IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4792-d190833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Sustainability in Information Technologies Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Wilmer Rivas-Asanza

    (Unidad Académica de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Técnica de Machala, Grupos AutoMathTIC y GIDCOWEB, Machala 070222, Ecuador)

  • Jennifer Celleri-Pacheco

    (Unidad Académica de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Técnica de Machala, Grupos AutoMathTIC y GIDCOWEB, Machala 070222, Ecuador)

  • Javier Andrade-Garda

    (Departmento de Computación, Facultad de Informática, Universidade da Coruña, Grupo ISLA, Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Rafael García-Vázquez

    (Departmento de Computación, Facultad de Informática, Universidade da Coruña, Grupo ISLA, Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Virginia Mato-Abad

    (Departmento de Computación, Facultad de Informática, Universidade da Coruña, Grupo ISLA, Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Santiago Rodríguez-Yáñez

    (Departmento de Computación, Facultad de Informática, Universidade da Coruña, Grupo ISLA, Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain)

  • Sonia Suárez-Garaboa

    (Departmento de Computación, Facultad de Informática, Universidade da Coruña, Grupo ISLA, Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain)

Abstract

In the present day, many risk factors affect the continuity of a business. However, this situation produces a conducive atmosphere to approach alternatives that relieve this situation for organizations. Within these alternatives, environmental sustainability (ES) and information technologies governance (IT governance or ITG) stand out. Both alternatives allow organizations to address intrinsically common issues such as strategic alignment, generation of value, mechanisms for performance improvement, risk management and resource management. This article focuses on the fusion of both alternatives, determining to what extent current ITG models consider ES issues. With this purpose, the strategy followed was firstly to identify the relevant factors of ES present in the main approaches of the domain (ISO14001, GRI G4, EMAS, SGE21 and ISO26000). As a result, we identified 27 activities and 103 sub-activities of ES. Next, as the second main objective, we determined which of those factors are present in the main current ITG approaches (COBIT5, ISO38500 and WEILL & ROSS). Finally, we concluded through a quantitative study that COBIT5 is the most sustainable (i.e., the one that incorporates more ES issues) ITG approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilmer Rivas-Asanza & Jennifer Celleri-Pacheco & Javier Andrade-Garda & Rafael García-Vázquez & Virginia Mato-Abad & Santiago Rodríguez-Yáñez & Sonia Suárez-Garaboa, 2018. "Environmental Sustainability in Information Technologies Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4792-:d:190833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4792/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4792/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabio Montobbio & Ilaria Solito, 2018. "Does the Eco‐Management and Audit Scheme Foster Innovation in European Firms?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 82-99, January.
    2. Ali Otarkhani & Sajad Shokouhyar & Sajad Salehi Pour, 2017. "Analyzing the Impact of Governance of Enterprise IT on Hospital Performance: Tehran's (Iran) Hospitals – A Case Study," International Journal of Healthcare Information Systems and Informatics (IJHISI), IGI Global, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Roberto Merli & Michele Preziosi & Christian Ippolito, 2016. "Promoting Sustainability through EMS Application: A Survey Examining the Critical Factors about EMAS Registration in Italian Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Quazi, Hesan A. & Khoo, Yee-Koon & Tan, Chin-Meng & Wong, Poh-Seng, 2001. "Motivation for ISO 14000 certification: development of a predictive model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 525-542, December.
    5. J. David Patón-Romero & Maria Teresa Baldassarre & Mario Piattini & Ignacio García Rodríguez de Guzmán, 2017. "A Governance and Management Framework for Green IT," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Elisa Truant & Laura Corazza & Simone Domenico Scagnelli, 2017. "Sustainability and Risk Disclosure: An Exploratory Study on Sustainability Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, April.
    7. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    8. Dima Jamali, 2008. "A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 213-231, September.
    9. Marco Pesce & Chenyi Shi & Andrea Critto & Xiaohui Wang & Antonio Marcomini, 2018. "SWOT Analysis of the Application of International Standard ISO 14001 in the Chinese Context. A Case Study of Guangdong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Helena Garbarino-Alberti, 2013. "IT Governance and Human Resources Management: A Framework for SMEs," International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP), IGI Global, vol. 4(3), pages 40-57, July.
    11. Christin Seifert, 2018. "The Barriers for Voluntary Environmental Management Systems—The Case of EMAS in Hospitals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    12. Peter Madzík & Pavol Budaj & Anna Chocholáková, 2018. "Practical Experiences with the Application of Corporate Social Responsibility Principles in a Higher Education Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-25, May.
