Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Systemic sustainability effects of contemporary digitalization: A

scoping review and research agenda
Matthijs Mouthaan a, 1, Koen Frenken a, *, 2, Laura Piscicelli a, 3, Taneli Vaskelainen b, 4
a
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB, Utrecht, the Netherlands
b
Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki, Lönnrotinkatu 7, 50100, Mikkeli, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Digital technology has been understood as a General Purpose Technology (GPT) given its systemic
Digitalization and pervasive nature, and heralded as key to sustainability transitions. We perform a scoping
Sustainability review of 112 contributions to critically appraise research on the sustainability effects of
General purpose technology (GPT)
contemporary digitalization. We find that many studies adopt a rather reductionist, deterministic
ICT
Twin transition
and optimistic lens on the (potential) sustainability effects of digital technologies, mostly
Scoping review neglecting the systemic effects inherent to GPTs. For a better understanding of systemic sus­
tainability effects of contemporary digitalization, we advocate the use of exploratory designs and
prospective methods, and a theoretical understanding of technologies as co-evolving with in­
stitutions and practices.

1. Introduction

Sustainability and digitalization have become prominent policy objectives over the last decade. Their parallel popularity is
exemplified by the European Commission, describing them as ‘twin transitions’ (European Commission, 2020) that ought to foster a
‘green digital transformation’ (European Commission, 2021). This promissory discourse is echoed in academia, as evidenced by the
numerous papers on the sustainability prospects of contemporary digitalization. Scholars have dubbed digitalization as the fifth long
wave in economic development (Castellacci, 2006), a new techno-economic paradigm leading to a “great surge of development” (Perez,
2010, p. 199), a fourth industrial revolution fostering the “regeneration and preservation of natural environments” (Schwab, 2016, p. 2),
and as an important step in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Popkova et al., 2022) and a circular economy
(Chauhan et al., 2022). In short, digitalization is forecasted as a major driver of social, environmental, and economic sustainability.
Underlying these bold optimistic expectations is an implicit understanding of digital technologies as a General Purpose Technology
(GPT), a type of technology prone to systemic effects due to its pervasiveness, technological dynamism, and innovation spawning
(Cantner & Vannuccini, 2012). We understand systemic effects here in a broad sense, as “(…) those developments which either happen at
large social scales or those that have large-scale effects that go beyond the initial locus of the interaction” (Nathan et al., 2007, p. 2586). Given
the wide diffusion of digital technologies over the past decades and the expected importance of digitalization for sustainability in the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Frenken).
1
ORCiD: 0000-0002-8143-4008.
2
ORCiD: 0000-0003-4731-0201.
3
ORCiD: 0000-0001-7501-4608.
4
ORCiD: 0000-0001-9986-6186.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103142
Received 29 September 2022; Received in revised form 21 February 2023; Accepted 17 March 2023
Available online 21 March 2023
0016-3287/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

future, it is of particular interest to probe their systemic effects related to sustainability.

Here, we follow the general paradigm that sustainability comprises the resilience and functioning of complex, co-dependent
systems, generally categorized in natural ecosystems, the anthropogenic socioeconomic system, and their relations in socio-
ecological systems (Holling, 2001; Ostrom, 2009; Walker et al., 2004). While different concepts focus on different (sub)systems (e.
g., sustainable development stimulating socioeconomic resilience) (Glavič & Lukman, 2007; Lee, 2000), we do not take an explicit
position here on environmental versus socioeconomic needs since one of our interests is to capture how digitalization literature
constructs sustainability. A key question holds how we can reconcile the many ICT-based innovations we have witnessed over the past
decades with the rising sustainability concerns including the climate crisis and biodiversity loss (environmental), rising inequality and
surveillance (social), and sluggish productivity growth and the rising power of monopolies (economic).
Existing reviews on the sustainability of digitalization are generally limited to single effect categories, disciplines, technologies, or
theories (e.g. Beier et al., 2020; Bibri, 2019; Ejsmont et al., 2020; Grybauskas et al., 2022; Piscicelli, 2023; Upadhyay et al., 2021). To
our knowledge, no study hitherto has reviewed literature on digitalization and sustainability explicitly focusing on the systemic effects
of contemporary digitalization, while the uncertain, complex, and pervasive process of digitalization is best understood from a sys­
temic perspective (Renn et al., 2021). We review 112 peer-reviewed contributions across disciplines, theories, and technologies,
explicitly taking a theoretical perspective of General Purpose Technology. Our aim is to understand dominant topics and un­
derstandings in research relevant for the ‘twin transitions’, with a focus on systemic effects and how these have been studied. A scoping
review is particularly suitable to review patterns in research on a specific phenomenon (Munn et al., 2018).
By critically appraising research designs in the selected literature, we aim to identify ways forward in our understanding and
forecasting of systemic effects. We do so against the background of the paradoxical developments that digitalization has brought about
in the recent decades, fostering little productivity growth (productivity paradox), social inequalities (internet paradox) and envi­
ronmental rebound effects (Jevons paradox). Our critical appraisal of research on contemporary digitalization allows the formulation
of a number of research directions for innovation studies and beyond, to stimulate future research on the systemic effects of digita­
lization. We regard such new directions as timely and pivotal in better understanding the opportunities that digital technologies afford
as well as in being critical regarding the unfounded promises voiced by proponents of the ‘twin transitions’.
The review is structured as follows. Chapter 2 motivates our theoretical perspective by conceptualizing digital technology as a
General Purpose Technology (GPT), and the implications for the study of systemic effects. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology.
Chapter 4 describes patterns and critically appraises the selected literature on systemic effects. Chapter 5 discusses research directions
and Chapter 6 provides a reflective conclusion.

2. Systemic effects of digitalization

The understanding of digital technology as a systemic and pervasive innovation goes back to the 1980s, when the rise of ‘Infor­
mation Technology’ was regarded as a new techno-economic paradigm (Freeman & Perez, 1988). A similar notion introduced later in
the 1990s is that of Information Technology as a GPT, “characterized by the potential for pervasive use in a wide range of sectors and by their
technological dynamism” (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995, p. 84), with again later some considering Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) a ‘mega GPT’ (Cardona et al., 2013; Lehrer et al., 2016). Historical examples of GPTs include the steam engine and
electricity. The semiconductor is regarded as the focal technology underpinning past and contemporary digitalization (Bresnahan &
Trajtenberg, 1995). A review concluded that most empirical literature supports the GPT notion for ICT (Cardona et al., 2013).
Notwithstanding existing discussions on the determinants and demarcation of a GPT, three aspects are generally regarded to embody a
GPT (Cantner & Vannuccini, 2012).
First, a GPT is pervasive in the sense that its general applicability makes it widely used in scale and scope, meaning that it spreads
fast in a given application domain (scale) while offering promising potential in a rich variety of applications (scope) (Bresnahan &
Trajtenberg, 1995). Second, a GPT is characterized by technological dynamism as rapid improvement of the technology unfolds, and is
required, across application domains after adoption (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, 1995). Third, a symbiotic interdependency of inno­
vation complementarities arises as adoption and advancement of a GPT by user industries improves their respective innovation pro­
cesses, which incentivizes different sectors to further develop the GPT, creating a continuous feedback loop (Bresnahan & Trajtenberg,
1995).
Conceptualizing contemporary digital technologies as a GPT can help explain the paradoxical contrast between positive expec­
tations and observed effects through a discussion of three exemplary paradoxes on the key infrastructure underlying current digita­
lization: the internet. The history of the personal computer and the internet, which embody the first wave of digitalization, exemplify
the ‘pervasiveness’, ‘complexity’ and ‘uncertainty’ of GPTs: the pervasive use of personal computer and the internet creates complex,
cross-sectoral feedback loops in their actual use, which in turn results in uncertain sustainability effects. It is along these three aspects of
contemporary digitalization that we later code the articles and proceedings.

2.1. Pervasiveness: the internet paradox

The internet can be regarded as pervasive both in terms of scale and scope. Regarding scale, global internet adoption increased from
10 million users to 2.25 billion users between 1990 and 2011, while the number of websites grew from 1 million to 4 billion between
1990 and 2011 (Warf, 2013). Regarding scope, the internet is used for a variety of applications, including new business models (e.g.
digital platforms, e-commerce), new communication channels (e.g. social media), and as a necessary medium for the digitalization of
virtually all sectors.

