IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p761-d1570542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital Drivers and Challenges in Sustainable Enterprise Strategies: An Analysis of Information Capabilities, Motivations, and Environmental Practices—Insights from France

Author

Listed:
  • Ernesto Quisbert-Trujillo

    (Institute of Engineering, University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France)

  • Helmi Ben Rejeb

    (Institute of Engineering, University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France)

Abstract

Digitalization is reshaping the landscape of sustainability in enterprises by enhancing information flows within socio-technical systems and enabling more informed decision-making through advanced communication and data capabilities. However, while digitalization creates opportunities to adopt environmental practices and deploying sustainable strategies, it also introduces complexities and challenges. This study examines the information-centered drivers of digitalization that push enterprises toward sustainable practices, such as technological advancements and the increased demand for transparency, while identifying challenges, including integration costs, technological readiness, and managerial hesitation. Using a multidimensional framework that combines capabilities, environmental practices, and motivations, we provide insights into how technology can both support and challenge sustainability efforts in industry. Our aim is to introduce a methodology to guide the development of strategies for facilitating environmental transitions of enterprises. Within the context of informational capabilities, this scoping review identifies two environmental archetypes—spontaneity and planning—that represent common workforce mindsets toward sustainability. It also classifies universal practices and motivations, with associations being validated through a focus group of members from a French industrial consortium, which also facilitates understanding how digitalized capabilities impact environmental actions and behavioral dynamics. The key findings reveal that while digital communication capabilities significantly enhance the return on investment for environmental practices, barriers remain, such as insufficient alignment of digital tools with sustainable outcomes and variable technology access across industries. The results also underscore the role of product-data and sensor-based analytics in reducing environmental impacts, inviting a further exploration of digitalization’s role in sustainability within the frameworks of behavioral and organizational theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernesto Quisbert-Trujillo & Helmi Ben Rejeb, 2025. "Digital Drivers and Challenges in Sustainable Enterprise Strategies: An Analysis of Information Capabilities, Motivations, and Environmental Practices—Insights from France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-24, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:761-:d:1570542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/761/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/761/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 23-46, Spring.
    2. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    3. Antonella Zucchella & Pietro Previtali & Roger Strange, 2022. "Proactive and reactive views in the transition towards circular business models. A grounded study in the plastic packaging industry," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 1073-1102, September.
    4. Richard Arend, 2014. "Social and Environmental Performance at SMEs: Considering Motivations, Capabilities, and Instrumentalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 541-561, December.
    5. Diego A. Vazquez & Catherine Liston‐Heyes, 2008. "Corporate discourse and environmental performance in Argentina," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 179-193, March.
    6. María De la Cruz Del Río-Rama & José Álvarez-García & Cristiana Oliveira, 2018. "Environmental Practices. Motivations and Their Influence on the Level of Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Benjamin Richardson, 2009. "Keeping Ethical Investment Ethical: Regulatory Issues for Investing for Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(4), pages 555-572, July.
    8. Pereverza, Kateryna & Pasichnyi, Oleksii & Kordas, Olga, 2019. "Modular participatory backcasting: A unifying framework for strategic planning in the heating sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 123-134.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Adhikari, Ajay & Bansal, Manish & Kumar, Ashish, 2021. "IFRS convergence and accounting quality: India a case study," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Marcus Wagner & Patrick Llerena, 2008. "Drivers for sustainability-related innovation: A Qualitative analysis of renewable resources, industrial products and travel services," Working Papers of BETA 2008-22, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Jan-Erik Vahlne & Jan Johanson, 2017. "From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(9), pages 1087-1102, December.
    4. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    5. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    6. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.
    7. Sandra Silva & Jorge Valente & Aurora Teixeira, 2012. "An evolutionary model of industry dynamics and firms’ institutional behavior with job search, bargaining and matching," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 7(1), pages 23-61, May.
    8. Ahlin, Lina & Andersson, Martin & Schubert , Torben, 2013. "Implementing an R&D Strategy without Prior R&D-Experience Recruitment as a Source of R&D-related Routines and Capabilities?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2013/3, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Hwan Jin Kim, 2018. "Reconciling Entrepreneurial Orientation and Dynamic Capabilities: A Strategic Entrepreneurship Perspective," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 27(2), pages 180-208, September.
    10. Patrícia Tourais & Nuno Videira, 2024. "Sustainability transition strategies in a business context: A co‐creation process in the Portuguese hospitality sector," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 600-628, January.
    11. Joseph T. Mahoney & Anita M. McGahan & Christos N. Pitelis, 2009. "Perspective ---The Interdependence of Private and Public Interests," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(6), pages 1034-1052, December.
    12. Bhimani, Hardik & Mention, Anne-Laure & Barlatier, Pierre-Jean, 2019. "Social media and innovation: A systematic literature review and future research directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 251-269.
    13. Yueping Du & Huanhuan Wang, 2022. "Green Innovation Sustainability: How Green Market Orientation and Absorptive Capacity Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Linda Argote & Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ---40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 337-349, June.
    15. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo, 2007. "Perspective---On the Evolutionary and Behavioral Theories of Organizations: A Tentative Roadmap," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 491-502, June.
    16. Pradeep Kanta Ray & Sangeeta Ray & Vikas Kumar, 2017. "Internationalization of latecomer firms from emerging economies—The role of resultant and autonomous learning," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 851-873, December.
    17. Teppo Felin & Nicolai J. Foss, 2004. "Organizational Routines A Sceptical Look," DRUID Working Papers 04-13, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    18. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    19. Owais Khan & Tiberio Daddi & Fabio Iraldo, 2020. "The role of dynamic capabilities in circular economy implementation and performance of companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 3018-3033, November.
    20. Wagner, Marcus, 2010. "The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1553-1560, May.

    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:17:y:2025:i:2:p:761-:d:1570542. 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.