Green Enterprise Architecture (GREAN)—Leveraging EA for Environmentally Sustainable Digital Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of this article is to provide insight into digital transformation (DT) and its role in environmental sustainability (ES). ES involves taking actions that reduce negative environmental impacts, conserve resources, and contribute to a healthier planet. As a matter of fact, DTs involve “simultaneous challenges and opportunities,” (line 82) because of their integrating sustainability strategies into DTs roadmaps which can reduce firms’ environmental impact while also achieving cost savings and enhancing their reputation among stakeholders but imply also environmental pressures. Carbon footprint and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions are especially being questionable considered the nowadays worldwide need for transition towards climate-neutrality.

To ensure that digital technologies deliver on their environmental promise, organizations and individuals must then consider a holistic approach that includes i. energy efficiency, ii. responsible consumption, iii. sustainable design, and iv. proper waste management. By adopting and promoting environmentally conscious practices, digital technologies can contribute positively to environmental sustainability as highlighted in reference [1]. In the business sector this challenge is mainly expressed through the so-called environmental footprint (EF), that is a measure of “the environmental consequences of the activities a company performs.” (See lines 53-54). Concern to this matter is expressed in the paper as referred to in the European Council, which has proposed countermeasures to limit the GHG emissions in ICT (Information and Communication Technology).

The Enterprise Architecture (EA) approach is a relatively new field of research that aims to steer the change in an organization, and it is also mentioned in this paper for its attempt to ensure “enterprise coherence” in relation to “strategic resource decisions into an organisational blueprint.” It refers then to the systematic design and integration of environmentally sustainable practices, technologies, and strategies within an organization’s operations, processes, and structures. Green EA capabilities imply that the organization has developed the knowledge, skills, technologies, and frameworks to effectively plan, design, and implement environmentally friendly initiatives. Other studies are then mentioned to illustrate the components of an efficient decision-making performance in the field of ES.

Section 2. Background and related work focus is on a google search related to ES, DT, and EA. Generalized Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (GERAM) proposed by Bernus et al. in 2003, is at the core of EM (Environmental Management) when thinking of DT in the field of ES especially because of the integration of the digital with ISs (Information Systems). Pursuing new CoAs (Courses of Actions) the firms may explore and adopt innovative approaches to address environmental challenges and enhance sustainability.

The authors suggest therefore in line with reference [2] which focuses on non-substitutional (VRIN) firm resources are particularly relevant for firms to obtain high levels of firm innovativeness, that an organization with strong Green EA capabilities has the ability to develop and implement new strategies or actions that contribute to ES. These strategies could involve adopting eco-friendly practices, reducing carbon emissions, conserving energy and water, minimizing waste, supporting renewable energy sources, and more. By leveraging its environmental architecture capabilities, the organization is empowered to make positive contributions to environmental sustainability through innovative and effective CoAs.

The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) is a strategic management framework and performance measurement tool that extends the traditional Balanced Scorecard (BSC) methodology to include environmental, social, and ethical considerations. It aims to help organizations effectively manage and measure their sustainability efforts in addition to their financial performance. The SBSC provides a comprehensive approach to aligning sustainability goals with overall business strategies and tracking progress over time.

The traditional Balanced Scorecard (BS) framework includes four perspectives: i. Financial, ii. Customer, iii. Internal Processes, and iv. Learning and Growth. The SBSC adds additional perspectives to capture sustainability-related aspects, that is a. Environmental Perspective, focusing on environmental sustainability, including areas such as resource conservation, emissions reduction, waste management, energy efficiency, and sustainable practices; b. Social Perspective, it addresses social responsibility and impact, covering areas like employee well-being, community engagement, diversity and inclusion, human rights, and social contributions, and c. Ethical Perspective, it emphasizes ethical business practices, governance, transparency, and adherence to ethical standards and guidelines. The SBSC translates an organization’s sustainability strategy into actionable objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs), and targets within each of these perspectives. It provides a holistic view of the organization's performance, allowing decision-makers to evaluate not only financial outcomes but also the organization's impact on the environment, society, and ethical considerations. See Section 3. Method.

