
(2021). Deep reinforcement learning framework for dynamic pricing demand
response of regenerative electric heating. Applied Energy, 288, 116623.
Zhou, S., Hu, Z., Gu, W., Jiang, M., Chen, M., Hong, Q., & Booth, C. (2020).
Combined heat and power system intelligent economic dispatch: A deep rein-
forcement learning approach. International Journal of Electrical Power and
Energy Systems, 120, 106016.
Ziegler, M. S., & Trancik, J. E. (2021). Re-examining rates of lithium-ion battery
technology improvement and cost decline. Energy and Environmental Science,
14(4), 1635–1651.
 4 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND AI IN ENERGY SYSTEMS … 79

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 CHAPTER 5

From Concrete Jungles to Smart Cities

and Digital Towns: Deploying Digital
Technologies for Environmental
Sustainability

Theo Lynn, Pierangelo Rosati, and Jennifer Kennedy

Abstract Urban areas account for most of the world’s energy consump-
tion and greenhouse gas emissions, and struggle to cope with the pressure
of ever-growing urbanisation and an ageing infrastructure. This issue is
likely to become even more prominent in the future due to current
trends in population migration that see more people moving from rural to

T. Lynn (B) · J. Kennedy

DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Kennedy
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Rosati
Lero – Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software,
University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 81

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_5
82 T. LYNN ET AL.

urban agglomerates. Luckily, research shows that digital technologies have

clear potential for mitigating some of the negative environmental effects
of urbanisation while making the urban environment more liveable and
enjoyable for citizens. This chapter discusses four key themes discussed in
the literature on ‘smart cities’ directly related to the deployment of digital
technologies in the urban environment to support greater environmental
sustainability—smart transportation, building energy optimisation, smart
waste management, and environmental monitoring.

Keywords Smart cities · Digital towns · Smart transportation · Energy

efficiency · Waste management · Environmental sustainability · Twin
transition

5.1 Introduction
Forecasts suggest that up to seven out of ten of the world’s population
will live in urban areas by 2050 (World Health Organization, 2021), a
shift bringing both economic opportunities and substantial challenges
for governments and municipal authorities. Urban centres are major
consumers of energy, accounting for more than two-thirds of global
consumption, and they are responsible for up to 70% of greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) (World Bank, 2023). This intensification of urbanisa-
tion not only exacerbates environmental issues but also poses significant
health risks, including those related to road traffic injuries, pollution,
and limited access to safe physical activities (World Health Organization,
2021). Concurrently, many cities and indeed towns are grappling with
the pressures of urbanisation on ageing infrastructures (KPMG, 2012).
In response to these challenges, the concept of the ‘smart city’ has
evolved and gained significant popularity over the past thirty years. A
number of definitions of smart city have been proposed and, despite
some differences, they share a common conceptualisation of leveraging
information and communication technology (ICT) to enhance the func-
tionality of urban subsystems, thereby fulfilling the needs of inhabitants
and communities (Albino et al., 2015; Batty et al., 2012). Despite the
promise of smart city technologies, these projects often face governance,
economic, and technological hurdles that have negatively affected their
widespread adoption and implementation (Del Real et al., 2023; Rana
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 83

et al., 2019). Additionally, the concept of ‘smart city’ creates a dispropor-

tionate focus on large-scale urban agglomerations (i.e., cities) and neglects
the needs of smaller and more rural–urban areas and communities which
may be affected by similar challenges but have less resources. In response,
concepts relating to digital towns and smart streets have been developed
to address the needs of both urban and rural areas (Hosseini et al., 2018;
Lynn & Wood, 2023; Lynn et al., 2022).
In this chapter, we explore four key themes in research relating to
digital sustainability in smart cities and towns, namely smart transporta-
tion systems, building energy optimisation, smart waste management,
and environmental monitoring. Each of the following sections provides
a high-level overview of these themes including the benefits of and chal-
lenges to adoption. Finally, Sect. 5.6 concludes the chapter with some
final remarks.

5.2 Smart Transportation

Smart transportation, sometimes referred to as intelligent transportation
systems (ITS), refers to the integration of advanced information and
communication technologies (ICTs) into the transportation infrastructure
and vehicles. In contrast, while often conflated with smart transportation
and ITS, smart mobility as a concept encompasses all types of trans-
port users including cyclists and pedestrians (Chen et al., 2017). In
this chapter, we focus on smart transportation systems as the targets of
these systems (e.g., cars, etc.) are those who contribute most to adverse
environmental impacts in cities and towns.
Smart transportation systems aim to improve traffic and transit
management, manage road use and behaviour, enhance safety, reduce
energy and environmental impact, and increase the efficiency of trans-
portation networks (Lynn & Wood, 2023; McGregor et al., 2003). At an
infrastructural level, smart transportation systems are enabled by advances
in sensor technologies, mobile communication networks, the Internet
of Things (IoT), smart transportation communication protocols, and
novel computing architectures that expand from the cloud to the edge
(Oladimeji et al., 2023). As such, smart transportation can leverage a wide
range of technologies including but not limited to:
84 T. LYNN ET AL.

• Smart traffic signalling, traffic demand management, and control

systems to support and actuate decision-making (European Commis-
sion, 2020b);
• Automated street bollards, licence plate recognition, and embedded
road lighting to prioritise users and manage transportation, change
street use, and record infringements (Ghaemi, 2017; Lynn et al.,
2020; Dabrowska-Zółtak et al., 2021);
• On-street parking sensors for identifying vacant spots, charging,
recording usage, and signalling pricing (Christensen et al., 2021);
• Autonomous vehicles to support public transportation, freight, and
micro-mobility (Iclodean et al., 2020; Sell et al., 2021);
• Road anomaly and incident detection (Santosh et al., 2020;
Amandio et al., 2021); and,
• Route optimisation, driver, and vehicle information systems
(Rammohan, 2023).

Chen et al. (2017) outline the potential ways in which the adop-
tion of smart transportation systems can contribute to energy efficiency.
Firstly, the adoption of smart transportation systems can have a number
of short-term benefits. These include energy savings related to changes in
transport mode (e.g., to public transport), reductions in travel times (e.g.,
route optimisation and traffic management), and associated reductions
in energy consumption per vehicle (Chen et al., 2017). Secondly, smart
transportation systems may enable or catalyse other initiatives or inter-
ventions that may result in energy efficiencies and ultimately behavioural
change (e.g., change in vehicular ownership, residential location, or
activity pattern) (Chen et al., 2017). Jianwei et al. (2010) similarly note
that ITS and other smart transportation systems may result in significant
reduction in traffic-related costs and socio-economic benefits. Specifically,
they note that such systems can result in reduced economic losses due to
road construction costs, traffic congestion, environmental pollution, road
injuries, and fatalities (Jianwei et al., 2010).
Despite the opportunities presented by smart transportation systems,
there are significant challenges. Waqar et al. (2023) identify six distinct
categories of barriers to the adoption of smart transportation systems—
technical, resource, interoperability, management, economic, and personal
challenges. In their analysis, interoperability challenges received the
highest mean score, followed by economic and technical challenges.
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 85

Waqar et al. (2023) identify a wide range of barriers within these cate-
gories. Significant barriers included the need for efficient traffic manage-
ment procedures (technical), inadequate infrastructure for smart trans-
portation systems (resource), guaranteeing compatibility across a range of
intricate transport systems and technologies (interoperability), managing,
and administering a complex smart transportation system (management),
cost of implementation and maintenance (economic), and privacy and
security concerns (personal). Both Golub et al. (2019) and Waqar et al.
(2023) identify the need for smart transportation systems to be accessible
to all users, regardless of ability or money. Golub et al. (2019) caution
that while smart transportation systems may have environmental bene-
fits, they may exclude disadvantaged members of the community who do
not have access to private vehicles, banking, credit, internet, and mobile
phones. Chen et al (2017) highlight three categories of challenges which
could equally be viewed as critical success factors in the successful adop-
tion and implementation of smart transportation systems—institutional
conditions (including organisational, legal, and policy aspects), technical
conditions (concerning technology and analytics), and physical condi-
tions (infrastructure, equipment, and devices). It is important to note
that these conditions will be contingent on the development stage of the
city or town and the country in which it is located. Consequentyly, the
conditions, approach, and prioritisation for smart transportation systems
adoption and implementation should reflect local needs and constraints
(Chen et al., 2017). In all instances, smart transportation initiatives
should involve a wide range of stakeholders and be as transparent as
possible (Chen et al., 2017).

5.3 Building Energy Efficiency

85% of buildings in the European Union (EU) were built before 2000;
75% of which have a poor energy performance; over a third of the EU’s
GHG emissions come from buildings (European Commission, 2024). As
over 80% of the energy used in households is consumed for heating,
cooling, and hot water, it is unsurprising that a significant element of EU
policy focuses on solutions for these areas by 2050. As the overwhelming
majority of the European building stock will continue to be in use by
2050, the goal is to increase the energy efficiency in new and existing
building stock dramatically by 2050 (European Commission, 2020a).
To achieve this, EU policy seeks to ensure new builds are designed to
86 T. LYNN ET AL.

higher standards of energy efficiency and that the existing building stock
is refurbished to reduce building energy consumption by significant levels,
so-called deep renovation (European Commission, ).
Vale et al., (2023, p. 431) define a smart building as “cyber-physical
solutions able to support and aid the daily routines of users and/or to
optimize the management of the building”. They are cyber-physical as
they combine ICTs such as building energy management systems (BEMS)
and advances in materials and engineering such as pre-fabricated envelope
components, biomass insulation, and energy harvesting and renewable
energy source (RES) technologies (Lynn et al., 2021). In the context
of digital sustainability, the twin goals of smart buildings are efficient
energy management combined with a comfortable environment (Zhou
et al., 2018). In their review, Al Dakheel et al. (2020) identify four main
functions of smart buildings:

1. Climate response: the buildings’ capability to respond to actual and

expected external climate conditions to minimise energy consump-
tion and maximise renewable energy generation;
2. Grid response: the building’s capability to respond to actual and
expected data from the energy grid(s) to which it is connected to
maximise energy and/or economic efficiencies.
3. User response: the capability of a building to respond to user
behaviour and priorities.
4. Monitoring and supervision: the capability to monitor the opera-
tional aspects of the building including technical systems and user
behaviour and take corrective action to support efficient operation
and minimise energy consumption.

As mentioned earlier, these functions are delivered through smart

energy management systems including meter data management systems,
BEMS, and building automation and control systems (BACS), their
connection to IoT-enabled hardware and devices (e.g., sensors and actu-
ators) throughout the building and integrated into key systems (e.g.,
lighting, heating, etc.). Advanced smart energy management systems can
monitor energy supply from the grid and building consumption and
through analysis (increasingly enabled by machine learning and deep
learning) identify actual or potential inefficiencies, and automatically
adjust settings to reduce energy waste. For instance, smart lighting and
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 87

HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems can be dynam-

ically adjusted based on the energy grid supply, user behaviour, occupancy,
and anticipated weather patterns to ensure comfort is maintained in
an energy-efficient or cost-efficient way (Bhutta, 2017). Similarly, RES
and other energy storage systems can be programmatically controlled to
manage storage, use, or sell excess electricity back to the grid (Al Dakheel
et al., 2020).
While the integration of smart technologies into buildings offers signif-
icant potential for energy savings, their implementation is not without
challenges. Al Dakheel et al. (2020) note that these challenges differ
depending on whether the smart building project is a new build or a
retrofit. Research suggests that in new builds significant challenges include
the high cost of initial construction, lack of guidelines to manage smart
building construction, lack of government incentives and policy, plan-
ning issues, lack of properly trained energy efficiency professionals and
construction workers, and associated resistance to change from using
traditional technologies, techniques and designs, external (grid) and
internal system interoperability, amongst others (Al Dakheel et al., 2020;
Ejidike & Mewomo, 2022; Lynn et al., 2022). For retrofits, the barriers
are more complex. Lynn et al. (2022) identify four categories of barriers
to smart building technologies including human, organisational, tech-
nological, and external environmental barriers. Buildings involve a wide
range of stakeholders including owners, managers, residents, and other
users. Research suggests that human barriers including social norms and
habits, lack of instruction on how to use new technologies, a lack of
information on energy consumption and energy saving opportunities,
short-termism, and disturbance of daily routines (Lynn et al., 2022).
Technological barriers include those mentioned earlier with new builds
with the added complexity that existing buildings often have legacy
mechanical systems that have not been designed for digital connectivity
and therefore these systems need to be optimised and integrated for
modern smart energy management and control systems (Al Dakheel et al.,
2020). In deep renovation, again many of the challenges listed for new
builds apply. Financial barriers, including high upfront investment costs,
funding, the duration, and payback period of deep renovation finan-
cial investments, are widely cited in the literature (Lynn et al., 2022).
While all smart building projects experience some degree of planning and
regulatory challenges, retrofitting existing building stock faces additional
challenges, not least where buildings may be protected on historical or
88 T. LYNN ET AL.

cultural grounds. External environment barriers, particularly funding, can

be compounded for social housing where local authorities have signif-
icant financing and account controls (EMBuild, 2017). Furthermore,
while there are significant deep renovation incentives, these may be poorly
designed (e.g., split incentives) or complex to draw down (EMBuild,
2017; Lynn et al., 2022).

