systems
Article
The Enabling Role of Digital Technologies in Sustainability
Accounting: Findings from Norwegian Manufacturing Companies
Olena Klymenko
, Lise Lillebrygfjeld Halse *
and Bjørn Jæger
Faculty of Logistics, Molde University College—Specialized University in Logistics, P.O. Box 2110,
NO-6402 Molde, Norway; olena.klymenko@himolde.no (O.K.); bjorn.jager@himolde.no (B.J.)
* Correspondence: lise.l.halse@himolde.no
Citation: Klymenko, O.;
Lillebrygfjeld Halse, L.; Jæger, B. The
Enabling Role of Digital Technologies
Abstract: Sustainability accounting is an emerging research area receiving growing awareness.
This study examines the role of digital technology in manufacturing companies’ sustainability
accounting. To guide the research, we use a triple layered business model canvas, which supports
the accounting of a manufacturer’s performance for the economic, environmental, and social aspects
of sustainability. We present an explorative case study of four Norwegian manufacturing companies
representing different industries. The findings from the study indicate that while accounting for
economic values is well taken care of, companies do not perform comprehensive environmental and
social accounting. Furthermore, we observed a shift from a focus on sustainability issues related
to the internal manufacturing process to a focus on sustainability issues for the life cycle of the
product. Even though the manufacturers are at the forefront with regard to automation and control
of production, with extensive use of robots giving a large amount of data, these data are not utilized
towards sustainability accounting, showing that sustainability and digitalization are seen as two
separate phenomena. This study sheds light on how digital data available from applied Industry 4.0
technologies could enhance sustainability accounting with limited efforts, linking sustainability and
digitalization. The results provide insights for manufacturers and researchers in moving towards
more sustainable operations and products.
in Sustainability Accounting:
Findings from Norwegian
Manufacturing Companies. Systems
2021, 9, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Keywords: sustainability accounting; manufacturing; digitalization; triple layered business
model canvas
systems9020033
Academic Editor: Andrea Bacchetti
Received: 31 March 2021
Accepted: 6 May 2021
Published: 10 May 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
Sustainability and digitalization are two terms that have gained increased attention
since they represent potential transforming forces of businesses and society. Sustainability
is a radical transformation toward a sustainable society [1,2] and has moved from being
a regulative pressure from the surroundings and a corporate buzzword to becoming a
concept that businesses have to relate to and implement in their activities. The growing
focus toward sustainability is evident in the UN Sustainability Agenda [3], followed by
national and international laws and regulations such as the EU Green Deal [4]. Furthermore, in addition to financial accounting and management accounting, businesses start
to incorporate environmental and social sustainability variables, which is supported by
a variety of approaches—the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) [5], ISO certificates [6],
internal control regulations [7], and regulations for corporate social responsibility reporting
in accounting [8].
Manufacturing companies now need to respond to the demand for sustainability by
the market and society at large. Manufacturing industries are here referred to as industries that use highly equipped machines and digital instruments that are helpful in the
industries’ production. These industries work with large machinery, digital and complex
mechanical instruments, drills and cranes, and other heavy transport equipment and appliances [9]. It is crucial for these industries to handle waste that can have hazardous
effects on the environment. The manufacturing sector is a cornerstone of the economy
Systems 2021, 9, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9020033
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/systems
Systems 2021, 9, 33
2 of 20
and is crucial to sustainable economic growth but is bound by a tradition where change is
slow and costly [10,11]. Furthermore, manufacturers must make decisions that incorporate
sustainability factors at strategic, tactical, and operational levels [12]. To accommodate for
this, manufacturers experience an increased need for reliable data for (a) external reporting and (b) internal decision-making in their move toward more sustainable operations
and products.
Accounting for sustainability has been receiving growing attention in the literature [12–14], supported by new requirements and regulations that will be introduced
in the future [4]. While financial accounting is a well-established system of businesses,
there is a lack of research on accounting across environmental and social dimensions of
sustainability [15]. Environmental accounting includes various indicators from energy, materials, water, waste, and emissions, while societal accounting incorporates multiple effects
for stakeholders and local communities [16]. The fourth industrial revolution enhanced
innovation in materials and manufacturing, creating a new environment for technology development for data collection and processing [17,18]. The digitalization of manufacturing
operations can provide data and information for sustainability accounting systems, facilitating decision-making and enabling more sustainable business processes [19]. Industry
4.0 is considered a framework that can facilitate companies achieving sustainability goals.
However, although a range of studies has recently been conducted to investigate the role
of Industry 4.0 in enabling sustainable operations [20,21], they are not directed to the topic
of sustainability accounting. Hence, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of digital technologies in accounting for environmental and societal parameters. Tiwari and Khan [22]
indicate that there is minimal empirical evidence on the adoption of Industry 4.0 enabling
technologies for supporting sustainability accounting. Furthermore, Burritt and Christ [12]
highlight the need to investigate the Industry 4.0 potential for environmental accounting.