The specific SCoAs the authors choose at pages 17‒20 to implement depend on the organization’s context, goals, and resources. It is also important to regularly assess the effectiveness of the chosen SCoAs and make adjustments as needed to ensure continuous progress towards the intersection of DT and ES. In addition, the following actions reflect a proactive approach to CBM (Capability-Based Management)—that is (SCoA7) Raise awareness of environmental consequences, (SCoA8) include environmental awareness in the hiring processes, and (SCoA9) invest in Green IS/ICT capabilities, and (SCoA10) adopt the practice of CBM and the use of ES-aware business capability modelling—where capabilities are intentionally developed and aligned with the organization’s broader strategic goals, including environmental responsibility and sustainability. See Section 4 Artefact design and development, at pages 17‒21. There are a few additional considerations the authors might want to include further:

·        (SCoA11) Adopt Sustainable Digital Practices: This involves integrating sustainability principles into digital processes, such as energy-efficient data centers, green computing, and using renewable energy sources to power digital operations.

·        (SCoA12) Develop Green Digital Products and Services: Create digital products and services that directly contribute to environmental sustainability, such as IoT solutions for energy monitoring, smart transportation systems, or eco-friendly apps.

·        (SCoA13) Collaborate with Suppliers for Sustainability: Extend sustainability efforts to your supply chain by partnering with suppliers who share similar environmental values and practices.

·        (SCoA14) Establish a Circular Digital Economy: Explore ways to design, produce, and use digital products in a circular economy model, focusing on reducing waste, reusing components, and recycling materials.

·        (SCoA15) Monitor and Minimize Digital Carbon Footprint: Implement tools and methodologies to measure the environmental impact of your digital operations and take steps to minimize carbon emissions.

·        (SCoA16) Invest in Green Technologies: Allocate resources to research and adopt emerging green technologies that align with your digital transformation objectives and environmental sustainability goals.

·        (SCoA17) Engage Employees in Digital Sustainability: Educate and involve employees in understanding the environmental implications of digital technologies and encourage them to contribute ideas for sustainable practices.

·        (SCoA18) Implement Smart Energy Management: Utilize digital solutions to optimize energy consumption in company facilities, data centers, and other digital infrastructure.

·        (SCoA19) Participate in Industry Initiatives: Join industry associations and collaborations focused on promoting sustainable digital practices and collectively advancing environmental goals.

In the context of an Environmental Sustainability (ES)-aware business capability modeling approach, the following terms—Strategy Courses of Action (SCoA), Business Courses of Action (BCoA), Data Courses of Action (DCoA), Application Courses of Action (ACoA), and Technology Courses of Action (TCoA)—represent different levels of actions and decisions that an organization can take to integrate ES considerations into its business capabilities. They are also synthesized in Table 4. Overview of the proposed courses of action (CoAs) at lines 1177‒78. This Table, together with Table 5. Overview of the proposed Green EA capabilities, their definitions… at pp. 30‒33, represents a synthesis of how to build EA capabilities in the proposed CoAs. Figure 3 at page 33 shows a conceptual map for building the necessary capabilities to include ES into DTs.

Here are how the concepts differ:

·        Strategy Courses of Action (SCoA): SCoAs are high-level strategic decisions that guide an organization's overall approach to environmental sustainability. These decisions involve setting the direction, goals, and priorities related to ES. SCoAs outline the broader strategies that the organization will pursue to embed sustainability into its core operations. Examples of SCoAs could include developing a sustainability vision, adopting green supply chain practices, or becoming carbon-neutral.

·        Business Courses of Action (BCoA): BCoAs are more specific actions taken at the business process or functional level to implement the ES strategy. They focus on how different business units or functions contribute to the organization's ES goals. BCoAs could involve redesigning production processes to reduce waste, implementing energy-efficient practices, or promoting sustainable product development.

·        Data Courses of Action (DCoA): DCoAs involve decisions related to data collection, analysis, and reporting for ES purposes. These actions determine what data to collect, how to measure environmental impacts, and how to report progress towards sustainability goals. DCoAs ensure that accurate and relevant data is available to support ES initiatives and decision-making.

·        Application Courses of Action (ACoA): ACoAs pertain to the selection, development, and deployment of software applications that enable ES-related processes and activities. These actions focus on choosing or creating applications that support sustainability efforts, such as environmental impact assessment tools, carbon footprint calculators, or sustainability reporting platforms.