5.4 Smart Waste Management

Increased urbanisation has a direct and significant impact on waste gener-
ation and management challenges. Unsurprisingly, the greater population
densities in cities and towns result in a higher waste generation than rural
and sparsely populated areas, but also different types of waste including
increased volumes of electronic, chemical, and plastics waste which are
more difficult to dispose of and recycle. This issue is exacerbated by legacy
waste management systems leading to even greater environmental impact.
Smart waste management (SWM) refers to the use of enabling ICTs
for more efficient, effective, and sustainable waste management oper-
ations (Zhang et al., 2019). Extant research and applications range
across the entire waste management lifecycle leveraging technology across
various stages of waste management, including collection, sorting, recy-
cling, and energy recovery. Digital technologies, including IoT-enabled
bins, geographic information systems (GIS), Radio Frequency Identifi-
cation (RFID), and advanced analytics, are transforming how waste is
collected, transported, and tracked through the waste management life-
cycle (Hannan et al., 2015; Rada et al., 2013; Shyam et al., 2017;
Sosunova & Porras, 2022). For example, waste collection is increasingly
digital and sophisticated. IoT-enabled solar-powered waste receptacles
with built-in compactors, such those provided by Bigbelly,1 cannot only
perform multiple functions but notify waste management services of
the need to be collected as well as collecting data on volume, fill rate,
and collection activity for analysis and chargeback. Similarly, automated
vacuum-based systems, such as those offered by ENVAC,2 are being
developed and used to capture different types of waste through stan-
dardised inlets connected to an underground pipe network in buildings

1 https://bigbelly.com/
2 https://www.envacgroup.com/
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 89

or the public realm. Waste receptacles are emptied at pre-programed

times or when sensors indicate that the units are full. There is also
increasing research and application for autonomous robots for sweeping
and steaming pavements or emptying and transporting waste receptacles
from smart bins amongst other applications (Roche Cerasi et al., 2020).
Once waste is collected new decision support systems are being devel-
oped using digital twinning, machine learning and deep learning that
optimise waste collection routes dynamically, saving time and fuel but also
reducing inconvenience (Yang et al., 2022; Barth et al., 2023; Cardenas
et al., 2023).
Once waste is collected, it must be sorted and segregated to support
both energy recovery and recycling. Robotic sorting systems (see, e.g.,
Wilts et al., 2021) and automated segregation techniques based on
machine vision can significantly improve the efficiency and accuracy of
waste separation, essential for effective recycling (Flores & Tan, 2019;
Mohammed et al., 2023; Sanathkumar et al., 2021). Santti et al. (2020)
sought to use digital technologies to incentivise and change consumer
behaviour with respect to waste sorting. By gamifying waste sorting
and segregation, they were able to dramatically increase recycling activ-
ities within student residencies. In their experiment, the recycling rate of
biowaste increased from 76 to 97% and the recycling rate of plastic from
25 to 85% (Santti et al., 2020).
At the later stages of the waste management lifecycle, intelligent
systems are being integrated for real-time monitoring and waste-to-energy
frameworks, highlighted in studies by Vlachokostas (2020), Curtis et al.
(2021), Kaya et al. (2021), and Shu et al. (2022). These advancements
not only improve the operational efficiency of waste processing facilities
but also bolster the sustainability of energy recovery methods.
In their survey of public and private waste management services,
Borchard et al. (2022) find a wide range of motivations for digitali-
sation of the waste management value chain including efficiency and
quality gains, faster payment transactions, cost optimisation, increased
process quality, and increased competitiveness. Interestingly, environ-
mental objectives are reported as the least important objective for the
services surveyed (Borchard et al., 2022). They may reflect the digital
maturity of the sector and associated solutions. For example, it is far
easier to adopt digital technologies in the administrative aspects of waste
management than in parts of the value chain which require capital
investments and significant changes to infrastructure.
90 T. LYNN ET AL.

Zhang et al. (2019) identify 12 main barriers in their study of the

barriers to SWM adoption and implementation, namely lack of SWM
knowledge, lack of regulatory pressures, lack of innovative capacity, diffi-
culties in technologies and applications, lack of market pressures and
demands, cost and other financial challenges, lack of environmental
education and culture of environmental protection, lack of stakeholder
cooperation, including service provider co-operation, short termism, lack
of cluster effect, lack of leadership commitment, and finally, lack of proper
standards of waste management. They note that the relative importance
of these barriers may vary across different stakeholders (e.g., govern-
ment, technology provider, or technology user). In all cases, there was
agreement that lack of knowledge of smart waste management, lack of
regulatory pressures, and lack of environmental education and culture of
environmental protection were important causal barriers (Zhang et al.,
2019). However, Zhang et al. (2019) identify other stakeholder-specific
barriers. For example, technology users rated lack of innovation capacity,
difficulties in technologies, and their applications higher than the tech-
nology providers (Zhang et al., 2019). This study provides insights into
the need for cities and towns to consider a wide range of stakeholder
needs in the design of any SWM initiative.

5.5 Environmental Monitoring

Environmental monitoring in smart cities and towns refers to the system-
atic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data concerning various
environmental parameters, such as air and water quality, noise pollu-
tion, temperature, and humidity, using advanced technologies and IoT
devices (Catlett et al., 2017; Kennedy, 2023). As we discussed earlier
in Sect. 5.3, data on the external environment can determine sustain-
ability decisions within buildings (e.g., external weather changes impact
heating and cooling requirements in buildings). However, environmental
monitoring can also play a significant role in enhancing public health,
and residents’ quality of life by identifying pollution sources, monitoring
urban environmental trends (e.g., traffic, regulatory compliance), and
facilitating data-driven decision-making for urban planning and manage-
ment. By leveraging real-time environmental data, smart cities and digital
towns can proactively manage environmental risks, reduce pollution, and
ensure a healthier, more liveable urban environment for their inhabitants.
This approach not only addresses current environmental challenges but
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 91

also contributes to the resilience and adaptability of urban areas in the

face of climate change and rapid urbanisation.
The University of Chicago’s Array of Things (AOT) was an exper-
imental urban measurement system based on Waggle, an open platform
for edge computing and intelligent, wireless sensors developed at Argonne
National Laboratory (Catlett et al., 2017). AOT provided programmable,
modular ‘nodes’ with sensors and computing capability so that one can
analyse data at the edge and then periodically send this data to fog nodes
or the cloud for analysis (Catlett et al., 2017). For example, it included
functionality for measuring climate, air quality, noise levels, flood and
water levels, as well as counting the number of vehicles at an intersection
(and then deleting the image data rather than sending it to a data centre).
Use cases identified by the project included consumer recommender
systems for healthiest and unhealthiest walking times and routes, real-
time detection of urban flooding, and micro-climate measurement and
analysis (University of Chicago, 2021). AOT was designed to be attached
to existing street infrastructure (e.g., lampposts), and provide insights at
a city or municipal level. A follow-on project, Eclipse, sought to provide
increasingly granular insights at a neighbourhood level (Esie et al., 2022;
Daepp et al., 2022). For example, results from Eclipse were able to iden-
tify environmental-related social inequities across neighbourhoods, e.g.
particulate matter levels were notably higher in neighbourhoods with
larger compositions Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations at different
times. In Gorey, a small town in rural Ireland, a similar ‘box of things’ has
been put in place, through a collaboration between Dublin City Univer-
sity and Wexford County Council, to collect data on air quality, noise
pollution, temperature, humidity, and traffic flow (Kennedy, 2023). One
of the benefits of the ‘box of things’ project is to create a critical mass
of open data for use by the public, researchers, or industry. However, as
Janssen et al. (2012) note open data on its own has little intrinsic value;
its value is created by its use.
When combined with other smart city systems and sources of data,
the value of environmental monitoring data is significantly enhanced.
These systems include traffic control and demand management systems,
energy demand response systems, neighbourhood, and district energy
management systems, as well as mobile applications for citizens (Lynn &
Wood., 2023). In all these instances, environmental data can be used to
enhance predictive capabilities and provide insights to actuate change.
Furthermore, environmental data can augment and be augmented by
92 T. LYNN ET AL.

data from government socio-economic data on focal populations, public

service and utility usage, climate, etc., but also new street-based tech-
nologies. For example, there are numerous examples of smart lampposts,
street furniture, and smart kiosks that include environmental sensing for
data collection (Gomez-Carmona et al., 2018; Baumgartner et al., 2019;
Nassar et al., 2019).
Environmental monitoring is not without challenges. From a techno-
logical perspective, the availability and scale of enabling infrastructure and
technologies, and the associated funding to finance such infrastructure is
a significant constraint (Biber, 2013; Lynn & Wood, 2023). Additionally,
any public ambient monitoring, on the environment or otherwise, raises
concerns regarding trust, data protection, and data security (Lopresti &
Shekhar, 2021; Lynn & Wood, 2023). Biber (2013) also notes a number
of institutional, political, and legal constraints including the need for insti-
tutional continuity, inter-agency conflict, lack of transparency on how data
is being used or whether it is effective or not, and lack of skills to analyse
and use the data effectively.

5.6 Conclusion
We are witnessing an unprecedented level of urbanisation combined with
accelerated climate change. Urban areas, whether cities or towns, have
a disproportionate impact on the environment. This chapter discusses
the potential impact of digital technologies to proactively manage envi-
ronmental risks, reduce pollution, and ensure a healthier, more live-
able environment. Through smart transportation systems, cities and
towns can alleviate congestion, improve and promote eco-friendly modes
of mobility, and thereby significantly reduce carbon footprints while
increasing safety. Smart buildings, on the other hand, offer a pathway
to sustainable urban living by ensuring energy efficiency and fostering
healthier indoor environments through intelligent design and operational
practices. Furthermore, smart waste management practices enabled by
digital technologies not only aim to reduce waste generation but also
support and maximise recycling, reuse, and energy recovery, all of which
contribute to a circular economy. Lastly, we discussed the critical role of
environmental monitoring in identifying, analysing, and mitigating envi-
ronmental risks through data-driven insights. Realising smart cities and
towns is not without challenges however an inclusive, long-term, and
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 93

multi-stakeholder collaborative approach can help pave the way for a more
digital, sustainable, and liveable future for generations to come.

Funding This chapter was partially funded by the European Union’s Horizon
2020 Research and Innovation Programme through the RINNO project
(https://rinno-h2020.eu/) under Grant Agreement 892071.

References
Al Dakheel, J., Del Pero, C., Aste, N., & Leonforte, F. (2020). Smart build-
ings features and key performance indicators: A review. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 61, 102328.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions,
dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1),
3–21.
Amândio, M., Parente, M., Neves, J., & Fonseca, P. (2021). Integration of smart
pavement data with decision support systems: A systematic review. Buildings,
11(12), 579.
Barth, L., Schweiger, L., Benedech, R., & Ehrat, M. (2023). From data to value
in smart waste management: Optimizing solid waste collection with a digital
twin-based decision support system. Decision Analytics Journal, 9, 100347.
Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A.,
Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis, G., & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the
future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214, 481–518.
Baumgärtner, L., Höchst, J., Lampe, P., Mogk, R., Sterz, A., Weisenburger,
P., Mezini, M., & Freisleben, B. (2019). Smart street lights and mobile
citizen apps for resilient communication in a digital city. In 2019 IEEE Global
Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Bhutta, F. M. (2017). Application of smart energy technologies in building
sector—future prospects. In 2017 International Conference on Energy
Conservation and Efficiency (ICECE) (pp. 7–10). IEEE.
Biber, E. (2013). The challenge of collecting and using environmental moni-
toring data. Ecology and Society, 18(4).
Borchard, R., Zeiss, R., & Recker, J. (2022). Digitalization of waste manage-
ment: Insights from German private and public waste management firms.
Waste Management and Research, 40(6), 775–792.
Cárdenas, I., Koeva, M., Davey, C., & Nourian, P. (2023). Solid waste in
the virtual World: A digital twinning approach for waste collection plan-
ning. In International 3D GeoInfo Conference (pp. 61–74). Springer Nature
Switzerland.
94 T. LYNN ET AL.

Catlett, C. E., Beckman, P. H., Sankaran, R., & Galvin, K. K. (2017). Array
of things: A scientific research instrument in the public way: platform design
and early lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop
on science of smart city operations and platforms engineering (pp. 26–33).
Chen, Y., Ardila-Gomez, A., & Frame, G. (2017). Achieving energy savings by
intelligent transportation systems investments in the context of smart cities.
Transportation Research Part d: Transport and Environment, 54, 381–396.
Christensen, H., Paz, D., Zhang, H., Meyer, D., Xiang, H., Han, Y., Liu, Y.,
Liang, A., Zhong, Z., & Tang, S. (2021). Autonomous vehicles for micro-
mobility. Autonomous Intelligent Systems, 1, 1–35.
Curtis, A., Küppers, B., Möllnitz, S., Khodier, K., & Sarc, R. (2021). Real time
material flow monitoring in mechanical waste processing and the relevance of
fluctuations. Waste Management, 120, 687–697.
D˛abrowska-Żółtak, K., Wojtowicz, J., & Wrona, S. (2021). Reconfigurable
neighborhood—Mechatronisation of the urban design. Sustainability, 13(24),
13547.
Daepp, M. I., Cabral, A., Ranganathan, V., Iyer, V., Counts, S., Johns, P.,
Roseway, A., Catlett, C., Jancke, G., Gehring, D., Needham, C., & Nguyen,
B. H. (2022). Eclipse: An end-to-end platform for low-cost, hyperlocal envi-
ronmental sensing in cities. In 2022 21st ACM/IEEE International Confer-
ence on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN) (pp. 28–40).
IEEE.
Del-Real, C., Ward, C., & Sartipi, M. (2023). What do people want in a smart
city? Exploring the stakeholders’ opinions, priorities and perceived barriers in
a medium-sized city in the United States. International Journal of Urban
Sciences, 27 (sup1), 50–74.
Ejidike, C. C., & Mewomo, M. C. (2022, June). A review of barriers to
the adoption of smart building concepts (SBCs) in developing countries.
In Construction in 5D: Deconstruction, Digitalization, Disruption, Disaster,
Development: Proceedings of the 15th Built Environment Conference
(pp. 29–37). Springer International Publishing.
EMBuild. (2017). Barriers That Hinder Deep Renovation in the Building
Sector. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/doc
uments/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5b3a088c0&appId=PPGMS
(Accessed on 4 April 2024).
Esie, P., Daepp, M. I., Roseway, A., & Counts, S. (2022). Neighborhood compo-
sition and air pollution in Chicago: Monitoring inequities with a dense,
low-cost sensing network, 2021. American Journal of Public Health, 112(12),
1765–1773.
European Commission (2020a). A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening
our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives. Available at: https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEXpercent3A52020DC0662
(Accessed on 4 April 2024).
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 95

European Commission. Smart Cities (2020b). Available at: https://commission.

europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urbandevelopment/topics/cities-and-urban-dev
elopment/city-initiatives/smart-cities (Accessed on 4 April 2024).
European Commission (2024). Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-eff
icient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en (Accessed on 4
April 2024).
Flores, M. G., & Tan, J. (2019). Literature review of automated waste segrega-
tion system using machine learning: A comprehensive analysis. International
Journal of Simulation: Systems, Science and Technology, 11.
Ghaemi, A. A. (2017). A cyber-physical system approach to smart city devel-
opment. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart
Cities (ICSGSC) (pp. 257–262). IEEE.
Golub, A., Satterfield, V., Serritella, M., Singh, J., & Phillips, S. (2019). Assessing
the barriers to equity in smart mobility systems: A case study of Portland.
Oregon. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7 (4), 689–697.
Gómez-Carmona, O., Casado-Mansilla, D., & López-de-Ipiña, D. (2018,
November). Multifunctional interactive furniture for smart cities. In Proceed-
ings (Vol. 2, No. 19, p. 1212). MDPI.
Hannan, M. A., Al Mamun, M. A., Hussain, A., Basri, H., & Begum, R. A.
(2015). A review on technologies and their usage in solid waste monitoring
and management systems: Issues and challenges. Waste Management, 43, 509–
523.
Hosseini, S., Frank, L., Fridgen, G., & Heger, S. (2018). Do not forget about
smart towns: How to bring customized digital innovation to rural areas.
Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60, 243–257.
Iclodean, C., Cordos, N., & Varga, B. O. (2020). Autonomous shuttle bus for
public transportation: A review. Energies, 13(11), 2917.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption
barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems
Management, 29(4), 258–268.
Jianwei, H. E., Zhenxiang, Z., & Zhiheng, L. I. (2010). Benefit evaluation
framework of intelligent transportation systems. Journal of Transportation
Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 10(1), 81–87.
Kaya, K., Ak, E., Yaslan, Y., & Oktug, S. F. (2021). Waste-to-energy frame-
work: An intelligent energy recycling management. Sustainable Computing:
Informatics and Systems, 30, 100548.
Kennedy, J. (2023). Rural Main Street environmental monitoring with the Box
of Things—Gorey, Co. Wexford. Available at: https://www.weare.ie/rural-
main-street-environmental-monitoring-with-the-box-of-things-gorey-co-wex
ford/ (Accessed on 4 April 2024).
96 T. LYNN ET AL.