2
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

This pervasiveness was generally expected to provide an abundance of societal benefits. For example, the internet was expected to
“solve the long-standing problems of education, make bureaucracies function better, create a global community through increased connectivity,
empower the disenfranchised, and forever alter the roles of consumer and producer” (Sturken et al., 2004, p. 1). While the internet did
partially fulfil some of these expectations, such as improved access to educational content (Van Dijck et al., 2018), improved
bureaucratic transparency (La Porte et al., 2002), and empowerment of the disenfranchised (Palfrey, 2010), research has also revealed
unmet expectations and unintended effects, giving rise to the ‘internet paradox’ (Kraut et al., 1998, 2003).
For instance, the internet created a ‘digital divide’ between early adopters and later adopters from disadvantaged groups, as early
adopters attracted more users to the internet from the same, advantaged groups (DiMaggio & Garip, 2011; DiMaggio & Hargittai,
2001). The digital divide is still prevalent today, as inequal access to online social networks, information and other resources is “a
product of social inequality as well as a mechanism for perpetuating it” (Tewathia et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022, p. 1; Wijers, 2010).
Similarly, the ‘global digital divide’ represents the significant gap in the share of users from high-income countries versus the rest of the
world, implying a disproportionate benefit from the internet for high-income countries (Guillén & Suárez, 2005). Furthermore, na­
tional restrictions to online access are common and keep intact certain geopolitical borders (Palfrey, 2010). More recent applications of
the internet make this paradox even more topical. Digital platforms increasingly shape our communicational, informational, political,
and vocational spheres with questionable, self-regulatory institutional capacities (Van Dijck et al., 2018).

2.2. Complexity: the productivity paradox

The introduction of the personal computer in office environments was expected to revolutionize work and production, and in
particular improve productivity, which is often perceived as “the fundamental economic measure of a technology’s contribution”
(Brynjolfsson, 1993, p. 67). However, from the introduction of the personal computer in 1970 towards the end of the twentieth
century, economists observed no positive correlation between productivity and computer diffusion (Dewan & Kraemer, 1998). The
unfulfilled expectation of aggregated, positive, economic benefits gave rise to the ‘productivity paradox’ (e.g., Brynjolfsson, 1993;
Brynjolfsson et al., 2019; Cardona et al., 2013; David, 1990; Dewan & Kraemer, 1998) or the ‘Solow paradox’ (Du & Lin, 2022;
Jorgenson et al., 2008; Oliner & Sichel, 2000).
In line with historical examples such as electricity (David, 1990), scholars emphasized that “a GPT does not deliver productivity gains
immediately upon arrival” (Jovanovic & Rousseau, 2005, p. 1). Similarly, productivity increases have been rather low in the era of
digitalization, as the necessary co-evolution of business practices, regulations, and education had to unfold for the personal computer
to develop further and become pervasive (David, 1990). A similar paradox has been observed in more recent years. Mature economies
observe a decline in productivity growth from shortly after the turn of the millennium up to recent years, despite the ever-increasing
adoption and diffusion of ICTs such as online platforms and artificial intelligence (AI). The necessary, dynamic co-evolution of pro­
cesses and artifacts by users and associated actors (e.g., investors, researchers, policy-makers) is suggested as one requirement for the
expected development and applications of AI to materialize (Brynjolfsson et al., 2019).
Large social scales, in which GPTs are uniquely embedded and where their systemic effects materialize, are thus inherently complex
for several reasons. First, the high number of system components and their constellation makes it challenging to identify, let alone
forecast, the effects of a GPT. Second, this pursuit is further challenged by the rich variety of components, including institutions,
technologies, users, and industries. With a GPT representing only a fraction of larger systems, it may not come as a surprise that
envisioned effects of digital technologies beyond direct consequences are often overrated or unexpected, and challenging to forecast
(Levy et al., 2018).

2.3. Uncertainty: Jevons paradox

Many scholars expect a significant decrease in resource use due to ongoing digitalization; for example, digitalization could
transform the workplace into a ‘paperless office’, end commuting traffic congestion due to teleworking, avoid flights via teleconfer­
encing, and reduce consumption through shared use of assets. Empirical studies, however, pointed to the paradox between expected
reductions in resource use through efficiency gains on the one hand, and an observed increase in resource consumption on the other
hand, also known as the ‘Jevons paradox’ or rebound effect (Alcott, 2005; Polimeni & Polimeni, 2006; Sorrell, 2009; York, 2006).
Efficiency improvements can ‘backfire’ (Sorrell, 2009) or dampen efficiency advantages because saved resources can be reallocated to
other unsustainable production or consumption processes.
The persistent expectation that digital technologies would enable dematerialization has been increasingly scrutinized by observed
rebound effects. The ‘digital economy’ was in its early days described as a ‘weightless world’ through the substitution of materials by
information (Coyle, 1999; Kelly, 1997). The material effects of digitalization received attention only much later. Indeed, the direct
material effects of digitalization (e.g., electricity consumption, mining of rare earth metals, electronic waste stream) and indirect
material effects (e.g., related to its enabling of more globalized value chains, materialism and consumerism) portray a complex and
uncertain picture (Berkhout & Hertin, 2004). Examples of this ‘immaterial myth’ (Cubitt, 2017) include the rise of paper consumption
after the introduction of the personal computer and the internet as many more documents were circulated (Sellen & Harper, 2003), or
additional travel activity if traffic is made more efficient through digital technologies (Hilty et al., 2006). A further unexpected trend is
that the use of digital technologies itself will take up an ever-increasing share of total energy consumption (Jones, 2018). Summarizing,
the immaterial imaginaries of contemporary digital technologies such as online platforms and AI cannot “function without the minerals
and resources that build computing’s core components” (Crawford, 2021, p. 30).
Given various rebound effects, forecasts on the sustainability effects of a GPT are inherently uncertain due to the pervasive and

3
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Fig. 1. Search flow.

complex adoption and diffusion patterns. A GPT will, by definition, likely affect most system components either directly or indirectly.
However, the direction and the nature of the relationship (positive or negative) remains uncertain ex-post. Acknowledging that the
promissory discourse of the ‘twin transitions’ is itself steering what is regarded as a ‘desirable’ future (Schiølin, 2020), it is all the more
important to highlight the ambiguous socioenvironmental effects of digital technologies, rather than assuming that the two transitions
go hand in hand. This more nuanced stance on innovation is indeed increasingly echoed in innovation studies to counterbalance the
widespread ‘pro-innovation bias’ (Biggi & Giuliani, 2021; Godin & Vinck, 2017; Martin, 2016), for example, by discussing ‘noxious
effects’ (Biggi & Giuliani, 2021) and the ‘dark side of innovation’ (Coad et al., 2021).

3. Methodology

Due to its descriptive and explorative character, a scoping review is suitable for reviewing a heterogeneous body of literature
examining a central, novel phenomenon, such as contemporary digitalization (Tricco et al., 2018). A scoping review particularly
allows the investigation of “(…) the design and conduct of research on a particular topic” (Munn et al., 2018, p. 3). Closely following the
PRISMA-ScR checklist for the conduct of scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018), a flowchart for the literature selection is presented in
Fig. 1.

3.1. Data collection

In line with the rationale of a scoping review, we sought to represent the breadth of literature on digitalization in our literature

4
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Fig. 2. Distribution of publication year of the literature selection.

Fig. 3. Dominant application contexts in the literature selection.

selection. We chose keywords that collectively describe the nexus of contemporary digitalization, sustainability, and a systemic, large-
scale perspective. The Appendix presents an overview of the keywords. While a systematic review would warrant established, field-
specific keywords to distil the best available knowledge, in this scoping review, we aim to capture literature regardless of quality
or discipline (Levy & Ellis, 2006). This goal motivated our search strategy to choose common, popular, and exemplary keywords (e.g.,
Industry 4.0) over established terminology that describes digitalization (e.g., automation, robotization), as this allowed for the
collection of literature from a diversity of disciplines where such terms might be scarce or, conversely, implicit.
The keywords were established iteratively among authors and colleagues to refine and expand the search query. For example, in an
earlier version of the query, we did not include rebound effects. However, throughout our explorative readings and discussions, the
theme emerged as a relevant systemic effect of digital technologies and was therefore included in later versions of the search query.
The search query consisted of nine keywords to describe emerging digital technologies or concepts, 39 keywords to describe common
environmental, social, or economic effects, and 15 keywords were used to describe common large-scale levels of analysis at which
systemic effects materialize, as highlighted by our definition of systemic effects. As the primary analysis took place throughout 2021,
we only considered records from 2020 or earlier for this review.
After performing the query search, the first inclusion step was to only include records allocated to journals under the subject areas
‘Social sciences’, ‘Business, management, and accounting’, and ‘Environmental sciences.’ These broad subject areas were included to
disregard hits that were solely concerned with the technicalities of ICTs. The second delineation step was to exclude document types
other than peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings, such as book chapters or reviews. By limiting the selection to peer-
reviewed contributions we established a consistent quality baseline and manageable selection. Non-English contributions were also
excluded.
The remaining literature still included subject areas unlikely to be valuable due to their disciplinary and technical nature.
Therefore, as a third delineation step, 13 subject areas most remote from the research topic were excluded to reinforce the logic of the
first delineation step. These were ‘Earth and Planetary Sciences,’ ‘Mathematics,’ ‘Chemical Engineering,’ ‘Biochemistry, Genetics and
Molecular Biology,’ ‘Physics and Astronomy,’ ‘Materials Science,’ ‘Chemistry,’ ‘Health Professions,’ ‘Dentistry,’ ‘Immunology and
Microbiology,’ ‘Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics,’ ‘Nursing,’ and ‘Veterinary.’ This led to the exclusion of 482 out of
3360 records.
Sequential title, abstract and full-text screening of the resulting 2878 records was performed. The guiding screening criterion was
that the record had to study emerging digital technologies as the primary explanation for sustainability effects at a systems level. The
final selection consisted of 112 peer-reviewed articles and proceedings, with a rather sudden increase in articles from 2018 onwards
(see Fig. 2).
While the selected literature discusses the effects of digitalization in various application contexts, almost a third (32 %) focuses on