·        Technology Courses of Action (TCoA): TCoAs involve decisions related to the technology infrastructure and systems needed to enable ES-aware operations. This includes selecting and implementing technology solutions, such as renewable energy systems, smart sensors for resource monitoring, or cloud-based platforms for data analysis.

In an ES-aware business capability modeling approach, these different levels of actions interact to create a cohesive and integrated strategy for achieving environmental sustainability. The higher-level SCoAs guide the overall direction, while the more specific BCoAs, DCoAs, ACoAs, and TCoAs provide the detailed implementation steps to operationalize the strategy at various levels of the organization. This approach ensures that sustainability considerations are embedded throughout the organization's capabilities, processes, and technologies. Successive Figures 4 and 5 show critical points of EA and an evaluation through a colored bulleting at example of capabilities. In their Section 5. Discussion the authors discuss case contexts enhance the Circular Economy Enterprise Architecture Framework proposed by Laumann & Tambo in 2018, which is a conceptual framework designed to guide organizations in adopting and implementing circular economy principles within their business operations.

This framework helps organizations transition from a linear, resource-intensive economic model to a circular one, where resources are used more efficiently, waste is minimized, and products are designed for longevity and multiple life cycles.

The framework shown in the proposed examples emphasizes how engaging stakeholders may create a shared vision and drive collective action towards the measurement of environmental impact and “to consciously and continuously improve” ES features. Limitations of this study are finally included in sub-section 5.3 to point out that real-world case studies to determine the EA and related CBM value and effectiveness in a DTs business environment are needed by combining business capability mapping with selected CoAs.

 

CHANGES REQUEST:

 

·         Which are the most important EA (Enterprise Architecture) capabilities and why?

·         How may be synthesized “the idea of ES-aware business capability modelling” you mention at lines 1415‒18?

·         What is CODES (Coalition for Digital Environmental Sustainability)? Is that a way to meet the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SD) and address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste?

·         Which way the combined digital and sustainability transformations may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with LP (liquefied petroleum) gas burning and contribute to decarbonization in the energy, materials, and mobility sectors?

·         Why notwithstanding Digital technologies (DTs)’ proven impacts, organizations have insufficient urgency around their adoption to accelerate decarbonization and emissions reduction goals? See reference [3].

MINOR CHANGES:

·         IS (Information Systems) must be solved first time it appears at line 234 of the main body,

·         Please check the weblink misprint at lines 475‒76,

·         Is EA “environmental architecture” or “enterprise architecture”? Please clear the point to your audience,

·         Please clear to whom is intended your proposed Strategy Courses of Action (SCoA),

·         Lines 582‒3, please check the space and starting word of the third sentence pag. 17 that is not in capital letter,

·         Line 586, please provide the extended PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for a better understanding of what is this acronym,   

·         There is a left dot at starting paragraph line 655. Please check and align the paragraph,

·         Line 1302, the referenced Table number is missing. Please check the misprint at this draft version,

·         Line 1323, the referenced Figure number is missing. Please check the misprint at this draft version,

·         Line 1336, the referenced Figure number is missing. Please check the misprint at this draft version.

 

Kind Regards,

 

References mentioned in the review:

[3] Samuel, G.; Lucivero, F.; Somavilla, L. The Environmental Sustainability of Digital Technologies: Stakeholder Practices and Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073791

[2] van de Wetering, R.; Hendrickx, T.; Brinkkemper, S.; Kurnia, S. The Impact of EA-Driven Dynamic Capabilities, Innovativeness, and Structure on Organizational Benefits: A Variance and fsQCA Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5414. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105414

[1] MIT Technology Review Insights. Digital technology: The backbone of a net-zero emissions future. pp. 1‒24. Retrieved on August 27, 2023 from: MITTR-Shell_final_08march23.pdf (technologyreview.com).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your comprehensive feedback and insightful questions on our manuscript. We have taken the time to meticulously address each of your remarks. For your convenience, we've attached a document detailing our responses and noting the specific actions we have taken based on your feedback. Furthermore, any alterations made in the manuscript are highlighted in green for easy identification.

Thank you once again for your constructive critique, which has undoubtedly enriched our work.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A very comprehensive article. The authors do not use any quantitative methods, there are no results of their own research in the text. Review article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper and provide feedback. We are sorry to read that your take on the contribution and value of the study is not aligned with our view.