KPMG (2012). Cities Infrastructure: A Report on Sustainability; KPMG Inter-

national: Zurich, Switzerland, 2012.
Lopresti, D., & Shekhar, S. (2021). A national research agenda for intelligent
infrastructure: 2021 Update. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.01671.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., & Fox, G. (2020, 22–26 March). Smart streets: Defini-
tion, principles, and infrastructural elements. In Proceedings of ICDS: The
Fourteenth International Conference on Digital Society (pp. 1–10).
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Conway, E., Curran, D., Fox, G., & O’Gorman, C. (2022).
Digital towns: Accelerating and measuring the digital transformation of rural
societies and economies (p. 213). Springer Nature.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Egli, A., Krinidis, S., Angelakoglou, K., Sougkakis, V.,
Tzovaras, D., Kassem, M., Greenwood, D., & Doukari, O. (2021). RINNO:
Towards an open renovation platform for integrated design and delivery of
deep renovation projects. Sustainability, 13(11), 6018.
Lynn, T., & Wood, C. (2023). Smart streets as a cyber-physical social platform:
A Conceptual framework. Sensors, 23(3), 1399.
McGregor, R. V., Eng, P., & MacIver, A. (2003). Regional its architectures—
From policy to project implementation. Proceedings of the Transportation
Factor.
Mohammed, M. A., Abdulhasan, M. J., Kumar, N. M., Abdulkareem, K. H.,
Mostafa, S. A., Maashi, M. S., Khalid, L. S., Abdulaali, H. S., & Chopra, S.
S. (2023). Automated waste-sorting and recycling classification using artificial
neural network and features fusion: A digital-enabled circular economy vision
for smart cities. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(25), 39617–39632.
Nassar, M. A., Luxford, L., Cole, P., Oatley, G., & Koutsakis, P. (2019).
The current and future role of smart street furniture in smart cities. IEEE
Communications Magazine, 57 (6), 68–73.
Oladimeji, D., Gupta, K., Kose, N. A., Gundogan, K., Ge, L., & Liang, F.
(2023). Smart transportation: An overview of technologies and applications.
Sensors, 23(8), 3880.
Rada, E. C., Ragazzi, M., & Fedrizzi, P. J. W. M. (2013). Web-GIS oriented
systems viability for municipal solid waste selective collection optimization in
developed and transient economies. Waste Management, 33(4), 785–792.
Rammohan, A. (2023). Revolutionizing intelligent transportation systems with
cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology: Current trends, use cases,
emerging technologies, standardization bodies, industry analytics and future
directions. Vehicular Communications, 100638.
Rana, N. P., Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Islam, R., Roderick, S., & Dwivedi,
Y. K. (2019). Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian context.
Information Systems Frontiers, 21, 503–525.
 5 FROM CONCRETE JUNGLES TO SMART CITIES … 97

Roche Cerasi, I. (2022). The potential of autonomous and connected sweepers

for smart and sustainable cities. International Journal of Transport Develop-
ment and Integration, 6(1).
Sanathkumar, G., Nagesh, K. J., Hadimani, G., Charanraj, B. R., & Honnavalli,
P. B. (2021). Smart waste segregation. In 2021 IEEE 9th Region 10
Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC) (pp. 01–06). IEEE.
Santti, U., Happonen, A., & Auvinen, H. (2020). Digitalization boosted recy-
cling: Gamification as an inspiration for young adults to do enhanced waste
sorting. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2233, No. 1). AIP Publishing.
Sell, R., Soe, R. M., Wang, R., & Rassõlkin, A. (2021). Autonomous vehicle
shuttle in Smart City testbed. In Intelligent System Solutions for Auto
Mobility and Beyond: Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications
2020 (pp. 143–157). Springer International Publishing.
Shu, T., Tong, L., Guo, H., Li, X., Bai, B., Ma, X., ... & Nie, X. (2022). An
intelligent monitoring system of household waste delivery. In International
Conference on Electronic Information Engineering, Big Data, and Computer
Technology (EIBDCT 2022) (Vol. 12256, pp. 367–372). SPIE.
Shyam, G. K., Manvi, S. S., & Bharti, P. (2017, February). Smart waste manage-
ment using Internet-of-Things (IoT). In 2017 2nd international conference
on computing and communications technologies (ICCCT) (pp. 199–203).
IEEE.
Sosunova, I., & Porras, J. (2022). IoT-enabled smart waste management systems
for smart cities: A systematic review. IEEE Access, 10, 73326–73363.
University of Chicago (2021). Array of Things. Available at: https://arrayofth
ings.github.io/ (Accessed on 4 April 2024).
Vale, Z., Gomes, L., & Ramos, C. (2023). An overview on smart buildings.
In Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronic Power Engineering, Elsevier
(pp. 431–440).
Vlachokostas, C. (2020). Closing the loop between energy production and
waste management: A conceptual approach towards sustainable development.
Sustainability, 12(15), 5995.
Waqar, A., Alshehri, A. H., Alanazi, F., Alotaibi, S., & Almujibah, H. R.
(2023). Evaluation of challenges to the adoption of intelligent transporta-
tion system for urban smart mobility. Research in Transportation Business and
Management, 51, 101060.
Wilts, H., Garcia, B. R., Garlito, R. G., Gómez, L. S., & Prieto, E. G. (2021).
Artificial intelligence in the sorting of municipal waste as an enabler of the
circular economy. Resources, 10(4), 28.
World Health Organization. (2021). Urban health. World Health Organization.
Yang, J., Tao, F., & Zhong, Y. (2022). Dynamic routing for waste collection
and transportation with multi-compartment electric vehicle using smart waste
bins. Waste Management and Research, 40(8), 1199–1211.
98 T. LYNN ET AL.

Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019).
Barriers to smart waste management for a circular economy in China. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 240, 118198.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 CHAPTER 6

Smart Farming Technologies

and Sustainability

Marilena Gemtou, Blanca Casares Guillén,

and Evangelos Anastasiou

Abstract This chapter discusses how smart farming technologies are

being used to optimise and transform agricultural practices and food
systems to make them more sustainable and resilient to the climate change
and food security crises. These include precision farming, water-smart,
weather-smart, carbon, and energy-smart, as well as knowledge-smart
agricultural practices. Adoption of these technologies comes with various
barriers and drivers which hinder or aid farmers in their transition to

M. Gemtou (B) · E. Anastasiou

Department of Natural Resources Development and Agricultural Engineering,
Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
E. Anastasiou
e-mail: [email protected]
B. C. Guillén
Rural and Territorial Develpment Unit, European Association for Innovation
in Local Development, Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 99

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_6
100 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

digital agriculture. These are categorised into socio-demographic, psycho-

logical, farm characteristics, technology-related, systemic, and policy
factors. The chapter also discusses international visions of future food
systems based on digital technology promoted by international agencies
such as the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), and the World Bank as well as the European policy framework
to support and monitor digitisation in agriculture and the food system.

Keywords Smart farming · Technology adoption · Policy

6.1 Introduction
Modern-day agriculture and the challenges it is currently facing are at the
epicentre of international and European policy agendas. Climate change
with its extreme and unpredictable weather patterns (e.g., extreme high
and low temperatures, floods, and long dry periods) jeopardises food
production causing a global food security crisis. Agriculture is expected to
feed the rising global population which is estimated to reach 9.7 billion
by 2050 increasing food demands by 50% (Kumar et al., 2022). At the
same time, agriculture is a major cause of environmental degradation with
its negative impacts on soil erosion, water use, water and air pollution,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and biodiversity loss (Begho et al.,
2022). Smart farming technologies promise to tackle these challenges by
enabling optimisation of resource use, increased performance and produc-
tivity while creating sustainable production systems (Pathak et al., 2019).
The modernisation and the digitalisation of the agricultural sector are a
high priority at international and European levels. At an international
level, agencies such as the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the World Bank as well as the European Union
(EU), with its notable Green Deal, Farm-to-Fork strategy and Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP), pave the way to the transition of food systems
to digital agriculture. Despite the prominent benefits associated with the
technologies and the policies that support the transformation of the agri-
cultural sector, adoption of smart farming technologies remains slow and
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 101

low. Various barriers hinder farmers and food systems from their tran-
sition to smart farming technologies. In order to foster transition, we
need to understand farmer behaviour and integrate behavioural insights
into policy design. This chapter aims to present the current trends, chal-
lenges, and policy agendas in the context of smart farming technologies
and provide some recommendations for future research and policy.
The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. Section 6.2
provides an overview of the existing smart farming technologies along
with the evaluation of the benefits and costs associated with the environ-
mental, economic, and social dimensions. Sections 6.3 and 6.4 outline the
barriers and drivers for adoption of smart farming technologies and the
policy framework at both international and European levels, respectively.
Key regulations and initiatives are discussed with respect to their impact
in the transition to digital agriculture. Section 6.5 concludes the chapter
with some final remarks about smart farming and sustainability.

6.2 Smart Farming Technologies: Social,

Environmental, and Economic Benefits
Smart farming is seen as a pivotal strategy for breaking away from conven-
tional farming technologies and practices, offering an orchestrated path
towards sustainable agriculture by achieving significant savings in crop
inputs while maintaining or even increasing crop yield. This can benefit
environmental protection resulting in less air, water, and soil pollution.
Furthermore, smart farming contributes to food security and health
protection while also maintaining the livelihoods of rural communities.
As such, the adoption of smart farming technologies, including preci-
sion agriculture, water-smart, and carbon and energy-smart practices,
coupled with knowledge-enhancement activities, is essential for realising
a more sustainable, efficient, and socially responsible agricultural sector
(Erickson & Fausti, 2021; Pathak et al., 2019). The rest of this section
will explore the various smart farming technologies and methods, along
with their associated benefits and costs, highlighting their potential to
transform agriculture.

Precision Farming
Precision farming, also known as precision agriculture, encompasses a
range of technologies and practices aimed at optimising various aspects
102 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

of crop production, such as sowing, spraying, fertilisation, irrigation,

and harvesting by optimising crop inputs which consequently lead to
minimising environmental impact. Precision farming utilises many tech-
nologies, such as sensors, global navigation satellite systems (GNSS),
robots, smart implements, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs), which can be found in space,
air, water, on ground, or below ground (Anastasiou et al., 2023b; Fountas
et al., 2020; Liakos et al., 2018). By leveraging precision agriculture,
farmers can make informed decisions leading to cost savings in relation to
inputs (e.g., fertilisers, seeds, nutrients, power, and fuel), reduced waste,
and more efficient workload management based on spatial and temporal
variability and consequently needs (Anastasiou et al., 2023b; Fountas
et al., 2020). Moreover, the social impact of precision farming is signifi-
cant, as it plays a crucial role in ensuring a stable food supply and reducing
health problems across the value chain (farmers, industry workers, and
consumers) (Talebpour et al., 2015).

Water-Smart Agricultural Practices

Water-smart agricultural practices, such as rainwater harvesting and
micro-irrigation, play a crucial role in sustainable water management,
offering significant social, environmental, and economic benefits. These
practices can use advanced technologies (e.g., automated actuators) and/
or environmentally friendly approaches (e.g., rainwater harvesting, solar-
powered irrigation, and aquifer recharge). These practices are essential
for addressing the challenges associated with water availability, access,
and use in agriculture, particularly in the context of a changing climate
(Frimpong et al., 2023). Moreover, water-smart agricultural practices
help reduce pressure on traditional water sources, and minimise soil
erosion, enhance water-use efficiency, and reduce water waste from an
environmental perspective. Economically, water-smart agricultural prac-
tices can lead to cost savings and improved productivity. By maximising
crop yields per volume of water applied, these practices contribute to
enhanced resource utilisation and overall profitability. In relation to the
social aspect, water-smart agriculture plays a significant role in ensuring
food security and supporting the livelihoods of farming communities due
to increased production which results to higher economic profits and
welfare (Patle et al., 2019).
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 103

Weather-Smart Practices
Weather-smart practices, such as ICT-based agro-meteorological services
and index-based insurance, are essential components of smart farming
technologies. These practices leverage weather data and analytics to
support informed decision-making and risk management in agriculture.
For example, these practices are used to inform farmers of pest infesta-
tions or crop phenological stages and therefore to proceed to pest control
or other appropriate farming practices (e.g., fertilisation, tillage), respec-
tively (Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2017). Moreover, weather-smart services play
a significant role in crop insurance. Weather-based indices are used to
determine crop yield loss and consequently loss in farm income due to
extreme weather events (e.g., dry weather, heat waves, hail) (Dalhaus
et al., 2018). From an environmental perspective, weather-smart activi-
ties contribute to sustainable resource management by optimising water
use, reducing soil erosion, and minimising the use of chemicals and pesti-
cides. Additionally, weather-smart activities can lead to cost savings and
improved productivity by providing real-time weather information and
enabling farmers to optimise their operations, reduce risks, and enhance
overall profitability. In terms of social aspects, weather-smart activities play
a crucial role in ensuring food security and supporting the livelihoods
of farming communities due to the better information of farmers which
can help them prevent and mitigate production related losses caused by
advert weather conditions. Thus, by providing access to weather informa-
tion and risk management tools, these activities contribute to sustainable
food production and the resilience of agricultural systems (Khatri-Chhetri
et al., 2017).