5
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Table 1
Overview of the coding categories, concepts, and codes per research aim.
Research aim Coding Concept Coding
category

Review the study of Systemic Pervasiveness Environmental effects, Economic effects, Social effects, Mixed effects
systemic effects effects Complexity Simple effects, Bidirectionality, Multiple causes, Multiple effects, Indirect
effects, Moderated effects, Feedback loop, Other
Uncertainty Positive effects, Negative effects, Mixed effects
Critical appraisal Research Research approach Explorative, Confirmatory, Commentary
design Methodology Forecasting, Reflexive, Commentary
Theoretical approach Economics and management, Environmental sciences, Social sciences,
Interdisciplinary approaches, None, Other
Subject area allocated to Environmental sciences, Social sciences, Business, management and accounting,
respective journal Other

Table 2
A typology of the considered complex effects.
Bidirectionality Multiple causes Multiple effects Indirect effects Moderated effects Feedback loop

Source: Adapted from (Levy et al. (2018).

the effects on supply chain sustainability5 (see Fig. 3). Other notable application contexts are consumers, users, or citizens6 (22 %), and
smart cities7 (11 %). It is surprising to note that only a small portion of the literature deals with the effects on the environment and
resources (8 %), although environmental considerations are often implicitly considered in other application contexts such as smart
cities, (inter)national development, or supply chain sustainability.

3.2. Coding

We coded the 112 contributions along two categories inspired by the two research aims stated in the introduction (see Table 1).
First, we coded the content using the three aspects of systemic effects described in Section 2. We only considered the primary sus­
tainability effects discussed in a contribution, thereby excluding effects mentioned only exploratively (e.g., in the introduction or
conclusion). Regarding the three aspects of systemic effects, the extent to which pervasiveness is acknowledged by existing research
was coded by whether the contributions discussed effects in isolation (environmental, economic or social effects) or as an interde­
pendent whole (mixed effects of two or all three dimensions).
To better understand how existing research acknowledges complexity, we coded whether contributions discussed effects that can
be regarded as simple or complex. An effect was considered simple if the respective ICT (e.g., blockchain) or concept (e.g., Industry 4.0)
was treated as the primary responsible for a given effect. An example of a simple effect is reduced resource use due to more efficient,
automated machinery. An example of a complex effect is a rebound effect where reduced resource use allows a producer to allocate
savings to new economic activities, thereby increasing resource use. In these more complex cases, the respective ICT or concept is not
directly responsible for a given effect. Contributions were coded on the type of relationship described in the contribution, adopted from
the typology by Levy et al. (2018). We coded complex relationships through an analysis of research questions, hypotheses, and
frameworks (if provided), or by stipulating evident causal relationships considered in the overall research design. If no dominant
relationship could be identified with certainty, we coded the respective record as ‘Other.’ See Table 2 for a visual overview of the
complex relationships considered.
The extent to which records acknowledged the inherent uncertainty of systemic effects was captured by coding whether contri­
butions focused on positive, negative, or mixed effects. As mentioned in the previous chapter, positive and negative (systemic) effects
are ideally equally represented in the light of uncertainty and prevailing optimism. Coding was based on the normative stance of the
respective record. For example, if a contribution discussed how digital technologies improve economic growth as a desirable effect, we
coded it as a positive effect even if one could argue economic growth is not de facto positive. Records that discussed both positive and
negative effects were coded as ‘mixed effects’.

5
Understood as environmental, social and/or economic supply chain sustainability.
6
Understood as the aggregate effects of ICTs on consumers, users or citizens, such as security and privacy risks, human rights, public values and
implications for law.
7
Understood as the effects of ICTs in urban contexts.

6
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Fig. 4. a (left): Overall distribution of economic, social, environmental or mixed effects. b (right): Annual distribution of economic, social, envi­
ronmental or mixed effects.

Second, we coded research design characteristics to better understand what differentiated records discussing systemic effects from
those that did not. The coding of research designs was thus used as a sense-making tool. More specifically, we coded whether the
research design was explorative (ex-post identification of effects), confirmatory (ex-ante demarcation of effects) or a commentary.
Regarding the methodology, we coded whether contributions entailed forecasting (expected effects), a reflexive analysis (observed
effects), or a commentary. If the contribution explicitly stated the theoretical approach, it was coded and subsequently grouped into six
overarching categories (see Table 1). For each article, the subject area allocated by Scopus to the respective journal was coded. If
multiple subject areas were allocated to a journal, or for conference proceedings, the one closest to the content of the contribution was
chosen.
Finally, we conducted a critical appraisal of individual records that, to our understanding, best adhered to the aspects of systemic
effects this review focusses on. Critical appraisal is common in systematic reviews but less so in scoping reviews, as the latter is
“generally conducted to provide an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias” (Tricco et al., 2018, p.
480). The choice for a critical appraisal is motivated by the aim of this scoping review to not only describe if and how current research
deals with systemic effects, but also to provide a research agenda to stimulate our knowledge on the subject. A critical appraisal can
serve as valuable input to better understand what allows certain contributions to discuss systemic effects and others not.

4. Results

In the sections below, the results of our scoping review are presented based on the analytical dimensions of systemic effects
(pervasiveness, complexity and uncertainty). For each dimension, we first describe identified patterns in the literature selection. This is
followed by a critical appraisal of studies that (failed to) acknowledge the given analytical dimension.

4.1. Pervasiveness versus reductionism

We reviewed whether the selected literature acknowledges pervasiveness by coding if contributions discuss effects in isolation or,
ideally, across multiple domains (economy, society, and the environment). As Fig. 4a shows, 31 % of the selected literature looks at
mixed effects while 69 % discusses effects in isolation. Despite the apparent bias towards the study of isolated effects, Fig. 4b suggests
that mixed effects are increasingly considered since 2018.
A potential explanatory factor for the strong tendency towards isolated effects could be the choice of theoretical approach. More
than a third of the literature addresses digitalization through the lens of economic and managerial approaches. These non-systemic
approaches are narrow in their unit of analysis (looking at a firm or its supply chain) and are primarily equipped to forecast and
interpret effects within their primary domain leading to the observation of economic and managerial effects.
As a result, micro-level approaches that aim to capture a holistic picture can end up with an exogenous view of otherwise systemic
factors. Institutional components are left out in particular from theoretical micro-level approaches. For example, Yadav et al. (2020)
acknowledge institutional factors in their policy recommendations on the role of Industry 4.0 towards a circular economy, but treat
these factors as exogenous. They posit that “the government should develop policies favouring the adoption of industry 4.0 and circular
economy” (Yadav et al., 2020, p. 12) and “sustainability awareness campaigns to educate the organisations as well as their customers” (p. 12).
While selected studies within social sciences emphasize institutional aspects like regulation, policy, and public values, these are rarely
part of the research design in contributions from the subject areas of business, management and accounting or environmental sciences.
The lack of institutional awareness is further emphasized by the observation that only two contributions explicitly use an institutional
approach to capture the effects of digitalization (Giest, 2017; Kshetri, 2017).
Some contributions discuss mixed effects through a similar, narrow theoretical approach. For example, Bag et al. (2020) aim to
understand the influence of big data analytics on sustainable supply chain performance from the theoretical viewpoint of supply chain
management and dynamic capabilities. They posit that big data can enhance ‘shared value,’ i.e., simultaneously support economic and
environmental performance. In this way, sustainability is regarded as a means for competitive advantage rather than a goal by and of
itself. This ‘shared value’ approach is echoed by Yadav et al. (2020), who similarly draw on supply chain management to discuss the
implications of Industry 4.0 for sustainability in supply chains.
Instead of discussing environmental effects from a non-environmental discipline, multidisciplinary approaches (e.g., with fields

7
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Fig. 5. a (left): Overall distribution of simple and complex effects. b (right): Annual distribution of simple and complex effects.