We would like to clarify the methodological choice for our study. The paper is rooted in Design Science Research (DSR), as presented by [1] and [2], which inherently focuses on developing innovative artifacts and solutions to existing problems. As such, our primary method is not quantitative but rather constructive, aiming to synthesize existing contributions reviewed from the literature review and propose a novel framework based on our interpretation and analysis of these contributions - the Green EA - to address the underemphasized integration of Environmental Sustainability (ES) into Digital Transformation (DT) initiatives.

 

We would further like to advocate the following results provided by our framework which are novel contributions to the state-of-the-art in EA

• Integration and Representation: Our paper consolidates fragmented literature to present a new representation, a first step in making theoretical insights actionable for organizations. We curated extensive literature into CoAs, offering organizations a tangible starting point for integrating ES insights. This translation from academic knowledge to a pragmatic strategy is another significant step towards bridging the gap between theory and practice.
• Applying existing methods in a novel way: Utilizing CBM, our Green EA framework provides a tool that allows organizations to align their DT strategies with sustainable practices, providing a practical roadmap for businesses.
• ES-aware Business Capability Modelling Approach: This novel approach leverages traditional capability mapping and is both innovative and pragmatic, allowing businesses to actively measure and report on their environmental commitments.

In light of the above, while our paper does not employ quantitative methods or present new empirical findings, it provides a fresh perspective, actionable insights, and a novel framework for integrating DT and ES. Our aim was to propose a structure that organizations could adopt to seamlessly integrate sustainability considerations in their DT endeavors. We hope this clarifies the nature and intent of our research.

Best regards,

The authors

 

[1] Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. In Source: MIS Quarterly (Vol. 28, Issue 1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148625

[2] Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–335. http://www.misq.org

Reviewer 3 Report

Due to my professional background, there is more usial for me dealing with works, the evidence part of which is based on mathematical models or econometric methods.

This text is verbal and descriptive. It undoubtedly contains valuable reflections and recommendations regarding the integration of the problems of the digital economy and environmental sustainability (ES),

However, the evidentiary part of the study objectively remains within the scope of speculative qualitative reasoning. Perhaps the authors should have formulated the term environmental sustainability (ES) more clearly and strictly.

I willingly admit that these considerations and recommendations may be useful for specialists in the field of green economy and sustainable development.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your detailed feedback and the perspective you brought to this review, rooted in your professional background. We understand that our paper's qualitative and descriptive nature differs from the quantitative, mathematical, or econometric approaches you might be more familiar with.

Your feedback highlights an essential aspect of multidisciplinary research. While quantitative approaches offer precise evidence in many fields, qualitative research can often present comprehensive insights, especially when addressing novel and complex interdisciplinary challenges, such as integrating digital economy considerations with environmental sustainability (ES) and Enterprise Architecture.

Regarding your suggestion about the clearer formulation of the term 'environmental sustainability (ES)', we recognize the importance of clear definitions. We have added multiple clarifications to the paper (which are highlighted) and hope this will improve the clarity of our work.

We value your acknowledgment that our considerations and recommendations might be beneficial for specialists in the field of the green economy and sustainable development. It is indeed our intention to contribute to this field and bridge the current gaps with actionable insights.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. Yours and the feedback of the other reviewers helped us to refine our work and cater to a broader academic audience, which is always a challenge when working across multiple disciplines.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Article - Green Enterprise Architecture (GREAN) - Leveraging EA for environmentally sustainable digital transformation

 

1.      What is the primary focus of this paper in relation to digital transformations and environmental sustainability?

2.      What is the concept of "Green Enterprise Architecture" and how does it address the gap between digital transformations and environmental sustainability?

3.      How does the paper propose bridging the gap between academic research and practical implementation when it comes to integrating Enterprise Architecture and Environmental Sustainability?

4.      How Courses of Action are related to the different layers of an organization?

5.      What is the significance of Capability-based Management in the context of the proposed Green Enterprise Architecture?

6.      How does ES-aware business capability modelling approach combine business capability mapping with Courses of Action?

7.      How can organizations utilize the proposed Green Enterprise Architecture framework to enhance their environmental sustainability efforts during digital transformations?