Carbon and Energy-Smart Practices

One other aspect to which smart farming technologies can contribute
is related to carbon sequestration and energy consumption. Carbon and
energy-smart practices in agriculture, such as zero-tillage and residue
management, play a crucial role in mitigating climate change and
promoting sustainable land use. More specifically, zero-tillage practice,
enabled by smart farming technologies such as auto-guidance, minimises
soil disturbance by reducing the number of times the soil is tilled,
thereby retaining soil carbon, promoting soil health, increasing and
104 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

decreasing fuel consumption (Javaid et al., 2022). Moreover, by incor-

porating crop residues into the soil, the soil organic matter is increased,
resulting in soil moisture retention, and suppressed weed population.
Another relevant practice is cover cropping. Cover cropping is the prac-
tice of cultivating crops amidst primary crop production, which serves
as a means to maintain soil cover, rather than for yielding produce.
This technique is geared towards enhancing soil health and fertility. It
effectively helps in minimising soil erosion and preserving soil nutrients
(Güven et al., 2023). Finally, crop rotation enhanced by appropriate
farm management software can also lead to soil health improvement,
reduced need for chemical inputs, and consequently sustainable land use
(Lieder & Schröter-Schlaack, 2021). Thus, carbon and energy-smart prac-
tices enabled by smart farming technologies can retain soil carbon, reduce
GHG emissions, enhance soil health, prevent soil erosion, and promote
soil biodiversity. Economically, carbon and energy-smart practices can
lead to cost savings by reducing the need for chemical inputs and fossil
fuel-based energy sources and increasing efficiency. In relation to the
social aspect, carbon and energy-smart practices integrated with smart
farming technologies contribute to sustainable food production and the
well-being of farming communities (Güven et al., 2023).

Knowledge-Smart Activities
Knowledge-smart activities, such as capacity enhancement, are integral to
the adoption of smart farming technologies (Kangogo et al., 2021). These
activities can be enhanced using modern technologies such as Augmented
Reality/Virtual Reality (AR/VR). AR and VR can help farmers better
understand smart farming technologies and practices through immersive
digital environments. For example, farmers have the ability to virtually
operate smart farming technologies such as robots and Internet of Things
(IoT) devices and thus understand their benefits and constraints during
an actual farming operation (Anastasiou et al., 2023a). Thus, the farmers
are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to implement
sustainable and climate-resilient agricultural practices without needing to
purchase expensive farm equipment before understanding the potential
benefits, challenges, and constraints for their farm business. As a result,
these activities lead to increased productivity, cost efficiency, and overall
economic gains, promote the welfare of farming communities and sustain-
able rural development, and ultimately, contribute to the food security
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 105

and resilience of agricultural systems (Makate, 2020; Ogunyiola et al.,

2022).

6.3 Barriers and Drivers

for the Adoption of Climate-Smart
Agriculture Practices and Technologies
Farmer adoption of digital agriculture is key to the transition towards a
productive, sustainable, and resilient agriculture. Over the past decades,
researchers have increasingly examined farmers’ decision-making factors
that affect adoption of smart farming technologies (Dessart et al., 2019;
Tey & Brindal, 2012; Willy & Holm-Müller, 2013). It is now widely
acknowledged that farmer decision-making is a complex and multi-
faceted process that is influenced by personal, technological, organisa-
tional, institutional, and political factors (Verburg et al., 2022). When
examining farmer transition to digital agriculture, it is important to
adopt a food system perspective where farmers are not seen in isola-
tion but as embedded actors in the food systems in which they operate
which pose power dynamics and trade-offs that affect their behaviour
(Hoek et al., 2021). To examine the multiplicity of farmer decision-
making factors associated with smart farming technologies adoption
and implementation, we adopt a wider perspective and categorise them
into socio-demographics, psychological, farm characteristics, technology-
related, systemic, and policy factors (Hoek et al., 2021).

Socio-demographic Factors
Socio-demographic factors include farmer demographics (e.g., age,
gender, education, farming experience) and household characteristics
(e.g., size, income). The global farmer profile is characterised by older
age and low education that pose strong barriers to the adoption of smart
farming technologies (Bai et al., 2022; Vecchio et al., 2020). Reports
indicate that farmer age continues to increase; it is currently 58 years
old on average in Europe and USA, 60 in Africa and 77 in Japan
(Saiz-Rubio & Rovira-Más, 2020). Farming experience seems to partially
reverse the ageing effect since as experience accrues with age, farmers
are better equipped to implement digital technologies (Tey & Brindal,
2012). However, the ageing crisis calls for generational renewal and the
106 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

need to attract younger and more educated farmers who are more open to
innovations and less risk averse. Farmers’ income (both on-farm and off-
farm) plays an important role since it provides farmers with the financial
resources to invest in new technological equipment (which is sometimes
costly and risky) as well as with better access to credit and information
sources (Begho et al., 2022).

Psychological Factors
Psychological factors encompass farmers’ cognitive, affective, and dispo-
sitional factors (Dessart et al., 2019). Among the plethora of factors
that have been investigated in the academic literature, motives exert a
strong influence on farmers’ behavioural shift to digital agriculture. It has
been demonstrated that farming operations that are driven by economic
gains, increased productivity, or preservation of family traditions are less
likely to result in adoption of smart farming technologies compared with
farming motives associated with conservation, modernisation, moral obli-
gation, and social embeddedness (Mazurek-Kusiak et al., 2021; Pinna,
2017). A framework that has been prominently employed to explain
farmer intention to adopt sustainable practices is the Theory of Planned
Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). According to this theory, intention is
shaped by three factors, namely behavioural control, subjective norms,
and attitudes. In the context of smart farming technologies, behavioural
control refers to the farmers’ perceived ease or difficulty to perform smart
farming technologies, subjective norms refer to the perceptions about
what is socially approved by significant others, and attitudes refer to
the evaluative dispositions towards smart farming technologies. There-
fore, TPB posits that farmers are more willing to adopt smart farming
technologies when they believe they have the ability to implement them,
their behaviour is perceived as socially acceptable, and they hold positive
attitudes towards these technologies. Similarly, farmers’ awareness and
knowledge about climate change and the benefits associated with smart
farming technologies drive sustainable behaviour (Balogh et al., 2020).
With respect to dispositional factors, the most influential are environ-
mental consciousness and risk aversion. Farmers differ in how conscious
they are about the impact of their farming activities on the environment
and on their propensity to take risks, with farmers who are less envi-
ronmentally conscious and more risk averse less likely to shift to digital
technologies (Karali et al., 2014).
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 107

Farm Characteristics
Of the farm characteristics examined in the literature, there is general
agreement that farm size is a key driver of smart farming technologies
adoption. Larger farms benefit from economies of scale, reduced costs,
and higher investment returns compared to small and medium sized farms
(Michels et al., 2020). Furthermore, farm ownership has been linked with
increased adoption rates of smart farming technologies. This is because
compared to owners, farm tenants are faced with more risks, reduced
financial capacity while oftentimes their decisions are constrained by the
farm owner’s will (Karali et al., 2014). Not surprisingly the availability
of a successor affects farmers’ decisions. Previous studies indicate that
farmers are more willing to implement smart farming technologies that
will boost profitability and environmental status of the farm when there
is a successor because they seek to make their business attractive to the
future owner (Barnes et al., 2019).

Technology-related Factors
Technologies are usually costly to acquire but costs can be also associ-
ated with time, effort, and training requirements by the new technologies
which render the investment risky for the farmers. Hence, costs are
posited to be a major barrier to adoption of smart farming technologies
(Pinna, 2017). A model that has been consistently used in past research
to understand farmer technology adoption is the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) (Davis et al., 1989). According to TAM, decisions to adopt
are based on the perceived usefulness and ease of use of smart farming
technologies as well as perceived compatibility (added subsequently).
A number of technologies are still considered complex and difficult to
use which, in turn, negatively affect technology’s usefulness for farming
operations (e.g., farm productivity, reduced workload) and compatibility
with current farming practices, goals, and values (Michels et al., 2020).
Furthermore, the advent of data-driven technologies (e.g., precision agri-
culture), which require large amounts of data collected from farms, has
given rise to data privacy and ownership concerns. Due to lack of control
and transparency in the way data is collected and shared, farmers appear
unwilling to share their data with technology providers and hence, to
adopt these technologies (Kaur et al., 2022).
108 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

Systemic Factors
Systemic factors refer to the structures and institutions operating at the
food systems level. The literature has only recently acknowledged that
for food systems to shift to digital agriculture, changes are required in
the decision-making of individuals in the whole value chain (Hoek et al.,
2021). The social environment plays a major role in farmer adoption of
smart farming technologies. It dictates whether a behaviour is approved or
disapproved by a community. Social influence can be manifested through
social norms, peer pressure (e.g., family, friends, and other farmers), social
networks, and social learning effects. Farming communities that are more
innovative and technologically advanced exert a “neighbourhood” social
influence making farmers mimic their behaviour (Balogh et al., 2020).
Similarly, social learning, through peer-to-peer observation of how other
farmers implement smart farming technologies, drive adoption (Blasch
et al., 2021). Nowadays, farmers need to possess an array of skills to
remain competitive, such as entrepreneurial, marketing, and communica-
tion skills. However, there is a lack of skilled farmers and as technologies
become more complex, the gap between technology advancement and
farmer skills is likely to widen in the future. It is widely agreed that access
to extension and advisory services such as training courses, field visits,
and demonstrations, as well as technical support is crucial for farmers.
Proper training and advice are linked with farmer upskilling and increased
adoption of smart farming technologies (Blasch et al., 2021). A novel
approach to facilitate transition to smart farming technologies is the use
of collective and participatory approaches. In this sense, the collabo-
ration and frequent interaction between farmers and other food actors
(e.g., processors, retailers, and consumers) is expected to facilitate farm-
ers’ access to resources, knowledge sharing, and co-creation of pathways
to change. The building of social capital will foster collective action ulti-
mately resulting in transition of entire food systems to smart farming
technologies (Pinna, 2017; Willy & Holm-Müller, 2013).

Policy Factors
Policies set the regulatory framework in which the food actors operate
by specifying policy targets towards sustainability. Overall, policies are
viewed in a positive light because they provide farmers with the financial
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 109

means and incentives to support the transition to smart farming tech-

nologies. However, not all policy instruments are equally effective. In
a European context, a comparative analysis of CAP instruments indi-
cated that measures such as direct payments were less successful in
triggering change compared to greening measures, extension and advi-
sory services, and better access to information sources (Linares Quero
et al., 2022). Moreover, a number of farmers identify inadequate compen-
sations, bureaucratic procedures, and heavy penalties for mistakes as
burdens in policy implementation (Chatzimichael et al., 2014; Pinna,
2017).

6.4 International and European

Regulatory Framework
The transition to digital agriculture is considered critical by current
international and European policymakers. International agreements and
support from agencies such as FAO, OECD, and the World Bank along
with European policies, such as the CAP and the European Green
Deal, aim to promote the sustainable development of national digital
agricultural systems for a sustainable, fair, and competitive future.

International Perspective
At an international level, three key organisations, namely the FAO,
OECD and the World Bank, set the international vision for future food
systems by influencing the design, implementation, and funding of digital
agricultural transformation. Two major international agreements influ-
ence agricultural and food policies, strategies, and actions from the global
to local level. The first is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in September
2015 (United Nations, 2015). Among the 17 goals and 169 targets, SDG
1 (No poverty), SDG 2 (Zero hunger), and SDG 9 (Industry, innovation,
and infrastructure) represent the building blocks of agricultural policy and
establish digital technologies as enablers of sustainable development. The
second is the Paris Agreement reached in December 2015. It set out
sustainability challenges, especially about meeting climate and biodiver-
sity targets and raised the importance of fully realising the development
and transfer of technology to improve resilience to climate change and to
reduce GHG emissions (United Nations, 2015).
110 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

In 2016, OECD Agriculture Ministers issued a Declaration on Better

Policies to Achieve a Productive, Sustainable, and Resilient global food
system, which placed a high priority on digitalisation (OECD, 2016). The
document outlined a set of shared goals and policy principles to ensure
an integrated approach to agriculture and food policies emphasising inter-
national cooperation, particularly in trade, investment, innovation, and
climate change (OECD, 2016). In the same year, the FAO and the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), together with support
from partners, developed the e-Agriculture Strategy Guide aiming to
assist countries in developing their national digital agriculture strategy by
identifying services and solutions based on the use of agricultural digital
technologies (FAO, 2016). The FAO further piloted a regional eAgri
Index to assess the preparedness of European and Central Asian countries
in formulating and implementing a digital transformation strategy and to
provide guidance for the areas of emphasis for strategising (e.g., infras-
tructure, business environment, etc.) (FAO, 2018). The digital divide
between small and large farms, and between developed and developing
countries remains a key concern for international organisations and mainly
lies in differences in skills, access to information and market environment.
For instance, the OECD notes differences in the capacity of countries
to generate digital knowledge by evaluating the share of expenditure for
research and development in the total value of agricultural output. The
USA, the Netherlands, and South Korea, for example, achieved 2.7%
compared to 0.5% for Canada and Switzerland (Revenko & Revenko,
2019). To reduce the digital divide and ensure easy access to market
data and information, the FAO embarked on creating open information
platforms to disseminate information in the food and agriculture sectors
such as the monitoring of prices, supply, and demand for food products
(Revenko & Revenko, 2019).
More recently, in 2021, the World Bank developed a Roadmap for
Building the Digital Future of Food and Agriculture for countries to scale
up their digital agriculture (Schroeder et al., 2021). Here, the importance
of innovation ecosystems, value chain actors, competition in markets,
and research and development are recognised as critical for the digital
transformation of food systems. The report also stresses the key role of
governments in enabling access to agricultural data by providing access
to open data and data-sharing platforms, setting data interoperability
standards, and promoting FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and
Reusable) principles for data use (Schroeder et al., 2021).
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 111

Finally, the OECD reports the importance of using digital technologies

in agricultural policy because they improve the efficiency and accuracy of
decision-making and support data-driven strategies and policies. Digital
technologies enable better data-driven monitoring and compliance mech-
anisms, the enablement of targeted policies, and the better evaluation of
the environmental impact of agriculture (OECD, 2019).