affiliated to environmental sciences) could provide more nuanced expectations. For example, the benefits that Bag et al. (2020) and
Yadav et al. (2020) assume regarding ‘green growth’ contrast with a rich, critical body of literature from environmental sciences and
multidisciplinary approaches. For instance, in the field of political economy, a recent review concluded that green growth lacks
empirical support (Hickel & Kallis, 2020). From a socio-economic viewpoint, Bauwens (2021) argues that economic growth and the
circular economy face limited compatibility. In addition, environmental scholars have long warned for rebound effects of ICTs (see e.
g., Plepys, 2002).
Only 9 % of the literature applies a more multidisciplinary theoretical approach, which could aid a more nuanced identification of
pervasive effects. For example, Dauvergne (2020) views AI from the viewpoint of political economy, an approach that considers
multiple, competing economic traditions that have been inspired by other disciplines (Stilwell, 2006). This includes traditions that
more explicitly acknowledge systemic effects, such as institutional and evolutionary economics (Stilwell, 2006). Similarly, Wiig (2016)
uses policy studies, urban geography, and urban politics literature to conclude that the smart city rhetoric in Philadelphia ultimately
represented a global economic paradigm rather than a solution for urban inequalities. Most of the literature from business, man­
agement, and accounting is based on more reductionist, traditional theoretical approaches, such as the resource-based view and supply
chain management.
Two contributions in the selected literature address digitalization effects explicitly from a systemic approach. Kovacs (2018) draws
partially on complexity theory to understand the ‘dark corners’ of Industry 4.0. The effects covered in his contribution are diverse, and
the author discusses the implications for security, employment, psychological wellbeing, institutional changes, academic and business
practices, and financial markets. Similarly, Ortega-Fernández et al. (2020) apply complexity theory in combination with dynamic
capabilities to understand how AI can advance innovation in smart cities.
On a final note, it is rather surprising that we did not encounter contributions from the fields of innovation studies, science and
technology studies, or transition studies, despite their interdisciplinarity, systems perspective, and a mutual interest in technology and
sustainability. These findings might partially be attributed to techno-centric imaginaries that guide research funding towards natural
sciences rather than social sciences, as Genus et al. (2021) find for funding on energy research.

4.2. Complexity versus determinism

The extent to which the selected literature considers complexity was coded as complex effects or simple effects, with a sub-typology
of six specific complex effect patterns (see Table 2). As Fig. 5a shows, a small part of the sample studies solely ‘simple’ effects. The
remainder, 52 %, considers more complex, non-linear effects. While this indicates that scholarship is aware of complex relationships, a
more critical look at the distribution of non-linear effects shows that three complex relationships are strongly underrepresented. These
are bidirectionality (2 %), feedback loops (4 %), and moderated effects (7 %). Surprisingly, Fig. 5b suggests that since 2019, simple
effects are increasingly considered in contemporary digitalization research.
We turn again to the research designs to better understand why three out of six complex effects are underrepresented. Not including
commentaries, around half of the selected literature attempts to forecast the effects of digitalization. Prospective designs are inherent
to novel phenomena as limited empirical data is yet available. A Delphi approach is the most frequent forecasting method in the
selected literature, used by 15 contributions. The consulted experts are generally a homogeneous group: they are practitioners in 13
out of 15 contributions, sometimes combined with scholars (Kim & Shin, 2019; Pham et al., 2019; Rajput & Singh, 2019) or users
(Padyab & Ståhlbröst, 2018). Homogeneous groups create forecasts with low representative judgement (Yousuf, 2007). Furthermore,
humans are cognitively limited to forecast complex dynamics (Levy et al., 2018; Stier et al., 2016).
As a result, Delphi studies are likely to leave the complex, non-linear effects unidentified. Additionally, Delphi studies are prone to
optimism as humans tend to overestimate the probability of desirable futures compared to less-desired futures, partially enabled by the
observation that Delphi experts “commonly have some stake in the developments that they are to judge within the Delphi” (Winkler & Moser,
2016, p. 67). This ‘desirability bias’ is echoed by Beier et al. (2020), who, in a literature review of the sustainability of Industry 4.0,
conclude that “(…) Industry 4.0 is associated with a number of desired outcomes, but hardly any of these mentioned positive sustainability
aspects are a necessary result of digitalization” (p. 11).
However, some contributions use forecasting methods that better acknowledge complexity. Scenario-based analyses can, for
example, explicitly accept that the future is open-ended and can unfold in multiple ways. As Hoffmann and Dahlinger (2020) describe,
scenario-based studies recognize that the future is characterized by “volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity” (p. 56). Whereas

8
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Fig. 6. a (left): Overall distribution of positive, negative and mixed effects. b (right): Annual distribution of positive, negative and mixed effects.

the implications of a Delphi approach are generally understood as “what will happen given our current knowledge”, scenario-based
analyses are generally more strategy-oriented and “not meant to be tested against what actually will happen” (Van der Heijden, 2005,
p. 110), thereby explicitly acknowledging that the future is not forecastable with sufficient certainty.
This contrast can be seen in the literature selection when comparing concluding remarks. Rajput and Singh (2019) conclude from a
Delphi study that “It is determined that Artificial Intelligence (E1) and Circular economy (E4) are identified as the common driving enablers”
(p. 109) and that “(…) sustainable supply chain contributes towards implementing the linkage between circular economy and Industry 4.0” (p.
109). This factual writing style contrasts with the more nuanced, open-ended forecast of the scenario-based analysis by Hoffmann and
Dahlinger (2020) who argue that “recent advancements in autonomous AI systems, connectivity and decentralized networks, may become key
enablers (…) and, therefore, it is important from a societal, political and economic viewpoint to understand, what their impact may be” (p. 63).

4.3. Uncertainty versus optimism

We coded whether records acknowledged uncertainty by discussing both adverse effects and positive effects. As shown in Fig. 6a,
the majority (58 %) of the selected literature focuses exclusively on positive effects. 27 % discusses both risks and benefits of emerging
digital technologies, and only 15 % focuses on solely negative effects. As Fig. 6b emphasizes, the selected literature is increasingly
leaning towards acknowledging both positive and negative effects (coded as ‘mixed effects’) since 2018, while a sole focus on negative
effects has decreased since then. However, the observation that adverse effects are considered by 42 % of the total sample, while 85 %
considers positive effects (of which the majority exclusively focusses on positive effects), signals an optimism bias.
When reviewing the literature, we observed that the study of positive effects was often embedded in a broader, topical narrative of
technological optimism. For example, Hoosain et al. (2020) aim to understand the impact of Industry 4.0 and circular thinking on the
advancement of sustainable development goals. They posit, in a factual manner, that “Technologies used in solving real world problems are
how we develop measures of success” (Hoosain et al., 2020, p. 4), referring to Industry 4.0 as a “ground-breaking strategy” which “(…) will
increase productivity and growth” (p. 3). The authors shortly acknowledge the risk of adverse effects but argue that benefits will
outweigh these: “On the one hand, there could be detrimental effects on sustainability, such as electronic waste production. On the other hand,
ICT is surely an enabler for more productive use of energy, education, and business processes, which is vital in achieving the SDGs” (Hoosain
et al., 2020, p. 8). When later elaborated upon, Hoosain et al. (2020) forecast that increased electronic waste will be solved through
future technological innovations. These expectations do not seem to be grounded in theory, empirics, or diverse expertise.
Another exemplar of this optimistic, technocratic narrative is the contribution by Bibri (2018) who discusses the role of big data and
the internet of things in smart sustainable cities. Earlier contributions have already discussed the implicit optimism hidden in ter­
minologies such as ‘smart cities’. It provides a normative stance on what is ‘smart’, implying that a city not employing digital tech­
nologies is ‘dumb’ (Allam, 2018). Starting from an elaborate discussion of all the prospective application areas of digital technologies,
Bibri (2018) discusses twelve barriers towards a smart sustainable city. In line with the technocratic narrative, these are called
‘challenges’, hurdles in the pursuit of a desirable goal. These challenges are “mostly scientific, computational, and analytical in nature”
(Bibri, 2018, p. 247), and all relate to the design and capabilities of digital technologies. The closest non-technical barrier is privacy
and security, which can be solved through technological improvements Bibri (2018) argues. The absence of non-technical barriers is
striking given that the concept of smart cities relies on governance for reaping the benefits of “colossal amounts of urban data” (Bibri,
2018, p. 230), which in particular requires well-functioning social, political and institutional systems.
Other studies break with the prevailing exogenous view of technologies, and instead put digitalization in a more co-evolutionary
perspective. For example, in the context of smart cities, Wiig (2016) discusses Philadelphia’s smart city project. Drawing on insights
from urban geography, the author puts the socio-political aspect at the forefront and defines smart cities as a governance device that
“encompasses the integration of buildings, neighbourhoods, digital–urban infrastructures, city government, and citizen activities with data
analysis to ‘solve’ a wide variety of urban issue” (Wiig, 2016, p. 537). Interestingly, the core problems that led to the demise of Phila­
delphia’s smart city project were non-technical forces (Wiig, 2016), absent in many other studies. Giest (2017) similarly acknowledges
sociotechnical dynamism by embedding his research on smart cities in institutional complexity theory, which allows him to identify
non-technical barriers and limitations, such as that “policy-makers may not have the ‘policy analytical capacity’ to analyse and understand”
(Giest, 2017, p. 944) the collected urban data.
Kovacs (2018) echoes a similar observation regarding technological optimism around Industry 4.0 and concludes that “(…) Industry
4.0 and the Digital Economy evolve in an open, adaptive, complex socio-economic innovation ecosystem characterised by non-linear feedbacks.