    13. Susie Ruqun Wu & Changliang Shao & Jiquan Chen, 2018. "Approaches on the Screening Methods for Materiality in Sustainability Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Luis Miguel Fonseca & José Pedro Domingues, 2018. "Exploratory Research of ISO 14001:2015 Transition among Portuguese Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    15. Roberto Merli & Michele Preziosi & Ilaria Massa, 2014. "EMAS Regulation in Italian Clusters: Investigating the Involvement of Local Stakeholders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Josefina Fernández-Guadaño & Jesús H. Sarria-Pedroza, 2018. "Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Value Creation from a Stakeholder Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anassaya Chawviang & Supaporn Kiattisin, 2022. "Sustainable Development: Smart Co-Operative Management Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-25, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christin Seifert & Edeltraud Guenther, 2020. "Who cares?—Stakeholder relevance for voluntary environmental management in hospitals," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1786-1799, July.
    2. Agnieszka Ociepa-Kubicka & Iwona Deska & Ewa Ociepa, 2021. "Organizations towards the Evaluation of Environmental Management Tools ISO 14001 and EMAS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Christin Seifert, 2018. "The Barriers for Voluntary Environmental Management Systems—The Case of EMAS in Hospitals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Laura Bravi & Gilberto Santos & Alessandro Pagano & Federica Murmura, 2020. "Environmental management system according to ISO 14001:2015 as a driver to sustainable development," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 2599-2614, November.
    5. Sara Rodriguez-Gomez & Maria Lourdes Arco-Castro & Maria Victoria Lopez-Perez & Lazaro Rodríguez-Ariza, 2020. "Where Does CSR Come from and Where Does It Go? A Review of the State of the Art," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Erlantz Allur & Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria & Olivier Boiral & Francesco Testa, 2018. "Quality and Environmental Management Linkage: A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Fabricio Carlos Schmidt & Roselaine Ruviaro Zanini & André Luis Korzenowski & Reno Schmidt Junior & Karl Benchimol Xavier do Nascimento, 2018. "Evaluation of Sustainability Practices in Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprises in Southern Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    8. Brigitte Hoogendoorn & Daniela Guerra & Peter Zwan, 2015. "What drives environmental practices of SMEs?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 759-781, April.
    9. Veronica Novelli & Paola Geatti & Francesco Bianco & Luciano Ceccon & Stefania Del Frate & Paolo Badin, 2020. "The EMAS Registration of the Livenza Furniture District in the Province of Pordenone (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, January.
    10. De Prins, Peggy & Van Beirendonck, Lou & De Vos, Ans & Segers, Jesse, 2014. "Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model," management revue. Socio-economic Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 25(4), pages 263-284.
    11. Ionut Viorel Herghiligiu & Ioan-Bogdan Robu & Marius Pislaru & Adrian Vilcu & Anca Laura Asandului & Silvia Avasilcăi & Catalin Balan, 2019. "Sustainable Environmental Management System Integration and Business Performance: A Balance Assessment Approach Using Fuzzy Logic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-30, September.
    12. Dominik Zimon & Jonah Tyan & Robert Sroufe, 2019. "Implementing Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Reactive, Cooperative, and Dynamic Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-22, December.
    13. Maria Giovanna Confetto & Maddalena Della Volpe & Claudia Covucci, 2018. "Dual marketers and sustainability communication. Empirical evidence from corporate websites," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 41-68.
    14. Lei Wang & Heikki Juslin, 2013. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Chinese Forest Industry: Understanding Multiple Stakeholder Perceptions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 129-145, May.
    15. Thaís Vieira Nunhes & Merce Bernardo & Otávio José de Oliveira, 2020. "Rethinking the Way of Doing Business: A Reframe of Management Structures for Developing Corporate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, February.
    16. Seonggoo Ji & Ihsan Ullah Jan, 2019. "The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Frontline Employee’s Emotional Labor Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Luis Fonseca & Filipe Carvalho, 2019. "The Reporting of SDGs by Quality, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety-Certified Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    18. Bambang Sutopo & Sebastian Kot & Arum Kusumaningdyah Adiati & Lina Nur Ardila, 2018. "Sustainability Reporting and Value Relevance of Financial Statements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Katelin Opferkuch & Sandra Caeiro & Roberta Salomone & Tomás B. Ramos, 2021. "Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: A review of organisational approaches," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 4015-4036, December.
    20. Brigitte Hoogendoorn & Peter van der Zwan & Daniela Guerra, 2014. "What drives environmental practices of SMEs?," Scales Research Reports H201405, EIM Business and Policy Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4792-:d:190833. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.