European Perspective
The EU is committed to become a forerunner in achieving the SDGs.
Consequently, in September 2021, the European Commission (EC)
proposed a Path to the Digital Decade (European Commission, 2021).
The policy programme, guided by the 2030 Digital Compass, sets
concrete targets and objectives for 2030 as a roadmap to Europe’s digital
transformation. The roadmap is focused on four pillars—digital skills,
secure and performant digital infrastructure, digital transformation of
businesses and the digitalisation of public services and proposes a set
of cooperation mechanisms (European Commission, 2021). Before the
Digital Decade Policy Programme (DDPP), the Digital Single Market
strategy paved the way for bridging the digital divide between urban and
rural areas and across EU member states, and for providing high-speed
connectivity across the EU. This initiative offered many opportunities
for agriculture and the food value chain to become smarter, more effi-
cient, and more connected and was later expanded by the Strategy for
Connectivity for a European Gigabit Society (European Commission,
2015). Additionally, the EU Cohesion Policy makes a key contribution
to delivering Digital Single Market objectives on the ground, through
significant financial allocations from the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF), aiming to overcome the digital divide both socially and
geographically. To monitor progress towards the 2030 targets, the Digital
Economy and Society Index (DESI) was established to evaluate Europe’s
digital performance based on a set of indicators capturing the four pillars
of the DDPP. The 2022 report showed that, although EU member states
are making progress towards digital transformation, insufficient digital
skills, lack of connectivity infrastructure and investments along with low
adoption of key digital technologies, such as AI and Big Data hamper
growth (European Commission, 2022).
The European Green Deal comprises a set of policies that provide a
roadmap to the green transition and the realisation of the SDGs following
112 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

a just and inclusive transition of the food systems. In its Farm-to-Fork

strategy, the flagship initiative of the legislative framework for sustain-
able food systems, it demonstrates the commitment to digital innovation,
knowledge, and skills development in the agricultural sector. More-
over, the CAP, the main EU agricultural policy, currently accounting
for 40% of the EU budget, operates a complex system of subsidies and
support measures for the agricultural sector. A key objective for the
period 2023–27 is for member states to form their national CAP strategic
plans to modernise agriculture and rural areas through fostering and
sharing knowledge, innovation, and digitalisation (European Commis-
sion, 2023b). The present CAP tools and interventions to favour the
adoption of digitalisation are:

• Direct payments and eco-schemes to provide financial support for

the adoption of sustainable practices;
• Sectoral interventions (e.g., fruit and vegetables, etc.) to invest in
digital technologies at any stage of the supply chain;
• Investments in rural development, for instance for broadband
connectivity or the installation of digital technologies;
• Farm advisory services on digital transformation of agriculture and
rural areas;
• Knowledge exchange, dissemination of information, and training
to boost digital skills, with strengthening the role of Agricultural
Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS).

At the regional level, Smart Specialisation Strategies aim to strengthen

digitalisation. They focus on identifying the regions’ competitive assets
and strategic areas for investment, and foster innovation partnerships
through better collaboration between different societal stakeholders. The
2023 European Council’s report, Conclusions on a Long-Term Vision for
Rural Areas (LTVRA), highlights that rural areas are essential contrib-
utors to EU prosperity and economic strength and to the green and
digital transitions, assuming a pivotal role in matters such as food produc-
tion (European Council, 2023). Digital technologies can contribute to
the development of rural areas by providing better accessibility and
connections (European Council, 2023). Additionally, the 2020 Industrial
Strategy announced actions to support the green and digital transitions
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 113

of EU industry. These actions include: (1) provide a coherent regula-

tory framework to achieve the objectives of Europe’s Digital Decade; (2)
provide SMEs with Sustainability Advisors and support data-driven busi-
ness models to make the most out of the green and digital transitions;
and (3) invest in the upskilling and reskilling of workforce to support the
twin transitions (European Commission, 2020). The EU provides various
other sources of funding that can be tapped to promote digitisation of
agricultural sector, such as the Horizon Europe research and innova-
tion programme and the agricultural European Innovation Partnership
programme (EIP-AGRI).
Issues of data sharing and open access data have raised data privacy and
ownership concerns. The lack of agricultural data is viewed as an imped-
iment in the design of informed policies, better decision-making as well
as monitoring and control procedures. The Declaration, A Smart and
Sustainable Digital Future for European Agriculture and Rural Areas,
noted the importance of using the European space programmes, EGNOS
and Galileo, and the Earth observation programme, Copernicus, for more
accurate and efficient agricultural operations (Kondratieva, 2021). More-
over, the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
(DG AGRI) collaborates with the Directorate-General for Communica-
tions Networks, Content, and Technology (DG CONNECT) to develop
a common European agricultural data space to provide for the digital
transformation of Europe’s farming industry. Current actions are co-
funded through Horizon Europe. Finally, the European Data Strategy
aims to set the framework for data governance by facilitating data access
and sharing for farmers and value chain actors, creating data interoper-
ability standards, and setting standards that address any risks associated
with data use (European Commission, 2023a).

6.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, agricultural sector and food systems can benefit from
digital transformation and the transition to smart farming. The latter
includes an array of technologies ranging from precision farming,
to water-smart, weather-smart, carbon and energy-smart as well as
knowledge-smart practices. These technologies have been associated with
positive environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Despite the tech-
nologies being there for some time, evidence suggests that adoption
114 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

remains slow and is hampered by various socio-demographic, psycholog-

ical, farm and technology-related, systemic and policy factors. The policy
landscape at the international and EU level is active in setting the stan-
dards, framework and regulations for the transition to digital agriculture.
International organisations, such as the FAO, OECD and the World Bank
influence policy-making while the EU has set a number of policies and
initiatives to enable transformation. However, monitoring, control, and
evaluation mechanisms are currently lacking, and hence, it is difficult to
measure the effectiveness of these policies.
Future research is needed to explore the benefits and costs associated
with various smart farming technologies. In particular, while the environ-
mental and economic benefits and costs have been extensively studied in
the past, evidence about the social impacts is stil nascent Understanding
all three aspects of impacts will enable us to evaluate the overall sustain-
ability of the various smart farming technologies by accounting for the
trade-offs that may exist between environmental, social, and economic
impacts. Moreover, more evidence on the role of systemic factors in
farmer decision-making is required. A food system approach to the digital
transformation of the agricultural sector acknowledges the significance
of other actors, systems, and structures on farmers’ decisions to adopt
smart farming technologies. Gathering more insights on how the factors
affect behavioural shifts and how future strategies can capitalise on their
effect will be valuable. On the policy side, studies need to investigate the
impact of various policies on the transition using quantitative or qual-
itative methodologies. Currently, several policies are in place but their
performance in achieving their targets is unknown. Therefore, evaluation
studies will enable measurement of their performance and adjustment or
tailoring of policies where needed.
By providing incentives and removing barriers to adoption, govern-
ments can create a conducive environment for farmers to adopt smart
agricultural technologies. Future policies need to take advantage of
the availability of agricultural data to inform better decision-making,
policy design, and monitoring. Policymakers need to create environ-
ments that enable access to data and data sharing by addressing issues
concerning data privacy, ownership, and data interoperability. This will
facilitate a performance-based policy design and implementation by
allowing measurement of progress towards policy targets, enable the
design of targeted policies while reducing the information asymmetries
and power imbalances in the food systems. Based on the analysis above
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 115

it is evident that future policies need to be behaviourally-informed rather

than focusing on the rational-agent model. For instance, farmer differ-
ences that arise from different ages, incomes, farm sizes, economic vs
environmental objectives, access to markets and credit, social influences
should be taken into account and be differentially addressed by policies in
order to remove barriers to adoption. When designing policies to foster
the adoption of smart farming technologies, local entities and govern-
ments should engage in a proactive dialogue that engages farmers and
other value chain actors, such as advisors, technology providers, proces-
sors, and retailers. Participatory and collective decision-making has been
shown to effectively result in digital transformation of the agricultural
sector. Finally, to increase policy coherence, there is a need for a system-
atic and inclusive assessment of current policies. Hence, policies need to
establish certain monitoring and control mechanisms with specific set of
indicators that will evaluate performance and enable to measure progress
towards the targets and ultimately to the SDGs.

Funding This research was funded by the European Union, grant number
101060645, BEATLES project EU.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
Anastasiou, E., Balafoutis, A. T., & Fountas, S. (2023a). Applications of extended
reality (XR) in agriculture, livestock farming, and aquaculture: A review. Smart
Agricultural Technology, 3, 100105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.
100105
Anastasiou, E., Balafoutis, A. T., & Fountas, S. (2023b). Trends in remote
sensing technologies in olive cultivation. Smart Agricultural Technology, 3,
100103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100103
Bai, A., Kovách, I., Czibere, I., Megyesi, B., & Balogh, P. (2022). Examining the
adoption of drones and categorisation of precision elements among Hungarian
precision farmers using a trans-theoretical model. Drones, 6(8), 200. https://
doi.org/10.3390/drones6080200
Balogh, P., Bujdos, Á., Czibere, I., Fodor, L., Gabnai, Z., Kovách, I., Nagy,
J., & Bai, A. (2020). Main motivational factors of farmers adopting precision
farming in Hungary. Agronomy, 10(4), 610. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGR
ONOMY10040610
116 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

Barnes, A. P., De Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B.,
Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., van der Wal, T., & Gómez-Barbero, M. (2019).
Influencing factors and incentives on the intention to adopt precision agricul-
tural technologies within arable farming systems. Environmental Science and
Policy, 93, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.014
Begho, T., Glenk, K., Anik, A. R., & Eory, V. (2022). A systematic review
of factors that influence farmers’ adoption of sustainable crop farming prac-
tices: Lessons for sustainable nitrogen management in South Asia. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, 1(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sae2.12016
Blasch, J., Vuolo, F., Essl, L., & van der Kroon, B. (2021). Drivers and barriers
influencing the willingness to adopt technologies for variable rate application
of fertiliser in lower Austria. Agronomy, 11(10), 1965. https://doi.org/10.
3390/agronomy11101965
Chatzimichael, K., Genius, M., & Tzouvelekas, V. (2014). Informational cascades
and technology adoption: Evidence from Greek and German organic growers.
Food Policy, 49, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.08.001
Dalhaus, T., Musshoff, O., & Finger, R. (2018). Phenology information
contributes to reduce temporal basis risk in agricultural weather index insur-
ance. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-186
56-5
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of
computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management
Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Van Bavel, R. (2019). Behavioural factors
affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented
review. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46(3), 417–471. https://
doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019
Erickson, B., & Fausti, S. W. (2021). The role of precision agriculture in food
security. Agronomy Journal, 113(6), 4455–4462. https://doi.org/10.1002/
agj2.20919
European Commission. (2015). A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:520
15DC0192
European Commission. (2020). European Industrial Strategy. https://commis
sion.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-
age/european-industrial-strategy_en
European Commission. (2021). Europe’s Digital Decade: Digital targets
for 2030. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-
2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-digital-targets-2030_en
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 117

European Commission. (2022). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)

2022. file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/0_DESI_Full_European_Analysis_
2022_2_C01lJgPAatnNf0qL2LL103tHSw_88764%20(1).pdf
European Council. (2023). Conclusions on a Long-Term Vision for the EU´s
Rural Areas (LTVRA). https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/
ST-15252-2023-INIT/en/pdf
European Commission. (2023b). The common agricultural policy at a glance.
https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/
cap-glance_en
European Commission. (2023a). European data strategy. https://commission.
europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/
european-data-strategy_en
FAO. (2016). E-Agriculture Strategy Guide. https://www.fao.org/in-action/e-
agriculture-strategy-guide/en/
FAO. (2018). E-agriculture: The Use of Information and Communication Tech-
nologies (ICTs) for the Development of Sustainable and Inclusive Food Systems
and Trade Integration. Voronezh, Russian Federation. https://www.fao.org/
3/MW402EN/mw402en.pdf
Fountas, S., Mylonas, N., Malounas, I., Rodias, E., Hellmann Santos, C., &
Pekkeriet, E. (2020). Agricultural robotics for field operations. Sensors, 20(9),
2672. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20092672
Frimpong, F., Asante, M. D., Peprah, C. O., Amankwaa-Yeboah, P., Danquah,
E. O., Ribeiro, P. F., Aidoo, A. K., Agyeman, K., Asante, M. O. O., Keteku,
A., & Botey, H. M. (2023). Water-smart farming: Review of strategies, tech-
nologies, and practices for sustainable agricultural water management in a
changing climate in West Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1110179
Güven, B., Baz, İ, Kocaoğlu, B., Toprak, E., Erol Barkana, D., & Soğutmaz
Özdemir, B. (2023). Smart farming technologies for sustainable agriculture:
From food to energy. In S. Oncel (Ed.), A sustainable green future: Perspec-
tives on energy, economy, industry, cities and environment (pp. 481–506).
Springer International Publishing.
Hoek, A. C., Malekpour, S., Raven, R., Court, E., & Byrne, E. (2021).
Towards environmentally sustainable food systems: Decision-making factors
in sustainable food production and consumption. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 26, 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.009
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., & Suman, R. (2022). Enhancing smart
farming through the applications of Agriculture 4.0 technologies. Inter-
national Journal of Intelligent Networks, 3, 150–164. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijin.2022.09.004
Kangogo, D., Dentoni, D., & Bijman, J. (2021). Adoption of climate-smart
agriculture among smallholder farmers: Does farmer entrepreneurship matter?
118 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

Land Use Policy, 109, 105666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.

105666
Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A., & Rounsevell, M. (2014).
Identifying the factors that influence farmer participation in environmental
management practices in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 42(6), 951–963.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9701-5
Kaur, J., Hazrati Fard, S. M., Amiri-Zarandi, M., & Dara, R. (2022). Protecting
farmers’ data privacy and confidentiality: Recommendations and considera-
tions. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fsufs.2022.903230
Khatri-Chhetri, A., Aggarwal, P. K., Joshi, P. K., & Vyas, S. (2017). Farmers’
prioritization of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies. Agricultural
Systems, 151, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.10.005
Kondratieva, N. B. (2021). EU agricultural digitalization Decalogue. Herald of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, 91(6), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1134/
S1019331621060150
Kumar, L., Chhogyel, N., Gopalakrishnan, T., Hasan, M. K., Jayasinghe, S.
L., Kariyawasam, C. S., Kogo, B. K., & Ratnayake, S. (2022). Chapter 4—
Climate change and future of agri-food production. In R. Bhat (Ed.), Future
Foods (pp. 49–79). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-
91001-9.00009-8
Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2018).
Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 2674. https://doi.
org/10.3390/s18082674
Linares Quero, A., Iragui Yoldi, U., Gava, O., Schwarz, G., Povellato, A., &
Astrain, C. (2022). Assessment of the common agricultural policy 2014–2020
in supporting agroecological transitions: A comparative study of 15 cases
across Europe. Sustainability, 14(15), 9261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1
4159261
Makate, C. (2020). Local institutions and indigenous knowledge in adop-
tion and scaling of climate-smart agricultural innovations among sub-Saharan
smallholder farmers. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management, 12(2), 270–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2018-
0055
Mazurek-Kusiak, A., Sawicki, B., & Kobyłka, A. (2021). Contemporary chal-
lenges to the organic farming: A polish and Hungarian case study. Sustain-
ability, 13(14), 8005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148005
Michels, M., von Hobe, C.-F., & Musshoff, O. (2020). A trans-theoretical model
for the adoption of drones by large-scale German farmers. Journal of Rural
Studies, 75, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.005
 6 SMART FARMING TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABILITY 119

OECD. (2016). Declaration on Better Policies to Achieve a Productive, Sustain-

able and Resilient Global Food System. https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/
ministerial/declaration-on-better-policies-to-achieve-a-productive-sustainable-
and-resilient-global-food-system.pdf
OECD. (2019). Digital opportunities for better agricultural policies. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/571a0812-en
Ogunyiola, A., Gardezi, M., & Vij, S. (2022). Smallholder farmers’ engage-
ment with climate smart agriculture in Africa: Role of local knowledge and
upscaling. Climate Policy, 22(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/146
93062.2021.2023451
Pathak, H. S., Brown, P., & Best, T. (2019). A systematic literature review
of the factors affecting the precision agriculture adoption process. Preci-
sion Agriculture, 20, 1292–1316. /https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-
09653-x
Patle, G. T., Kumar, M., & Khanna, M. (2019). Climate-smart water tech-
nologies for sustainable agriculture: A review. Journal of Water and Climate
Change, 11(4), 1455–1466. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2019.257
Pinna, S. (2017). Alternative farming and collective goals: Towards a powerful
relationships for future food policies. Land Use Policy, 61, 339–352. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.034
Revenko, L. S., & Revenko, N. S. (2019). Global agricultural policy trends:
bridging the digital divide. Advances in Economics Business and Manage-
ment Research, 107:115–120. https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2991/
icefb-19.2019.29
Saiz-Rubio, V., & Rovira-Más, F. (2020). From smart farming towards Agricul-
ture 50: A review on crop data management. Agronomy, 10(2), 207. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020207
Schroeder, K., Lampietti, J., & Elabed, G. (2021). What’s cooking: Digital trans-
formation of the Agrifood system. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-
1-4648-1657-4
Talebpour, B., Türker, U., & Yegül, U. (2015). The role of precision agriculture
in the promotion of food security. International Journal of Agricultural and
Food Research, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.24102/ijafr.v4i1.472
Tey, Y. S., & Brindal, M. (2012). Factors influencing the adoption of preci-
sion agricultural technologies: A review for policy implications. Precision
Agriculture, 13(6), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-012-9273-6
United Nations, U. (2015). The Paris Agreement. https://www.un.org/en/cli
matechange/paris-agreement
Vecchio, Y., De Rosa, M., Adinolfi, F., Bartoli, L., & Masi, M. (2020). Adoption
of precision farming tools: A context-related analysis. Land Use Policy, 94,
104481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104481
120 M. GEMTOU ET AL.