9
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

It is therefore rather strange that available studies are merely focusing on the positive effects of Industry 4.0 (…)” (Kovacs, 2018, p. 141). This
positivism is particularly related to economic and environmental effects, while social effects are often studied more critically, in line
with the review by Grybauskas et al. (2022) on the social implications of Industry 4.0. Dauvergne (2020) emphasizes that “technology is
an instrument of power” (p. 4). This contribution is the only one in the literature selection that acknowledges (and warns for) rebound
effects. Other contributions in the literature selection that break with technological optimism apply a similar constructivist
perspective, such as Cheng and Foley (2018) and Van der Zeeuw et al. (2019).
When reviewing the more critical contributions, a recurring theme is the emphasis on historical patterns in technological inno­
vation to put contemporary digitalization in perspective. For example, Kadir and Broberg (2020, p. 2) emphasize that “how humans use
and react to new technologies is not a notion unique to Industry 4.0”. Dauvergne (2020) draws on past developments in efficiency savings,
technological innovation, and resource extraction, allowing the author to place AI in a more nuanced context. He conceptualizes AI as a
technological innovation that, similar to previous innovations, induces rebound effects and does not decouple economic growth from
resource extraction. The power of historical analogies resonates with historical studies in innovation studies highlighting that past
GPTs may differ in their specific effects, but share a contingent nature of development with long-run and large-scale systemic effects.

5. Research directions

Based on our review, we propose three pursuits for future research to stimulate knowledge accumulation on systemic effects. We do
so along the three characteristics of GPTs: pervasiveness, complexity and uncertainty.

5.1. Understanding pervasiveness: science and technology studies and transition studies

An important finding of this scoping review is that current studies often lack a systemic theoretical approach. In particular, science
and technology studies and transitions studies are largely absent from the selected literature despite their theoretical contributions to a
systemic understanding of technology. As Stock and Burton (2011, p. 1091) posit, the “increasing understanding of system complexity
leave traditional scientific disciplines often struggling” to understand ‘wicked’ sustainability problems and pervasive phenomena. This is
echoed in a review on Industry 4.0 by Beier et al. (2020). Science and technology studies have long emphasized the weaknesses in some
of the primary themes that emerged in the findings. For example, they withhold from deterministic technological accounts by carefully
balancing the materiality and agency of technologies on the one hand, and the uncertainty, complexity and agency of the social
environment in which technologies are embedded, on the other hand (Bijker et al., 1989).
Similarly, the interdisciplinary field of (sustainability) transition studies acknowledges that “complicated processes (…) cannot be
comprehensively addressed by single theories or disciplines” (Köhler et al., 2019, p. 2). Indeed, sustainability transition scholars listed
digitalization as a relevant avenue in a recent research agenda, in particular the opportunities it poses for users and consumers, the
power of corporate actors in the digital world, and the increasing permeation of digital technologies in socio-technical systems that are
particularly relevant for sustainability, such as energy and transport (Köhler et al., 2019). This is echoed by a recent agenda that
outlined more specific digitalization topics (Andersen et al., 2021).

5.2. Understanding complexity: exploratory designs and methodological development

Future research could benefit from two directions to better capture complexity, particularly those patterns of causality that were
little acknowledged in the selected literature. First, a significant share of the literature selection utilizes confirmatory research designs,
such as Delphi studies. This limits the attempts to identify unintended and unexpected effects as these are, combined with the observed
optimism, often not the primary interest (for unintended effects) or that cannot be identified a priori (for unexpected effects). We
suggest a shift towards more explorative research designs to address these systemic aspects better. A shift from confirmatory to
explorative research designs will require methodological development and novelty, particularly in forecasting studies.
A second route is to get away from forecasting as ‘point prediction’, knowing that future development will be highly non-linear and
unpredictable due to the very systemic nature of digital technologies. Instead, consistent with aiming for sustainability effects of new
technologies, one can engage in ‘Techniques of Futuring’ (Hajer & Pelzer, 2018; Hajer & Versteeg, 2019; Oomen et al., 2021), which
focuses on the social construction of imagined futures, thus explicitly moving away from technological determinism. Futuring is
particularly suitable for explaining why particular imaginaries of the future tend to dominate and identify novel, alternative futures.
These techniques encompass new combinations of forecasting tools such as scenario-based analyses, backcasting, and stakeholder
consultation, with the overarching goal to “bring together a broader set of agents of change” (Hajer & Pelzer, 2018, p. 225). Similarly,
innovations in scenario-based analyses have potential for the forecasting of systemic effects of technologies (Nathan et al., 2007). By
engaging in multi-stakeholder processes, alternative imagined futures can emerge, which themselves can have a performative effect on
the actions of firms, governments, and cities, thereby affecting the course of technological development pro-actively.

5.3. Understanding uncertainty: past lessons and definitions

To better acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of GPTs and their effects, especially when it concerns forecasts, we propose two
avenues. First, greater engagement with the history of technology, including the more recent history of ICTs over the past four decades
as we have done, lets one be aware of promissory expectations and pitfalls that befell previous innovations and technological revo­
lutions. As such, a historical context can provide a more nuanced perspective on a phenomenon otherwise clouded by topical, inflated

10
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

expectations. Historical studies of innovations and technological revolutions have emphasized the consistently complex and uncertain
patterns of technological and societal development (see e.g., Geels, 2002; Hughes, 1987; Klein & Kleinman, 2002; Perez, 2004). When
acknowledging this, a critical justification is required if one would argue that “this time, it’s different”.
Second, we argue that a technology-push perspective provides an overly simplistic view on the effects of digitalization, as tech­
nologies, user practices, and societal institutions are known to co-evolve (Bijker et al., 1989; Köhler et al., 2019). A definition closer to
sociotechnical dynamism emphasizes that technologies are subjects of power and politics, thereby better acknowledging the complex
and unintended effects that seemingly impartial technologies can have. For example, Schiølin (2020) traces back how Industry 4.0 was
employed by the World Economic Forum as a narrative that convincingly implied Industry 4.0 is an inescapable future to which we can
only adapt. Schiølin (2020) describes this as ‘future essentialism’, where a future socio-technical imaginary dangerously promotes the
idea that no other futures exist or can be created. Other popular socio-technical imaginaries such as smart cities, predominantly pushed
by corporate narratives, have been criticized as an “empty rhetorical device” (Wiig, 2015, p. 271) that promotes reductionistic ‘tech­
nological salvation’ for complex urban challenges (Sadowski & Bendor, 2019; Söderström et al., 2014). The controversial values that
these concepts embody arguably contribute to their definitional ambiguity and contestation (Beier et al., 2020). The sociotechnical
dynamism and constructivism of digital technologies and technocratic futures could instead be better acknowledged by building on the
growing body of literature studying the governance of expectations (Beumer & Edelenbosch, 2019; Konrad & Palavicino, 2017), and
the performativity of socio-technical imaginaries (Hajer & Pelzer, 2018).
Systemic effects have the potential to profoundly alter the expected benefits of the digital transition, as these effects help explain
why technological hypes during the first digitalization ‘wave’ have often been followed by disillusionment. This scoping review
suggests that systemic effects of contemporary digitalization are poorly understood due to patterns of reductionism, determinism and
optimism. This indicates that more research on the topic is needed to avoid the pursuit of an ill-understood transition. Promising
deviations in the selected literature provide examples and inspiration for a more nuanced, critical, and, more importantly, systemic
perspective on contemporary digitalization. By incorporating an interdisciplinary approach, studying digitalization through explor­
atory research, applying a constructivist perspective, and avoiding adherence to promising but often empty discourses, we can improve
our understanding of the large-scale sustainability effects of digitalization. As the ‘digital green transformation’ and ‘twin transitions’
are increasingly prominent in policy discourses, the study of systemic sustainability effects is of significant relevance to better inform
us whether this designated future is a probable, feasible, and desirable one.