8.      What are the limitations of this study, and how could future research address these limitations?

9.      In what ways can the proposed artefact be useful for organizations that are at different stages of their journey towards environmental sustainability?

10.   Can you discuss the potential benefits and challenges of using the proposed Green EA framework in real-world organizational contexts?

11.   How does the paper recommend that organizations approach the integration of environmental sustainability strategies into their digital transformation initiatives?

12.   Justify how the Green EA capability map can be utilized by organizations to assess and improve their environmental impact?

13.   How does the paper address the gap between theoretical concepts of green practices and their practical execution within the business layer of an organization?

14.   Discuss the potential role of the proposed artefact in guiding organizations toward becoming "green" companies?

15.   What is the primary contribution of this paper to both academia and practitioners in the field of digital transformation and environmental sustainability?

16.   Few lines at the end of the “Introduction” needs more clarity

17.   Highlight the applications and utility of the work, what is novel in this study.

18.   Line no: 428- Error! Reference source not found.

19.   Line no: 475- Error! Reference source not found.

 

20.   Conclusions section: it can be improved and expanded by indicating the critical aspects of this analysis and how it can be improved in the future.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your comprehensive feedback and insightful questions on our manuscript. We have taken the time to meticulously address each of your remarks. For your convenience, we've attached a document detailing our responses and noting the specific actions we have taken based on your feedback. Furthermore, any alterations made in the manuscript are highlighted in green for easy identification.

Thank you once again for your constructive critique, which has undoubtedly enriched our work.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I am glad of your feedback to my reviewing comments. I have read an amended paper that, even if it is still a bit long, is interesting and well performed both graphically and conceptually.

Furthermore, I recommend you to inquiry deeply in your preferred topic and arise its empirical potential next future. 

With Best Regards, 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words and positive feedback on our revised paper. We genuinely appreciated your constructive remarks in the previous review round and are pleased to hear that you find the paper both interesting and well-executed.

Your recommendation to delve deeper into the topic and explore its empirical potential is well-taken. We value this guidance and will certainly consider it as we continue our research journey in this domain.

Once again, thank you for your time and invaluable insights.

With Best Regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is very extensive, perhaps the authors will consider dividing it into smaller parts and publishing it in fragments in subsequent issues of the journal.

Basically, the work meets the requirements set for it. The authors conducted thorough literature studies in the examined field. This is supported by appropriate footnotes. The charts are well described and present the relevant content discussed in the article.

For me, the only complaint is the number of pages - definitely too many, but I leave the final decision about publication to the editor. As I wrote, the article is too long for me, but that doesn't stop me from giving it a positive rating

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback and the positive rating on our work. We genuinely appreciate your time and consideration in once again reviewing our paper.

We understand and acknowledge your point regarding the length of the article, but we feel that the length is justified for several reasons. First, our aim was to provide a comprehensive and holistic view of the Green EA framework. Breaking it up into smaller parts might result in a fragmented representation which, we believe, may undermine the presentation of GREAN as a cohesive artefact. Our intent is for readers to consider all layers of the organization and related all the elements within the framework, which is best understood in its entirety.

Furthermore, given the target audience of the sustainability journal, our detailed framing of Capability-Based-Management and EA is essential. This ensures that a wider audience, potentially unfamiliar with EA, can engage with our work meaningfully. The exhaustive literature review we have undertaken serves a dual purpose: firstly, to present readers with a consolidated view of the existing body of knowledge, and secondly, to establish a solid foundation for our proposed framework. While we recognize that subsequent research should delve deeper into specific domains/layers and can do this in a more fragmented way, providing first the broader context of the framework remains essential.

Lastly, our inclusion of the illustrative case at the end again adds some additional body to the paper. We aimed at grounding the theory in a real-world scenario for better comprehension and we believe this enhances the applicability and usability of our proposed framework, justifying this additional section.

While we are confident that each section of our paper adds value and offers a more complete picture to our readers, we naturally respect the editorial process and trust the editor's judgment in making the final decision.

Once again, thank you for your insightful feedback throughout the process as it helped us to improve the quality of the paper.

Best regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept in the present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment. We appreciate your time and feedback throughout the review process.

Best regards,

The authors.