Verburg, R. W., Verberne, E., & Negro, S. O. (2022). Accelerating the transi-
tion towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the
Netherlands. Agricultural Systems, 198, 103368. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2022.10s3368
Willy, D. K., & Holm-Müller, K. (2013). Social influence and collective action
effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya. Ecological
Economics, 90, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.03.008

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 CHAPTER 7

Digital Technologies for Sustainable Product

Management in the Circular Economy

Rupert J. Baumgartner, Katharina Berger,

and Josef-Peter Schöggl

Abstract This chapter provides comprehensive insights into the poten-

tial of digital technologies for sustainable product management (SPM).
Four key technologies (Artificial Intelligence, Big Data analytics, the
Internet of Things, and blockchain) and their application for SPM are
presented and discussed. Their potential is explored with regard to Life
Cycle Assessment and Product Service Systems. Furthermore, the concept
of the digital product passport is discussed, and their use in an SPM
context is illustrated with reference to electric vehicle batteries. This
chapter concludes with a critical reflection on the deployment of digital

R. J. Baumgartner (B) · K. Berger · J.-P. Schöggl

University of Graz, Graz, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Berger
e-mail: [email protected]
J.-P. Schöggl
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2024 121

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2_7
122 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

technologies for SPM and associated challenges relating to ethical and

sustainability concerns.

Keywords Blockchain · Artificial intelligence · Big Data · Circular

economy · Electric vehicle batteries · Digital product passport

7.1 Introduction
In an age characterised by rapid technological changes and ecological
challenges, the interplay between digital technologies, circularity, and
sustainable development gains significant attention. This chapter explores
this nexus with a particular focus on sustainable product management
(SPM). SPM represents an umbrella term that includes several established
concepts and strategies underpinning a comprehensive sustainability-
oriented management on the product level (Rusch et al., 2023). Those
concepts comprise, among others, sustainable supply chain management,
eco-design and design for sustainability, sustainability assessments, and
in particular, the circular economy (Rusch et al., 2023). The circular
economy is described as an economic system aimed at minimising waste
and making the most of resources, representing a shift from the traditional
linear model of ‘take, make, dispose’ to a more sustainable approach of
reuse, repair, recycle, and regenerate (Reike et al., 2018).
Digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, the
Internet of Things (IoT), and blockchain are central to the current wave
of technological advancements. They offer innovative ways for SPM as
they can track, analyse, and optimise material and energy flows and
resource use along a product’s life cycle, thereby supporting the idea
of circularity and sustainability. This chapter delves into the research
question: How can digital technologies support sustainable product
management, i.e. help to improve sustainability and circularity of products
along their life cycle?
The practical application of these technologies is varied and profound.
From enhancing efficiency in practice to playing a crucial role in Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA), these technologies offer a new lens through
which sustainability and circularity can be viewed and managed. An
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 123

interesting and new application is the development of digital product pass-

ports. In this chapter, we illustrate this through a case study on electric
vehicle batteries.
The remainder of this chapter, which is based on the research activ-
ities and specific publications of the Christian-Doppler-Laboratory for
Sustainable Product Management, is structured as follows. Sections 7.2
and 7.3 provide an overview of the application of digital technologies
in manufacturing companies and in LCA, respectively. Then, Sect. 7.4
presents the potential of digital product passports and illustrates this
through a case study on their use for SPM in the context of electric
vehicle batteries. Finally, Sect. 7.5 concludes the chapter with a discus-
sion of some of the ethical and sustainability concerns relating to the
use of digital technologies in SPM and some potential avenues for future
research.

7.2 Application of Digital Technologies

for Sustainable Product Management
and Product Service Systems
As outlined above, digital technologies have considerable potential to
facilitate the transition to a more sustainable and circular economy.
However, to leverage the full potential of these technologies, it is
paramount to understand their individual and combined benefits and use
cases. Rusch et al. (2023) provide a comprehensive mapping of current
and potential examples of AI, Big Data analytics, IoT, and blockchain
technology in the context of sustainable and circular product manage-
ment. The authors focused on these four digital technologies because they
are perceived as essential enablers for accelerating the transition to more
circular value chains and the dematerialisation of the economy (European
Commission, 2020a). In their systematic review of the scientific litera-
ture,146 examples were identified in 186 scientific papers where digital
technologies are or could be applied to SPM. Of the 146 examples, 66 of
them featured a case study or a real-life example (Rusch et al., 2023). The
other 80 examples were only conceptual descriptions of potential appli-
cations of digital technologies for SPM. The study highlights that the
potential of digital technologies covers the entire product life cycle, from
the beginning to the end-of-life phase (Rusch et al., 2023). Most of the
124 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

examples presented in Rusch et al. (2023) relate to IoT, followed by Big

Data analytics, blockchain, and AI.
As can be seen in Fig. 7.1, most studies only describe the general
potential that digital technologies can offer to SPM (i.e. the first line in
the figure). Less often, the examples could be assigned to one of the
following four areas of SPM: supply chain management, (sustainability)
assessment, product design, and business modelling. The technologies
also vary according to the benefits they offer to SPM with IoT, Big Data,
and AI mostly focusing on increasing the efficiency of existing processes,
while blockchain applications aim to increase transparency and trust-
worthiness in exchanging information along value chains (Rusch et al.,
2023).
Figure 7.2 presents more details on the specific SPM activities that
can be supported by one or more of the four digital technologies (Rusch
et al., 2023). A total of 23 specific activities were identified in the study
(Rusch et al., 2023). AI appears to be related to only four of these activ-
ities, namely supplier selection, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) modelling,
condition monitoring, and R-strategies (i.e. Reuse, Repair, Refurbish,
Remanufacture, or Recycle). IoT was most often discussed concerning
its use for (predictive/preventive) maintenance, followed by its use for
condition monitoring of products and processes, the collection of data
relevant to R-strategies, or for monitoring energy demands (Rusch et al.,
2023). Big Data analytics is often discussed and used in conjunction with
data collection from IoT sensors, such as in the case of maintenance
(Rusch et al., 2023). However, it is also used on data from other sources,
such as in the case of trend mining or risk assessment (Rusch et al., 2023).
Finally, while blockchain can add a layer of trust to processes in which
other technologies are involved, it also has individual applications, such
as in compliance-related data exchange along value chains or incentives
(Rusch et al., 2023).
In summary, Rusch et al. (2023) highlight that digital technologies
have considerable and wide potential for facilitating SPM practices. To
date, most applications have primarily resulted in incremental improve-
ments (e.g., increased efficiency of existing processes), with more radical
forms of improvement remaining relatively uncommon. Thus, there is
room for a wider and effective utilisation of digital technologies in various
areas of SPM to accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable and
circular economy.
 7

Potentials and applications of digital technologies

Artificial Intelligence Big Data Blockchain Internet of Things
SPM general
Supply chain management
Assessment
Product design

SPM area
Business Model
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Frequency

SPM outcome Transparency Trustworthiness Efficiency General

Fig. 7.1 Classification of potential and application examples of digital technologies by area of application and improved
SPM outcome (n = 146) (Rusch et al., 2023)
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT …
125
126 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

0.25

0.15

0.05
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Artificial Intelligence (n = 4)

Internet of Things (n = 58)

Fig. 7.2 Relative share of specific SPM activities by digital technology (n = 120) (Rusch et al., 2023)
Blockchain (n = 26)
Big Data (n = 35)
R−strategy

Condition monitoring

Supplier selection
LCI
Use of digital technologies for specific SPM activities

Miscellaneous
Collaboration
Transport

Energy

Human rights
Compliance
Material
Reverse logistics
Location monitoring

Incentives

Operations
Inventory
Waste
Risk assessment
Prediction
Sharing
Working conditions

Trend mining

Maintenance
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 127

The ways in which digital technologies are leveraged for sustainable

business practices is highlighted by another review by Neligan et al.
(2023). The authors report the findings of a representative survey of
583 German companies. The study shows that the degree of digitali-
sation of a company correlates positively with the adoption of Product
Service Systems (PSSs) for resource efficiency. PSSs refer to combined
product and service offerings (Ingemarsdotter et al., 2020). They can
enable reduced resource use as respective business models are based on
access rather than ownership (Ingemarsdotter et al., 2020). Thus, one
product may satisfy many customers’ need for a specific function which
is in particular of interest in case of products that are seldomly used
(Ingemarsdotter et al., 2020). As can be seen in Fig. 7.3, the use of
PSS for resource efficiency increases with the degree of digitalisation in
general and of the business model in particular. While only around a third
of computerised companies (i.e. that use information and communica-
tion technology and/or electronic data processing) use PSS, considerably
more (approximately three out of five of fully digitalised firms—i.e. firms
with virtualised products) use PSS for resource efficiency. The same can
be seen when comparing companies according to their business model,
where those with data-driven business models (BMs) considerably more
frequently employ PSS than those with computerised or traditional BMs.
One reason why PSS for resource-saving become more common with an
increasing degree of digitalisation is that additional services to a product
often depend on the exchange of data and digital networking (Neligan
et al., 2023). In addition, company size also plays an important role as
PSS for resource-saving is considerably more often used in large firms
than small to medium enterprises (SMEs).
One common takeaway from the two empirical studies by Schöggl
et al. (2023) and Neligan et al. (2023) is that companies must prevent
potential lock-ins and economic and environmental rebound effects in
their digitalisation efforts. This entails more explicit recognition of the
specific purposes for which digital technologies may be applied. In rela-
tion to this, Sect. 7.3 will provide deeper insights into the potential of
digital technologies in the context of LCA and Sect. 7.4 regarding digital
product passports.
128 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

Digitalised 10.6 15.1 33.7 25.4 15.2

Computerised 5.4 12.8 18.9 19.6 43.3

Data-driven BM 13.3 24.2 30.2 16.9 15.4

Computerised BM 8.3 13.9 32.9 9.2 35.6

Classical BM 3.8 9.5 15.9 26.0 44.7

Large 11.2 28.6 27.2 8.5 24.5

SMEs 5.7 12.7 19.9 20.6 41.1

Manufacturing Sector (total) 5.8 12.9 20.0 20.4 40.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Shares as a percentage of firms in the relevant group
in the manufacturing sector

To a high degree To a medium degree To a low degree Not yet Not suitable

Fig. 7.3 Degree of use of product service systems for resource efficiency. Ques-
tion: To what extent does your company use the following ways/options to use
resources efficiently? (N = 583) (Neligan et al., 2023)

7.3 Application of Digital

Technologies for Life Cycle Assessment
LCA is a methodological framework that allows one to estimate and assess
environmental impacts linked to the life cycle of a product (Finnveden
et al., 2009). The distinct feature of LCA is the applied life cycle perspec-
tive (i.e. from cradle-to-grave) to assess the impacts of a product, thus
avoiding burden shifting (Finnveden et al., 2009). LCA studies comprise
in general four phases. First, the goal and scope of the LCA study need
to be defined (Finnveden et al., 2009). This phase comprises a descrip-
tion of the product system under study in terms of system boundaries
and a functional unit (Rebitzer et al., 2004). The functional unit enables
the comparison between alternative goods and services (Rebitzer et al.,
2004). This phase is of importance as it influences methodological and
data choices for subsequent LCA study phases (Rebitzer et al., 2004). The
second phase is the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis (Finnveden et al.,
2009). The LCI comprises a compilation of the inputs (i.e. resources)
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 129

and outputs (i.e. emissions) of the product system of interest; those

inputs and outputs are in relation to the previously defined functional
unit (ibid.). The third phase is the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
and is designated to interpret the inventory results of the LCI analysis
phase (Finnveden et al., 2009). This phase involves the selection of impact
categories and classification, the selection of characterisation methods and
characterisation, normalisation and weighting (ibid.). The fourth phase
is entitled interpretation (Finnveden et al., 2009). This phase is desig-
nated to evaluate the results from the previous study phases in relation to
the goal and scope, enabling to reach conclusions and recommendations
(Finnveden et al., 2009).
As briefly mentioned earlier, digital technologies can enhance the accu-
racy and efficiency of conducting LCA. This specific potential is analysed
by Popowicz et al. (2024) in a recently published systematic literature
review of 104 peer-reviewed papers at the intersection of IoT, blockchain,
AI, Big Data, and LCA research. These were categorised across the four
phases of LCA according to the ISO 14040/44 standard (ISO, 2006):
(1) Goal and Scope, (2) LCI, (3) LCIA, and (4) Interpretation.
With regard to IoT devices, Popowicz et al. (2024) find that their
use occurs predominantly in the collection of (real-time) data in the LCI
phase. For example, IoT sensors can be used to collect manufacturing
process data (Garcia-Muiña et al., 2018), such as machine’s electricity
consumption easing the collection of accurate primary data (Tao et al.,
2014). LCA-related data can also be stored directly on components
and combined with data from decentralised IoT sensors and data from
centralised repositories (Van Capelleveen et al., 2018).
While blockchain is less often discussed than IoT, it has the potential
to increase the transparency and reliability of the primary data collected
in value chains (Popowicz et al., 2024), benefitting all four phases of an
LCA. Specific applications identified in the literature encompass, among
others, data reliability, data traceability, data collection, data exchange,
and data validation in LCA (Popowicz et al., 2024). One example from
the literature refers to the use of a blockchain for carbon footprint
tracking in food supply chains based on IoT data collected from trucks
(Shakhbulatov et al., 2019). Another example comes from Rolinck et al.
(2021), who propose a blockchain-based data management approach for
LCA in aircraft maintenance and overhaul.
130 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

Of the four technologies studied by Popowicz et al. (2024), AI was

discussed most often in the sample, and a wide range of potential appli-
cations in all four phases of LCA were identified (Popowicz et al., 2024).
With regard to the goal and scope phase, one of the reviewed studies
demonstrated how relevant aspects, such as the lifespan of buildings, can
be predicted using machine learning (Ji et al., 2021). In the LCI phase,
AI can, for instance, help estimate missing unit process data, as shown by
Zhao et al. (2021), who use a decision tree-based approach, or Khadem
et al. (2022), who predict impact data using neural networks. In the LCIA
phase, characterisation factors can be estimated, uncertainties quantified,
or results predicted (Popowicz et al., 2023). For instance, Hou et al.
(2020) illustrate how machine learning can be used for estimating eco-
toxicity characterisation factors and specifically hazardous concentration
levels. Dai et al. (2022) developed a framework for obtaining best-fit
secondary data, employing Gaussian process regression (GPR) models to
predict secondary data based on covariance functions. Concerning the
interpretation phase, Romeiko et al. (2020) demonstrate how machine
learning can be used to identify key contributors among various factors
to the life cycle impacts.
Lastly, Popowicz et al. (2024) find that Big Data analytics can facili-
tate the second, third, and fourth phases in an LCA: in the LCI phase,
Big Data analysis helps in extracting and managing large datasets. An
example is a data-mining-based approach for obtaining data for the fore-
ground system from scientific articles (Belaud et al., 2022). During the
impact assessment, it can be used for uncertainty reduction and enhanced
analysis, for instance of highly granular data from a product’s use phase
(Ross & Cheah, 2019).