6. Discussion and conclusion

What unites most research on digitalization and sustainability is the traditional perspective taken on digital technologies as a set of
artifacts, while largely ignoring the social and institutional embedding of such artifacts. What thus becomes apparent is that the very
conceptualization of digitalization as technology rather than a socio-technical process can negate a systemic perspective. For example,
Tokareva et al. (2018) describe the internet of things simultaneously as a “business and technology area” (p. 63), a single “technology” (p.
64), a collection of “technologies” (p. 64) and a “concept” (p. 72). Similarly, others (Jeble et al., 2020; Miller & Tolle, 2016; Nuccio &
Guerzoni, 2018) define big data differently with varying levels of abstraction. Even more pressing is the ambiguity around broader
digital concepts. The obscurity of Industry 4.0 causes Fatimah et al. (2020, p. 3) to describe it as “digitalization, environmentally
conscious, socially aware”, while Kovacs (2018) regards Industry 4.0 more narrowly as a manufacturing philosophy. Bashtannyk et al.
(2020) regard Industry 4.0 as a long-standing development, analysing its influence between 2009 and 2019; Cezarino et al. (2019) see
Industry 4.0 as an ongoing, emergent development; whereas Grenčíková et al. (2020) conceptualize Industry 4.0 as a future phe­
nomenon that has yet to unfold.
Ambiguity also permeates concepts on the nexus of sustainability and digitalization. Regarding smart cities, Grimaldi and Fer­
nandez (2019, p. 28) describe them as “cities that use the technology to improve the quality of life for their citizens”. This definition leaves
room for normative considerations to what ‘quality of life’ entails, and most cities already employ (digital) technologies that foster the
quality of life (e.g., security cameras, traffic lights, electric charging stations). Bibri (2018) uses the term ‘smart sustainable city’ to
denote a city seemingly similar to the ‘smart city’ label, that is, a city “supported by the pervasive presence and massive use of advanced ICT,
which (…) enables the city to control available resources safely, sustainably, and efficiently to improve economic and societal outcomes” (Bibri,
2018, p. 233). These definitional differences challenge efforts to take stock of and build upon research. This ambiguity signals ongoing,
collective sense-making of emerging technologies and is inherent to novel research topics (Wang, 2019). To add to this confusion, some
contributions in the smart city literature define such cities without any explicit reference to ICT or digital technology more generally
(Kusumastuti, Nurmala, Rouli, & Herdiansyah, 2022; Giffinger, Kramar, Fertner, & Meijers, 2007). Efforts to clarify this ambiguity
have been pursued in past contributions, but without leading scholars to converge. Definitional ambiguity can cause novel concepts to
lose their meaning and credibility (Gonella, 2019; Wiig, 2015), to obstruct forecasts of what technologies will do and ought to do
(Bhatnagar et al., 2018), and allow for misguidance and misunderstanding in research and debates (Wang, 2019).
Optimistic, technocratic imaginaries, enabled by the freedom this conceptual ambiguity provides, are common in the broader stock
of research on digitalization. The optimism is particularly apparent in the selected management literature, which represents roughly a
third of the sample. It often mirrors the aforementioned concept of ‘shared value’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011). This concept posits that
companies can achieve economic success and regain legitimacy by creating “(…) value for society by addressing its needs and challenges”
(Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 4). Shared value propagates win-win scenarios across economic, social and/or environmental spheres for
organizations. The academic management community eagerly took up the concept, with Crane et al. (2014, p. 133) describing the
foundational article as “a quite dramatic outlier in terms of the rapid scholarly attention”. ‘Shared value’ is one of many proposals that have
suggested that environmental and social issues would be solved through strategic management because sustainability improvements

11
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Table A1
Keywords used in search query.
Category Keyword

Digitalization Artificial intelligence; Blockchain; Big data; Cloud computing; Cyber-physical system; Digital platform; Digitalization; Industry 4.0;
Internet of Things
Environmental Biodiversity; Climate; Circular; CO2; Emission; Energy; Environment; GHG; Hazard; Material; Metal; Mineral; Rebound; Resource;
sustainability Sustainable; Warming; Waste
Social sustainability Autonomy; Compliance; Dignity; Discrimination; Equality; Equitable; Inclusive; Justice; Power; Privacy; Regulation; Safety; Security;
Skills; Social; Values; Work
Economic sustainability Economy; Employment; Performance; Productivity; Efficiency
Systems level Nation; System; Chain; City; Cluster; Complementarity; Country; Field; Industry; Inter; Market; Network; Region; Sector; Socio-
technical

are in a company’s best interest in the long term (King & Pucker, 2021).
However, history has shown that major sustainability improvements are not easily attained through win-win strategies. The idea
lacks empirical grounding (Dembek et al., 2016) and has so far failed to deliver (King & Pucker, 2021). Thus, management research
would benefit from a more critical perspective observing systemic effects beyond the level of single organizations. Rebound effects are
an exemplary case of this, despite that only one article in the selected literature discussed this (Dauvergne, 2020). This also implies a
broader call for empirical research on the ‘twin transitions’ to contemplate the prevalent narratives of green growth in general and the
symbiotic advancement of the three pillars of sustainable development through digitalization in particular (Renn et al., 2021). A recent
example of this ‘green growth’ narrative can be found in a contribution of Wang & Zhou (2022, p. 2), who posit in their study of smart
cities that “the environment needs to be protected while pursuing economic growth and high quality of life”.
These promising macro-discourses are commonplace in much contemporary research, policy, and public debate, and not limited to
digitalization. Other popular win-win concepts include servitization, where businesses provide product-service systems rather than
only physical products to improve the value and lifetime of products, or reshoring as a strategy to better control supply chain risk and
sustainability (Ashby, 2016; Baines et al., 2007; Christopher et al., 2011; Reim et al., 2015). The interdisciplinarity and systems
perspective in aforementioned literature fields (e.g., transition studies) can potentially enrich and nuance these expectations. In this
regard, Vähäkari et al. (2020) outlined the potential synergies between futures studies and transition studies. Particularly, they argue
that transition frameworks can contribute to futures studies through reflexivity to historical developments and dynamics, identifi­
cation of multiple development paths towards sustainability, and methodological awareness of multi-level thinking between (sub)
systems.
We advocate a theoretical turn in all disciplines away from the technology-push perspective. Instead, the co-evolution of tech­
nologies, user practices, and societal institutions should be taken as a starting point (Freeman & Perez, 1988; Winner, 1980). Defining
emerging digital technologies as an element that both shapes and is shaped by the social and natural environment promotes a systemic
perspective with more emphasis on the role institutions and the material nature and impacts of digital technologies have. A definition
closer to sociotechnical dynamism is also congruent with the received notion that technologies exert power, thereby better
acknowledging the complex and unintended macro-effects that seemingly impartial technologies can have (Winner, 1980).
Systemic effects can profoundly alter the expected benefits of the digital transition for sustainability, as these effects help explain
why technological hypes during the first digitalization ‘wave’ have often been followed by disillusionment. Based on this scoping
review, we suggest that systemic effects of contemporary digitalization are poorly understood due to patterns of reductionism,
determinism, and optimism. This indicates that more research on the topic is needed to avoid the pursuit of an ill-understood tran­
sition. Promising deviations in the selected literature provide examples and inspiration for a more nuanced, critical, and, more
importantly, systemic perspective on contemporary digitalization. By incorporating an interdisciplinary approach, studying digitali­
zation through exploratory research, and avoiding adherence to promising but often empty discourses and definitions, we can improve
our understanding of systemic sustainability effects of digitalization. As the ‘twin transitions’ are increasingly prominent in policy
discourses, the study of systemic sustainability effects is crucial to better inform us whether this designated future is a probable,
feasible, and desirable one.

Funding details

This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway under Grant number 295021. The funding source had no involvement
in the preparation or conduct of the research.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

12
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to colleagues at INTRANSIT and the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development for their comments on earlier
outlines of the scoping review and participants at the NEST Conference 2021 and IST Conference 2021 for their valuable insights.

Appendix A. : Query keywords and search string

See Table A1.

The final search string as shown below incorporated Boolean operators to allow for keyword variations and similarities:
TITLE ( ( "artificial intelligence" OR "big data" OR blockchain OR "cloud computing" OR "cyber-physical system" OR "digital
platform" OR digital* OR "industry 4.0" OR "internet of things") AND (biodivers* OR climate OR circular* OR co2 OR emission* OR
energ* OR environment* OR ghg OR hazard* OR material OR metal OR mineral OR rebound OR resource* OR sustainab* OR warming
OR waste OR autonom* OR compliance OR dignity OR discriminat* OR *equal* OR equit* OR inclusiv* OR justice OR power OR
privacy OR regulat* OR safety OR secur* OR skill* OR social OR value* OR work OR econom* OR employ* OR performance OR
productiv* OR efficien*) AND (*nation* OR *system* OR chain OR cit* OR cluster OR complementarit* OR countr* OR field OR
industr* OR inter* OR market OR network OR region* OR sector* OR socio-technical)).

References

Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons’ Paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020

Allam, Z. (2018). Contextualising the smart city for sustainability and inclusivity. New Design Ideas, 2(2), 124–127.
Andersen, A. D., Frenken, K., Galaz, V., Kern, F., Klerkx, L., Mouthaan, M., … Vaskelainen, T. (2021). On digitalization and sustainability transitions. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41, 96–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.09.013
Ashby, A. (2016). From global to local: reshoring for sustainability. Operations Management Research, 9, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-016-0117-9
Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Xu, L., Dhamija, P., & Kayikci, Y. (2020). Big data analytics as an operational excellence approach to enhance sustainable supply chain
performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104559
Baines, T. S., Lightfoot, H. W., Evans, S., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., Roy, R., Shehab, E., Braganza, A., & Tiwari, A. (2007). State-of-the-art in product-
service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), 1543–1552. https://doi.org/10.1243/
09544054JEM858
Bashtannyk, V., Buryk, Z., Kokhan, M., Vlasenko, T., & Skryl, V. (2020). Financial, economic and sustainable development of states within the conditions of industry
4.0. International Journal of Management, 11(4), 406–413.
Bauwens, T. (2021). Are the circular economy and economic growth compatible? A case for post-growth circularity. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 175, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105852
Beier, G., Ullrich, A., Niehoff, S., Reißig, M., & Habich, M. (2020). Industry 4.0: How it is defined from a sociotechnical perspective and how much sustainability it
includes – A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120856
Berkhout, F., & Hertin, J. (2004). De-materialising and re-materialising: Digital technologies and the environment. Futures, 36(8), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.futures.2004.01.003
Beumer, K., & Edelenbosch, R. (2019). Hybrid potato breeding: A framework for mapping contested socio-technical futures. Futures, 109, 227–239. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.futures.2019.01.004
Bhatnagar, S., Alexandrova, A., Avin, S., Cave, S., Cheke, L., Crosby, M., Feyereisl, J., Halina, M., Loe, B. S., Eigeartaigh, S.Ó., Martínez-Plumed, F., Price, H.,
Shevlin, H., Weller, A., Winfield, A., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2018). Mapping intelligence: Requirements and possibilities. In V. C. Müller (Ed.), Philosophy and
theory of artificial intelligence, 2017 pp. 117–135). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96448-5_13.
Bibri, S. E. (2018). The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability.
In Sustainable Cities and Society, 38 pp. 230–253). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.034
Bibri, S. E. (2019). On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review. Journal of Big
Data, 6(25), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0182-7
Biggi, G., & Giuliani, E. (2021). The noxious consequences of innovation: What do we know? Industry and Innovation, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13662716.2020.1726729
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1989). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press.
Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies ’engines of growth’? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-
4076(94)01598-T
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/163298.163309
Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. In A. Agrawal,
J. Gans, & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An Agenda (pp. 23–57). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/
9780226613475.
Cantner, U., & Vannuccini, S. (2012). A new view of general purpose technologies. JENA Economic Research Papers No 2012(054), 1–20. doi: http://hdl.handle.net/
10419/70135.
Cardona, M., Kretschmer, T., & Strobel, T. (2013). ICT and productivity: Conclusions from the empirical literature. Information Economics and Policy, 25(3), 109–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2012.12.002
Castellacci, F. (2006). Innovation, diffusion and catching up in the fifth long wave. Futures, 38(7), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.007
Cezarino, L. O., Liboni, L. B., Stefanelli, N. O., Oliveira, B. G., & Stocco, L. C. (2019). Diving into emerging economies bottleneck: Industry 4.0 and implications for
circular economy. Management Decision, 59(8), 1841–1862. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2018-1084
Chauhan, C., Parida, V., & Dhir, A. (2022). Linking circular economy and digitalisation technologies: A systematic literature review of past achievements and future
promises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, Article 121508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121508
Cheng, M., & Foley, C. (2018). The sharing economy and digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 70, 95–98. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.11.002
Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., & Yurt, O. (2011). Approaches to managing global sourcing risk. Supply Chain Management An International Journal, 16(2), 67–81.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541111115338
Coad, A., Nightinggale, P., Stilgoe, J., & Vezzani, A. (2021). Editorial: The dark side of innovation. Industry and Innovation, 28(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13662716.2020.1818555
Coyle, D. (1999). The weightless world: Strategies for managing the digital economy. MIT Press.

13
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “Creating Shared Value”. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153. https://doi.
org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130
Crawford, K. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Cubitt, S. (2017). Finite media: Environmental implications of digital technologies. Duke University Press.
Dauvergne, P. (2020). Is artificial intelligence greening global supply chains? Exposing the political economy of environmental costs. Review of International Political
Economy, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1814381
David, P. A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. The American Economic Review, 80(2), 355–361.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006600.
Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: A theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2),
231–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2554-z
Dewan, S., & Kraemer, K. L. (1998). International dimensions of the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/
280324.280333
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’to ‘Digital Inequality’: Studying internet use as penetration increases. In Working paper series. W. W. S.
Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University.
DiMaggio, P., & Garip, F. (2011). How network externalities can exacerbate intergroup inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1887–1933. https://doi.org/
10.1086/659653
Du, L., & Lin, W. (2022). Does the application of industrial robots overcome the Solow paradox? Evidence from China. Technology in Society, 68, Article 101932.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101932
Ejsmont, K., Gladysz, B., & Kluczek, A. (2020). Impact of Industry 4.0 on Sustainability - Bibliometric Literature Review. Sustainability (MDPI), 12(14), 1–29. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12145650
European Commission. (2020). Communication COM/2020/103: an SME strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe. Retrieved from https://knowledge4policy.ec.
europa.eu/publication/communication-com2020103-sme-strategy-sustainable-digital-europe_en. (Accessed 21 October 2021).
European Commission. (2021). EU Countries commit to leading the green digital transformation. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/eu-
countries-commit-leading-green-digital-transformation. (Accessed 21 October 2021).
Fatimah, Y. A., Govindan, K., Murniningsih, R., & Setiawan, A. (2020). Industry 4.0 based sustainable circular economy approach for smart waste management system
to achieve sustainable development goals: A case study of Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122263
Freeman, C., & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, & G. Silverberg (Eds.),
Technical Change and Economic Theory (pp. 38–66). Pinter Publishers.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9),
1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Genus, A., Iskandarova, M., Goggins, G., Fahy, F., & Laakso, S. (2021). Alternative energy imaginaries: Implications for energy research, policy integration and the
transformation of energy systems. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, Article 101898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101898
Giest, S. (2017). Big data analytics for mitigating carbon emissions in smart cities: Opportunities and challenges. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 941–957. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1294149
Giffinger, R., Kramar, H., Fertner, C., & Meijers, EJ. (2007). City-ranking of European medium-sized cities. In N. Ostergard (Ed.), Futures of Cities (pp. 1-12). IFHP.
Glavič, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1875–1885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2006.12.006
Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical studies of innovation: Alternative approaches to the pro-innovation bias. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/
9781785367229
Gonella, F. (2019). The smart narrative of a smart city. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 1(9), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2019.00009
Grenčíková, A., Kordoš, M., & Berkovic, V. (2020). Impact of industry 4.0 on labor productivity in the Slovak Republic. Business Perspectives, 18(2), 396–408. https://
doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.32
Grimaldi, D., & Fernandez, V. (2019). Performance of an internet of things project in the public sector: The case of nice smart city. Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 30(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2018.12.003
Grybauskas, A., Stefanini, A., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2022). Social sustainability in the age of digitalization: A systematic literature review on the social implications of
industry 4.0. Technology in Society. , Article 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101997
Guillén, M. F., & Suárez, S. L. (2005). Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces, 84
(2), 681–708. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0015
Hajer, M., & Pelzer, P. (2018). 2050 - an energetic Odyssey: Understanding ’Techniques of Futuring’ in the transition towards renewable energy. Energy Research &
Social Science, 44, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.013
Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2019). Imagining the post-fossil city: Why is it so difficult to think of new possible worlds? Territory, Politics, Governance, 7(2), 122–134.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1510339
Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
Hilty, L. M., Köhler, A., Von Schéele, F., Zah, R., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Rebound effects of progress in information technology. Poiesis & Praxis, 4(1), 19–38. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10202-005-0011-2
Hoffmann, C. H., & Dahlinger, A. (2020). How capitalism abolishes itself in the digital era in favour of robo-economic systems: socio-economic implications of
decentralized autonomous self-owned businesses. Foresight, 22, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-03-2019-0014
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-
5
Hoosain, M. S., Paul, B. S., & Ramakrishna, S. (2020). The impact of 4IR digital technologies and circular thinking on the united nations sustainable development
goals. Sustainability (MPDI), 12(23), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310143
Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems:
New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 45–76). MIT Press.
Jeble, S., Kumari, S., Venkatesh, V. G., & Singh, M. (2020). Influence of big data and predictive analytics and social capital on performance of humanitarian supply
chain: Developing framework and future research directions. Benchmarking An International Journal, 27(2), 606–633. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2019-0102
Jones, N. (2018). How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity. Nature, 561(7722), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06610-y
Jorgenson, D. W., Ho, M. S., & Stiroh, K. J. (2008). A retrospective look at the US productivity growth resurgence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1), 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.1.3
Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. L. (2005). General purpose technologies. In P. Aghion, & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth, 1 pp. 1181–1224). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01018-X.
Kadir, B. A., & Broberg, O. (2020). Human well-being and system performance in the transition to industry 4.0. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 76, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102936
Kelly, K. (1997). New rules for the new economy. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/1997/09/newrules/. Accessed September 28, 2022.
Kim, J.-S., & Shin, N. (2019). The impact of blockchain technology application on supply chain partnership and performance. Sustainability (MPDI), 11(21), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216181
King, A., & Pucker, K. (2021). The dangerous allure of win-win strategies. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 19(1), 35–39. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/43648.
Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science Technology & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016224390202700102