7.4 Digital Product Passport

for Electric Vehicle Batteries
A digital product passport (DPP) is described as an electronic record that
resumes the function of a unique product identifier and product life cycle
data carrier (European Parliament, 2023). Consequently, a DPP can be
envisioned as a digital technology-based tool that can support the estab-
lishment of circular information flows along value chains (Berger et al.,
2023a; Jensen et al., 2023). This instrument holds promise to enhance
the sustainability and circularity of various industries. For example, in the
building industry DPPs are perceived to contribute to greater circularity
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 131

as those tools could support the end-of-life management (e.g. reuse, recy-
cling) of buildings via recording, storing, and sharing information about
incorporated materials and components (Cetin et al. 2023). Consid-
ering the electronics and information and communication industry, DPPs
enhance transparency along the value chain by enabling the support of
audits and verification of sustainability claims, contributing to greater
trust among stakeholders (Navarro et al., 2022). Similar potential benefits
(i.e. increased transparency, verification of sustainability claims) are also
anticipated for the textile industry (Jaeger and Myrold 2023). Further-
more, by including detailed material compositions, a DPP could support
sorting and selecting textile waste more accurately, as well as support the
identification of appropriate recycling pathways (Niinimäki et al., 2023).
Due to the previously described potential to bridge data gaps, the
idea of DPPs has recently received increased attention. This is mirrored
in policy papers (European Commission, 2020a, 2020b), upcoming
regulation (European Commission, 2022; European Parliament, 2023),
industry initiatives (Battery Pass Consortium, 2023; Global Battery
Alliance, 2020), and sustainability research (Adisorn et al., 2021; Berger
et al., 2022; Jensen et al., 2023). In particular, batteries have received
increased attention as regulatory bodies are demanding the deployment
of DPPs for this particular product group (European Parliament, 2023).
This increased interest is founded in the perception that DPPs can support
the establishment of a sustainable European battery ecosystem (Euro-
pean Commission, 2022; European Parliament, 2023). This is of interest
because an increase in demand of electric vehicle batteries (EVBs) is
projected due to the electrification of powertrains (Neumann et al.,
2022). When pursuing SPM for EVBs, actors along the product life cycle
have different established strategies and concepts at their disposal (Berger
et al., 2022). As discussed earlier, these include sustainable product devel-
opment, life cycle management, sustainable supply chain management,
or the circular economy (Berger et al., 2022; Rusch et al., 2023). The
concept of the circular economy has received particular attention as it
comprises value-retention strategies such as repurposing and recycling
(Kiemel et al., 2020). As the listed concepts and strategies affect different
levels of the EVB production system (Huamao & Fengqi, 2007), it can
be argued that respective decision situations are characterised by high
complexity (Rusch et al., 2023). Thus, decision-makers require high-
quality product life cycle data for respective decision support (Rusch et al.,
2023). As previously discussed, persistent data gaps along the product
132 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

life cycle pose a challenge when pursuing SPM. This has also been found
for the EVB life cycle (Berger et al., 2023a). Such data gaps could be
bridged by a DPP if it were to provide seamless product life cycle data
allowing relevant actors to derive information needed to support SPM
(Berger et al., 2023a).

Conceptualisation of a Digital Product Passport for Sustainable

Battery Management
The conceptualisation and development of a DPP for sustainability-
oriented EVB management requires consideration of a holistic life cycle
perspective (Berger et al., 2022; Rusch et al., 2023). Thus, the entire
life cycle of an EVB needs to be considered when pursuing strategies
and concepts for improving its sustainability and circularity (Berger et al.,
2023a). Furthermore, a comprehensive life cycle perspective is required
to identify decision-makers and their respective SPM-related decision situ-
ations along the EVB life cycle (Berger et al., 2023a. This allows one to
derive corresponding data needs and requirements that a DPP needs to
fulfil to support SPM (Berger et al., 2023a). The EVB life cycle can be
partitioned into four phases: the beginning-of-life (BoL), middle-of-life
(MoL), end-of-life (EoL), and battery second use (B2U). For illustra-
tion purposes, four corresponding value chain actors have been selected
to highlight their specific SPM use cases and current data management
challenges.

Battery Designer and Developer

The product design is critical for incorporating sustainability and circu-
larity aspects in an EVB (Diaz et al., 2021). To address sustainability
issues, product design-affiliated actors require information about the
sustainability performance of an EVB. This is currently challenging
due to the lack of primary data that is needed for the assessment
(Buchert et al., 2015; Diaz et al., 2021). Thus, DPPs of in-use and
retired EVBs could serve to establish information feedback to the early
design stage, providing designers with information about (dynamic)
sustainability performances based on primary product life cycle data.
Furthermore, information feedback of B2U and EoL process efficiencies
(e.g. encountered challenges during EVB disassembly) could support the
consideration of circularity aspects in future EVB designs.
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 133

Original Equipment Manufacturer

To identify and support suitable SPM strategies and concepts, an original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) requires information about the EVB’s
sustainability performance from cradle-to-grave (Berger et al., 2022). This
would allow the OEM to identify life cycle hotspots and thus, to define
appropriate strategies for improvement (Berger et al., 2022). The current
challenge lies in the lack of high-quality product life cycle data to support
sustainability assessments. In this case, a DPP of in-use, as well as retired
EVBs, would be beneficial as it could provide either product life cycle
data needed for sustainability assessments or could even directly provide
information about an EVB’s sustainability performance. In addition, if a
DPP were to provide value chain actor information an increase in value
chain transparency could support the identification of those value chain
actors that require support to improve upon the sustainability of their
value-adding activities.

Third-party Actor Focusing on Repurpose

To identify suitable EVBs, or rather EVB modules for B2U appli-
cations information about their state is vital (Berger et al., 2023b).
For this purpose, at a minimum, information about an EVB’s state-
of-health is required (Nigl et al., 2021). However, additional in-use
battery data is also beneficial to make more accurate statements about
battery health. The current challenge lies in the inaccessibility of battery
in-use data by third-party actors that want to establish B2U business
models (Berger et al., 2023b). Furthermore, disassembly instructions are
required to produce B2U applications and support an efficient produc-
tion process (Berger et al., 2023b). Consequently, a DPP could prove
valuable if containing battery in-use data, as well as information about
EVB disassembly.

Recycler
To ensure safe EVB handling and storage recyclers need information
about the EVB status in terms of safety (i.e. how dangerous is the EVB at
hand) (Berger et al., 2023b). This requires information about the EVB’s
state-of-health or even control over battery in-use data (Nigl et al., 2021).
However, such information is not transferred from the MoL to the EoL
phase (Berger et al., 2023b). Furthermore, information about the mate-
rial composition is of interest to support the design of efficient recycling
processes (Berger et al., 2023b). This concerns the composition of the
134 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

battery chemistry, as this allows to design recycling processes that can

recover battery-grade secondary material (Berger et al., 2023b). In addi-
tion, disassembly instructions are considered highly valuable for recyclers,
as they facilitate the design of the recycling process (Berger et al., 2023b).
Consequently, a DPP that could transfer such product and product status
data from the MoL to the EoL phase would prove useful.

Digital Product Passport Concept for Sustainable Product Management

In light of the SPM use cases presented above and the consideration of
a holistic life cycle perspective, the sustainability-oriented management
of an EVB requires control over four major information categories (see
Fig. 7.4):

• Product information—this category contains information that allows

the decision-maker to clearly identify the product of interest.
Thus, it ranges from general information (e.g. battery chem-
istry, battery type, manufacturer) to more specific information
(e.g. performance-related information, electrical engineering-related
properties, material-related properties).
• Value chain actor information—this category contains information
that enables clear value chain actor identification and, thus greater
value chain transparency. As well as general information, such as
value chain actor name or type, it includes information about the
chain of custody (e.g. for materials and components).
• Sustainability and circularity information—this category includes
information about the sustainability and circularity properties of an
EVB. Regarding sustainability properties, information includes both
social and environmental sustainability performance data. Further-
more, inventory data, applied assessment, and calculation methods
are considered enabling greater understanding of respective key
performance indicators. Regarding circularity properties, as well as
information about the circularity performance, information about
the product design is included in terms of disassembly and repair
options.
• Diagnostics, maintenance, and performance information—this cate-
gory comprises data points such as state-of-health and state-of-
charge. In addition, information about the maintenance history
(including triggers for needed maintenance actions) are included in
 7

Fig. 7.4 Overview of a Digital Product Passport concept for sustainability-oriented Electric Vehicle Battery management
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT …

(Berger et al., 2022)

135
136 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

this category whice can support value-retaining strategies enabling a

B2U.

While the vision of DPP functioning as product life cycle data carrier
has great potential for SPM support, possible challenges regarding DPP
deployment need to be acknowledged. One of the most prominent
challenges concerns insufficient willingness to share product life cycle
data by value chain actors’ (Bergeret al., 2023a, 2023c). This may be
explained by perceived intellectual property rights concerns, loss of busi-
ness integrity and reputation, competitive disadvantages, or lack of data
sharing incentives (Berger et al., 2023c). Some of those barriers could be
overcome by selecting suitable digital technologies or machine learning
approaches that enable confidentiality-preserving data exchange (Berger
et al., 2023a). Furthermore, upcoming data spaces and ecosystems (e.g.,
Catena-X (2023) and Gaia-X (2023)) offer potential infrastructure to
share data in a “trustworthy” environment.

7.5 Conclusion
The nexus between digital technologies, circularity, and sustainability is a
fertile ground for innovation, offering both transformative opportunities
and significant challenges. As one delves into this complex relationship, it
is essential to recognise the multifaceted roles that technologies like AI,
Big Data analytics, IoT, and blockchain can play in this arena.
AI and Big Data analytics have emerged as critical drivers in the
realm of sustainable development. These technologies facilitate the anal-
ysis of large datasets to uncover patterns and insights that can lead to
more efficient resource use. For example, in the realm of waste manage-
ment, AI algorithms can predict resource and energy consumption as
well as waste generation of production processes, enabling companies to
increase their environmental performance significantly. Big Data analytics
aid in designing products for longevity and recyclability, consistent with
the principles of sustainability and circularity. IoT has revolutionised the
way resources, processes, and machines are monitored and managed. By
equipping objects with sensors and connecting them through networks,
resource flows can be tracked in real-time. This visibility is crucial in iden-
tifying inefficiencies and leaks in systems. The data generated by IoT
devices support decision-making processes that prioritise sustainability
and circularity, enabling a more responsive and responsible approach to
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 137

SPM. Blockchain’s contribution to the circular economy and sustainability

is predominantly in enhancing transparency and traceability. This ability
to create secure and immutable records makes it ideal for tracking the
life cycle of products. In the context of recycling, blockchain can trace
the journey of materials from production to end-of-life, ensuring that
materials are responsibly sourced and recycled. This level of traceability is
vital in building trust in circular economy practices and promoting more
sustainable consumption patterns.
While the potential for sustainability and circularity of these digital
technologies is immense, it is important to acknowledge and address
the challenges they pose. Concerns around data privacy, cybersecurity,
and ethical implications of AI decision-making are paramount (Ashok
et al., 2022). Furthermore, the environmental impact of the technolo-
gies themselves (Schöggl et al., 2023; Bohnsack et al. 2021), such as the
energy demands of data centres and the generation of e-waste, must be
considered. Addressing these challenges will require a coordinated effort
from different actors including corporate actors, innovators, policymakers,
and civil society to ensure that the digital transformation aligns with
sustainable and ethical principles.
The future of digital technologies in sustainability seems promising,
with advancements enabling more efficient and autonomous systems for
SPM. Innovations in blockchain could provide even greater transparency
in supply chains (Kouhizadeh et al., 2021), facilitating the circular move-
ment of materials. Advancements in IoT technology could lead to smarter
production and consumption networks where resource flows are opti-
mised for minimal environmental impact (Ren et al., 2019). Future
research could address empirically whether the potential benefits of digital
technologies for sustainability and circularity, which are often derived
from case studies, really materialise in business practice. Additionally,
it could be analysed how these digital technologies can enable radical
sustainability strategies aiming for net zero environmental impacts in
practice. Finally, future research could address the implementation of
digital technologies and their potential for enabling radical sustainability
solutions.
In summary, this chapter underscores the transformative potential of
digital technologies in advancing the circular economy and sustainability.
The future of sustainability in the digital age is not just about the tech-
nologies employed but how they are used responsibly and inclusively.
Embracing these technologies while addressing their inherent challenges
138 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

is pivotal in our common journey towards a more sustainable and circular

world.