14
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Köhler, J., Geels, F., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A. J., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fuenfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G.,
Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J.,
Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Konrad, K., & Palavicino, C. A. (2017). Evolving patterns of governance of, and by, expectations: The graphene hype wave. In D. M. Bowman, E. Stokes, & A. Rip
(Eds.), The Social Embedding New Technologies into Society: A Regulatory, Ethical and Societal Perspective (pp. 187–217). Jenny Stanford Publishing.
Kovacs, O. (2018). The dark corners of industry 4.0 – Grounding economic governance 2.0. Technology in Society, 55, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2018.07.009
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and
psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.9.1017
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2003). Internet paradox revisited. In J. Turow, & A. L. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired
homestead: An Mit Press Sourcebook on the internet and the family, 58 pp. 347–383). MIT Press.
Kshetri, N. (2017). The economics of the internet of things in the global south. Third World Quarterly, 38(2), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01436597.2016.1191942
Kusumastuti, R. D., Nurmala, N., Rouli, J., & Herdiansyah, H. (2022). Analyzing the factors that influence the seeking and sharing of information on the smart city
digital platform: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Technology in Society, 68, Article 101876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101876
La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & De Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations.
Administration & Society, 34(4), 411–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702034004004
Lee, K. (2000). Global sustainable development: Its intellectual and historical roots. In K. Lee, A. Holland, & D. McNeill (Eds.), Global sustainable development in the 21st
century (pp. 31–47). Edinburgh University Press.
Lehrer, M., Banerjee, P. M., & Wang, I. K. (2016). The improvement trajectory of PCR DNA replication and ERP software as general purpose technologies: An
exploratory study of ‘Anchor Technologies’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(3), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1095285
Levy, M. A., Lubell, M. N., & McRoberts, N. (2018). The structure of mental models of sustainable agriculture. Nature Sustainability, 1, 413–420. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-018-0116-y
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science The
International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9, 181–212. https://doi.org/10.28945/479
Martin, B. R. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077
Miller, H. J., & Tolle, K. (2016). Big data for healthy cities: using location-aware technologies, open data and 3D urban models to design healthier built environments.
Built Environment, 42(3), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.42.3.441
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? guidance for authors when choosing
between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(143), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Nathan, L.P., Klasnja, P.V., & Friedman, B. (2007). Value scenarios: A technique for envisioning systemic effects of new technologies. CHI EA ’07: CHI ’07 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA.
Nuccio, M., & Guerzoni, M. (2018). Big data: Hell or heaven? Digital platforms and market power in the data-driven economy. Competition & Change, 23(3), 312–328.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529418816525
Oliner, S. D., & Sichel, D. E. (2000). The resurgence of growth in the late 1990s: is information technology the story? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.4.3
Oomen, J., Hoffman, J., & Hajer, M. A. (2021). Techniques of futuring: On how imagined futures become socially performative. European Journal of Social Theory,
1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020988826
Ortega-Fernández, A., Martín-Rojas, R., & García-Morales, V. J. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the urban environment: Smart cities as models for developing
innovation and sustainability. Sustainability (MPDI), 12(19), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197860
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1172133.
Padyab, A., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2018). Exploring the dimensions of individual privacy concerns in relation to the internet of things use situations. Digital Policy,
Regulation and Governance, 20(6), 528–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-05-2018-0023
Palfrey, J. (2010). Four phases of internet regulation. Social Research An International Quarterly, 77(3), 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2010.0021
Perez, C. (2004). Technological revolutions, paradigm shifts and socio-institutional change. In E. S. Reinert (Ed.), Globalization, economic development and inequality:
An alternative perspective (pp. 217–242). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Perez, C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep051
Pham, T. T., Kuo, T.-C., Tseng, M.-L., Tan, R. R., Tan, K., Ika, D. S., & Lin, C. J. (2019). Industry 4.0 to accelerate the circular economy: A case study of electric scooter
sharing. Sustainability (MPDI), 11(23), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236661
Piscicelli, L. (2023). The sustainability impact of a digital circular economy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 61, 101251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2022.101251.
Plepys, A. (2002). The grey side of ICT. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(5), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00025-2
Polimeni, J. M., & Polimeni, R. I. (2006). Jevons’ paradox and the myth of technological liberation. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecocom.2007.02.008
Popkova, E. G., De Bernardi, P., Tyurina, Y. G., & Sergi, B. S. (2022). A theory of digital technology advancement to address the grand challenges of sustainable
development. Technology in Society, 68, Article 101831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101831
Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. (January-February), 62–77. Retrieved from 〈https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-
value〉. Accessed September 28, 2022.
Rajput, S., & Singh, S. P. (2019). Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 98–113. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.002
Reim, W., Parida, V., & Örtqvist, D. (2015). Product–service systems (PSS) business models and tactics–a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,
97, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.003
Renn, O., Beier, G., & Schweizer, P.-J. (2021). The opportunities and risks of digitalisation for sustainable development: a systemic perspective. GAIA Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society, 30(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.1.6
Sadowski, J., & Bendor, R. (2019). Selling smartness: Corporate narratives and the smart city as a sociotechnical imaginary. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44
(3), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918806061
Schiølin, K. (2020). Revolutionary dreams: Future essentialism and the sociotechnical imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution in Denmark. Social Studies of
Science, 50(4), 542–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719867768
Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.
Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. H. R. (2003). The myth of the paperless office. MIT Press.
Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2014). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City, 18(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.906716.
Sorrell, S. (2009). Jevons’ paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1456–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2008.12.003
Stier, A. C., Samhouri, J. F., Gray, S., Martone, R. G., Mach, M. E., Halpern, B. S., Kappel, C. V., Scarborough, C., & Levin, P. S. (2016). Integrating expert perceptions
into food web conservation and management. Conservation Letters, 10(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12245
Stilwell, F. J. B. (2006). Political economy: The contest of economic ideas. Oxford University Press.

15
M. Mouthaan et al. Futures 149 (2023) 103142

Stock, P., & Burton, R. J. F. (2011). Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability (MPDI), 3, 1090–1113. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su3081090
Sturken, M., Thomas, D., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2004). Technological visions: The hopes and fears that shape new technologies. Temple University Press.
Tewathia, N., Kamath, A., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2020). Social inequalities, fundamental inequities, and recurring of the digital divide: Insights from India. Technology in
Society, 61, Article 101251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101251
Tokareva, M. S., Vishnevskiy, K. O., & Chickhun, L. P. (2018). The impact of the internet of things technologies on economy. Business Informatics, 3(45), 62–78.
https://doi.org/10.17323/1998-0663.2018.3.62.78
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist
and explanation. Annuals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Upadhyay, A., Mukhuty, S., Kumar, V., & Kazancoglu, Y. (2021). Blockchain technology and the circular economy: Implications for sustainability and social
responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126130
Vähäkari, N., Lauttamäki, V., Tapio, P., Ahvenainen, M., Assmuth, T., Lyytimäki, J., & Vehmas, J. (2020). The future in sustainability transitions-Interlinkages
between the multi-level perspective and futures studies. Futures, 123, Article 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102597
Van der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. John Wiley & Sons.
Van der Zeeuw, A., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Jansen, G. (2019). Inequalities in the social use of the internet of things: A capital and skills perspective. New Media &
Society, 21(6), 1344–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818821067
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267673.
Wang, M., & Zhou, T. (2022). Understanding the dynamic relationship between smart city implementation and urban sustainability. Technology in Society. , Article
102018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102018
Wang, P. (2019). On defining artificial intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 10(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/jagi-2019-0002
Wang, S., Cao, A., Wang, G., & Xiao, Y. (2022). The impact of energy poverty on the digital divide: The mediating effect of depression and Internet perception.
Technology in Society, 68, Article 101884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101884
Warf, B. (2013). Global geographies of the internet. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1245-4
Wiig, A. (2015). IBM’s smart city as techno-Utopian policy mobility. City, 19(2–3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2015.1016275
Wiig, A. (2016). The empty rhetoric of the smart city: from digital inclusion to economic promotion in Philadelphia. Urban Geography, 37(4), 535–553. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1065686
Wijers, G. (2010). Determinants of the digital divide: A study on IT development in Cambodia. Technology in Society, 32(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2010.10.011
Winkler, J., & Moser, R. (2016). Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 63–76. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.021
Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S., & Rai, D. P. (2020). A framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of
industry 4.0 and circular economy: An automotive case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120112
York, R. (2006). Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office. Human Ecology Review, 13(2), 143–147. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
24707585.
Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts opinions through Delphi technique. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7275/rrph-t210

16