References
Adisorn, T., Tholen, L., & Götz, T. (2021). Towards a digital product passport
fit for contributing to a circular economy. Energies, 14(1). https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14082289
Ashok, M., Madan, R., Joha, A., & Sivarajah, U. (2022). Ethical framework for
artificial intelligence and digital technologies. International Journal of Infor-
mation Management, 62, 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.
2021.102433
Battery Pass Consortium. (2023). Battery Passport Content Guidance. https://
thebatterypass.eu/assets/images/content-guidance/pdf/2023_Battery_Pas
sport_Content_Guidance.pdf
Belaud, J.-P., Prioux, N., Vialle, C., Buche, P., Destercke, S., Barakat, A., &
Sablayrolles, C. (2022). Intensive data and knowledge-driven approach
for sustainability analysis: Application to lignocellulosic waste valorization
processes. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 13(1), 583–598. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12649-021-01509-8
Berger, K., Baumgartner, R. J., Weinzerl, M., Bachler, J., Preston, K., & Schöggl,
J.-P. (2023a). Data requirements and availabilities for a digital battery pass-
port—A value chain actor perspective. Cleaner Production Letters, 100032.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2023.100032
Berger, K., Baumgartner, R. J., Weinzerl, M., Bachler, J., & Schöggl, J.-P.
(2023b). Digital battery passport information content for end of (first) battery
life management support. In K. Niinimäki & C. Kirsti (Eds.), Proceedings 5th
plate Conference (Issue June). Alto University Publication Series.
Berger, K., Baumgartner, R. J., Weinzerl, M., Bachler, J., & Schöggl, J.-P.
(2023c). Factors of digital product passport adoption to enable circular infor-
mation flows along the battery value chain. Procedia CIRP, 116, 528–533.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.089
Berger, K., Rusch, M., Pohlmann, A., Popowicz, M., Geiger, B. C., Gursch,
H., Schöggl, J.-P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2023d). Confidentiality-preserving
data exchange to enable sustainable product management via digital product
passports—A conceptualization. Procedia CIRP, 116, 354–359. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.060
Berger, K., Schöggl, J.-P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2022). Digital battery passports
to enable circular and sustainable value chains: Conceptualization and use
cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 353(February), 131492. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131492
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 139

Bohnsack, R., Bidmon, C. M., & Pinkse, J. (2022). Sustainability in the

digital age: Intended and unintended consequences of digital technologies
for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(2),
599–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2938
Buchert, T., Neugebauer, S., Schenker, S., Lindow, K., & Stark, R. (2015).
Multi-criteria decision making as a tool for sustainable product development—
Benefits and obstacles. Procedia CIRP, 26, 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2014.07.110
Catena-X. (2023). Vision | Catena-X . https://catena-x.net/en/vision
Dai, T., Jordaan, S. M., & Wemhoff, A. P. (2022). Gaussian process regression
as a replicable, streamlined approach to inventory and uncertainty analysis in
life cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(6), 3821–3829.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04252
Diaz, A., Schöggl, J., Reyes, T., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2021). Sustainable
product development in a circular economy: Implications for products, actors,
decision-making support and lifecycle information management. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 26, 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2020.12.044
European Commission. (2020a). A new Circular Economy Action Plan—For
a cleaner and more competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con
tent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0098&from=EN
European Commission. (2020b). A European Green Deal. https://ec.europa.
eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
European Commission. (2022). Communication from the Commission to the
European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social
committee and the Committee of the regions: On making sustainable products
the norm. (Report COM/2022/0140). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con
tent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0140
European Parliament. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/ of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste
batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020
and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con
tent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1542
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Ekvall, E., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg,
S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in
Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (1), 1–21.
https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Gaia-X. (2023). Gaia-X Austria—Gaia-X. https://www.gaia-x.at/en/gaia-x-
austria/
Garcia-Muiña, F., González-Sánchez, R., Ferrari, A., & Settembre-Blundo, D.
(2018). The Paradigms of Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy as Enabling
Drivers for the Competitiveness of Businesses and Territories: The Case of an
140 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

Italian Ceramic Tiles Manufacturing Company. Social Sciences, 7 (12), 255.

https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120255
Global Battery Alliance. (2020). The Global Battery Alliance Battery Passport:
Giving an identity to the EV’s most important component. https://www.global
battery.org/battery-passport/
Hou, P., Jolliet, O., Zhu, J., & Xu, M. (2020). Estimate ecotoxicity char-
acterization factors for chemicals in life cycle assessment using machine
learning models. Environment International, 135, 105393. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2019.105393
Huamao, X., & Fengqi, W. (2007). Circular economy development mode based
on system theory. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment,
5(4), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2007.10677537
Ingemarsdotter, E., Jamsin, E., & Balkenende, R. (2020). Opportunities and
challenges in IoT-enabled circular business model implementation—A case
study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162, 105047. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105047
ISO. (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles
and framework (ISO Standard No. 14044:2006). https://doi.org/10.5594/
J09750
Jæger, B., Myrold, S. (2023). Textile Industry Circular Supply Chains and Digital
Product Passports. Two Case Studies. In: Alfnes, E., Romsdal, A., Strand-
hagen, J.O., von Cieminski, G., Romero, D. (eds) Advances in Production
Management Systems. Production Management Systems for Responsible Manu-
facturing, Service, and Logistics Futures (pp. 350–363). Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43688-8_25
Jensen, S. F., Kristensen, J. H., Adamsen, S., Christensen, A., & Waehrens, B.
V. (2023). Digital product passports for a circular economy: Data needs for
product life cycle decision-making. Sustainable Production and Consumption,
37 , 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.02.021
Ji, S., Lee, B., & Yi, M. Y. (2021). Building life-span prediction for life cycle
assessment and life cycle cost using machine learning: A big data approach.
Building and Environment, 205, 108267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bui
ldenv.2021.108267
Khadem, S. A., Bensebaa, F., & Pelletier, N. (2022). Optimized feed-forward
neural networks to address CO2-equivalent emissions data gaps—Application
to emissions prediction for unit processes of fuel life cycle inventories for
Canadian provinces. Journal of Cleaner Production, 332, 130053. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130053
Kiemel, S., Koller, J., Kaus, D., Singh, S., Full, J., Weeber, M., &
Miehe, R. (2020). Untersuchung: Kreislaufstrategien für Batteriesys-
teme in Baden-Württemberg. https://www.ipa.fraunhofer.de/de/referenzproj
ekte/KSBS.html
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 141

Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Blockchain technology and the
sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107831. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpe.2020.107831
Navarro, L., Cano, J., Font, M., & Franquesa, D. (2022). Digital transfor-
mation of the circular economy: digital product passports for transparency,
verifiability, accountability [Manuscript submitted for publication]. University
Politècnica de Catalunya.
Neligan, A., Baumgartner, R. J., Geissdoerfer, M., & Schöggl, J. (2023). Circular
disruption: Digitalisation as a driver of circular economy business models.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(3), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.3100
Neumann, J., Petranikova, M., Meeus, M., Gamarra, J. D., Younesi, R., Winter,
M., & Nowak, S. (2022). Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries—Current State
of the Art, Circular Economy, and Next Generation Recycling. Advanced
Energy Materials, 2102917 . https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202102917.
Nigl, T., Rutrecht, B., Altendorfer, M., Scherhaufer, S., Meyer, I., Sommer,
M., & Beigl, P. (2021). Lithium-Ionen-Batterien—Kreislaufwirtschaftliche
Herausforderungen am Ende des Lebenszyklus und im Recycling. BHM Berg-
Und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, 166(3), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00501-021-01087-1
Niinimäki, K., Cura, K., Heikkilä, P., Järvinen, S., Mäkelä, S.-M., Orko, I., &
Tuovila, H. (2023). How data can enhance circular economy in textiles. From
knowledge and system understanding action [White paper]. Aalto Univer-
sity School of Arts, Design and Architecture. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/
api/core/bitstreams/ee419a83-2cdc-4f63-bfcc-d1befa8c0eb4/content
Popowicz, M., Schöggl, J.-P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2023). Digital technologies
for LCA – A review. In K. Niinimäki & C. Kirsti (Eds.), PROCEEDINGS 5th
PLATE Conference (Issue June). Alto University Publication Series.
Popowicz, M., Kettele, M., Katzer, N., Schöggl, J.-P., & Baumgartner, R. J.
(2024). Digital technologies for LCA – A review and proposed combination
approach [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Environmental Systems
Sciences, University of Graz.
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg,
T., Schmidt, W. P., Suh, S., Weidema, B. P., & Pennington, D. W. (2004).
Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inven-
tory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30(5), 701–720.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: new
or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of
the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention
142 R. J. BAUMGARTNER ET AL.

options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135(5), 246–264. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027
Ren, S., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Sakao, T., Huisingh, D., & Almeida, C. M. V. B.
(2019). A comprehensive review of big data analytics throughout product
lifecycle to support sustainable smart manufacturing: A framework, challenges
and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1343–
1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.025
Rolinck, M., Gellrich, S., Bode, C., Mennenga, M., Cerdas, F., Friedrichs, J., &
Herrmann, C. (2021). A concept for blockchain-based LCA and its applica-
tion in the context of aircraft MRO. Procedia CIRP, 98, 394–399. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.123
Romeiko, X. X., Lee, E. K., Sorunmu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2020). Spatially and
Temporally Explicit Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Soybean Production
in the U.S. Midwest. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(8), 4758–4768.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06874
Ross, S. A., & Cheah, L. (2019). Uncertainty quantification in life cycle
assessments: Exploring distribution choice and greater data granularity to char-
acterize product use. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(2), 335–346. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12742
Rusch, M., Schöggl, J.-P., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2023). Application of digital
technologies for sustainable product management in a circular economy: A
review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(3), 1159–1174. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.3099
Schöggl, J.-P., Rusch, M., Stumpf, L., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2023). Implemen-
tation of digital technologies for a circular economy and sustainability manage-
ment in the manufacturing sector. Sustainable Production and Consumption,
35, 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.012
Shakhbulatov, D., Arora, A., Dong, Z., & Rojas-Cessa, R. (2019). Blockchain
Implementation for Analysis of Carbon Footprint across Food Supply Chain.
IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (blockchain), 2019, 546–551.
https://doi.org/10.1109/Blockchain.2019.00079
Tao, F., Zuo, Y., Xu, L. D., Lv, L., & Zhang, L. (2014). Internet of things and
BOM-Based life cycle assessment of energy-saving and emission-reduction of
products. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 1252–1261.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2014.2306771
Van Capelleveen, G., Pohl, J., Fritsch, A., & Schien, D. (2018). The Footprint
of Things: A hybrid approach towards the collection, storage and distribution
of life cycle inventory data. EPiC Series in Computing, 52, 350–364. https://
doi.org/10.29007/8pnj
 7 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT … 143

Zhao, B., Shuai, C., Hou, P., Qu, S., & Xu, M. (2021). Estimation of unit
process data for life cycle assessment using a decision tree-based approach.
Environmental Science and Technology, 55(12), 8439–8446. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.0c07484

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
 Index

A Corporate Social Responsibility, 3

Artificial Intelligence (AI), 9, 10, 15, Cybersecurity, 65, 72–75, 137
16, 31, 35–37, 40, 50–58, 64,
66, 67, 74, 75, 102, 111,
122–124, 129, 130, 136, 137 D
Augmented Reality (AR), 36, 104 Decarbonisation, 3
Deep Learning, 15, 65, 86, 89
Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL),
B
66–68
Big Data, 9, 123, 124, 129, 130, 136
Deep Renovation, 11, 86–88
Blockchain, 4, 9, 10, 16, 31, 36, 37,
Digital Divide, 11, 110, 111
40, 122–124, 129, 136, 137
Digital Product Passport, 16, 123,
127, 130, 132
C Digital Sustainability, 2, 3, 5–10,
Carbon Footprint, 4, 29, 129 15–17, 27, 51, 83, 86
Carbon Offsetting, 11 Digital Towns, 83, 90
Circular Economy, 4, 10, 15, 16, 40, Digital Transformation, 3, 5, 6, 10,
92, 122–124, 131, 137 15, 74, 110–115, 137
Climate Change, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 28, Digital Twins, 9
32, 33, 36, 57, 65, 91, 92, 103, Distributed Energy Resources, 69
106, 109, 110
Cloud Computing, 9, 37, 38, 40
Convolutional Neural Networks, 73 E
Corporate Data Responsibility, 3 Economic Sustainability, 7, 53

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024 145

T. Lynn et al. (eds.), Digital Sustainability, Palgrave Studies in Digital
Business & Enabling Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61749-2
146 INDEX

Electric Vehicle (EV), 16, 70, 123, L

131 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), 13, 16,
Electronic Waste (e-waste), 9, 12, 122
31–34, 36, 39, 40, 137 Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM),
Energy Efficiency, 11, 34, 39, 71, 72, 66
84–87, 92
Environmental Monitoring, 12, 15,
83, 90–92 M
Environmental Sustainability, 8, 9, 15, Machine Learning (ML), 64, 66, 67,
26, 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 74, 75
58, 72, 134
European Green Deal, 15, 109, 111
P
Precision Farming, 101, 102, 113
F Privacy, 65, 73, 85, 107, 113, 114,
Farm-to-Fork, 100, 112 137

R
G Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs),
Green Computing, 12, 33, 34 66, 73
Greenhouse Gas (GHG), 7, 11, 53, Reinforcement Learning, 15, 65
58, 69, 72, 82, 85, 100, 104, Renewable energy, 12, 14, 30, 64–69,
109 71, 72, 86
Green IS, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 35, 58 Right to Repair, 38
Green IT, 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 27,
32–36, 39, 40, 58
S
Smart Agriculture, 9, 102, 105
I Smart Building, 13, 86, 87
Information and Communication Smart City, 13, 82, 91
Technology (ICT), 14, 26, 28, Smart Farming, 16, 100, 101,
30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 64, 82, 103–109, 113–115
83, 86, 88, 102, 127 Smart Grid, 14, 15, 64–66, 68, 72–75
Information Systems (IS), 4, 6, 15, Smart Transportation, 15, 83–85, 92
27, 51, 58, 84, 88 Smart Waste Management (SWM),
Information Technology (IT), 12 15, 83, 88, 90, 92
Intelligent Transportation System Social Sustainability, 7, 40, 53, 58
(ITS), 13, 83 Sustainability Transformation, 5, 6,
Internet of Things (IoT), 9, 16, 38, 10, 15, 16, 50, 51
64, 65, 72, 83, 86, 88, 90, 104, Sustainable Development, 3, 7, 35,
122–124, 129, 136, 137 109, 122, 136
 INDEX 147

Sustainable Development Goals Twin Transformation, 6, 10, 51–58

(SDGs), 3, 4, 7, 37, 109, 111,
115
Sustainable Product Management U
(SPM), 16, 122–126, 131–134, Urbanisation, 82, 88, 91, 92
136, 137
V
T Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G), 69, 71
Triple Bottom Line (TBL), 2 Virtual Reality (VR), 36