This paper responds to these needs by presenting an explorative case study investigating how manufacturers approach sustainability accounting. The research is guided by the
following research questions (RQs)—RQ1: How are manufacturing companies accounting
for economic, environmental, and social values? RQ2: To what extent do they apply digital
technologies to support economic, environmental, and social accounting? The RQs are
addressed through in-depth case studies of four companies using a triple layered business
model canvas (TLBMC) [2] to guide the investigation.
The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. Section 2 presents the background and rationale for sustainability accounting as established by other researchers.
Section 3 presents the research method and case study; followed by a discussion in
Section 4; and conclusions, limitations, and directions for future research in Section 5.
2. Literature
2.1. Sustainability and Sustainability Accounting
Sustainability is frequently referred to as “development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability to future generations to meet their own
needs” [23]. An overwhelming amount of information indicates that we are now living in
the Anthropocene—an era in which “human actions have become the main driver of global
environmental change” [24]. To move toward more sustainable operations and make the
necessary changes, we must be able to account for the effects of the problematic aspects of
human actions. Despite the long-lasting attention paid to sustainability, the move toward a
sustainable society is slow, proving that the transformation into sustainable operations is a
challenging task. This has prompted the emergence of social and environmental accounting
focusing on “the impact organizations have on society and the ecology” [25].
In the 1970s, the first wave of corporate sustainability in the form of social reports
from Western companies emerged, but later lost its momentum [26]. In the late 1980s, however, reporting on environmental issues gained increased awareness [27]. Since then, the
literature has grown substantially, and with increasing attention to sustainability, reporting
social and environmental dimensions of corporate activities has become common [26].
Systems 2021, 9, 33
3 of 20
Beggington and Larrinaga [25] claim, however, that external sustainable reporting
has often had little to do with sustainable development, indicating a decoupling between
reporting and the realities. In other words, external sustainable development reporting may
be more or less consciously used to portray organizations as being more concerned about
sustainability while instead running business as usual [28]. Similarly, accounting literature
has lost its connection with social and ecological concerns. Consequently, Bebbington and
Larrinaga call for a (re)envisaging of the intellectual roots of accounting for sustainable
development so that sustainable development accounting is more in line with sustainable
development thinking [25].
Tiwari and Khan [22] describe sustainable accounting and reporting as a “framework
for defining sustainability variables based on the triple bottom line model (TBLM), defining
and implementing measurement techniques, and reporting the actual status of the variables
in the public reports by a company” ([22] p. 1). The sustainability accounting and reporting
framework includes standards in line with the TBLM. However, reliable and valid measurement approaches of these variables have been difficult to establish in the industries [12,29].
Burritt and Christ [12] report that companies may lack the technology for collecting timely
and appropriate data, which could undermine the credibility of environmental efforts and
open channels for greenwashing accusations [30–32]. Burritt and Christ [12] claim that
to meet the “environmental imperative of the future” ([12] p. 27), companies need better
information technology and richer information.
While financial accounting has evolved over several centuries, hence providing a
detailed view of companies’ financial operations, accounting systems for environmental
operations and social values are, however, still under development [33].
The data collected through sustainable accounting may have several purposes. By
collecting these data, companies present their status and maturity regarding environmental
and social values to external actors [34]. Based on sustainable accounting data, internal
decisions on operations can be optimized to focus on sustainability goals—maintenance,
re-use, and remanufacturing—and recycling goals—reduction of material consumption,
greenhouse gas emissions, and waste [12,35]. Furthermore, the data provide important
input in a company’s strategic process, thus enabling decision-making toward sustainable
business models [36–38].
The point of departure of this study is the fundamental need for organizations to
change to more sustainable operations [39,40]. Sustainability accounting and associated
tools help organizations to assess their impact on the environment in which they operate [26].
Even though sustainability accounting tools have been present for several decades, there is,
according to Burritt and Christ [12], “a lack of appropriate data, or the technology to collect
appropriate data” ([12] p. 25). They mention several avenues for future research, which sums
up to aiming at establishing “how Industry 4.0 might facilitate more accurate, high quality,
real time environmental management accounting and external environmental reporting
in relevant sectors, company sizes, across different management roles and collaborative
settings, as well as in intraorganizational settings such as supply chains“ ([12] p. 34).
Responding to this call for research, this study aims to explore how manufacturing
companies that have moved to Industry 4.0 are applying digital technologies for sustainability accounting. In this study, we focus on the TLBMC [2] to guide our investigations.
The TLBMC is mainly a tool for designing more sustainable business models, which is one
of the purposes of sustainable accounting data. However, the data collected may provide
valuable information for two other purposes. The TLBMC provides an understanding of
how organizations generate impacts and how to evaluate these impacts in terms of the
triple bottom line perspective. Moreover, the TLBMC integrates the evaluation of impacts
throughout the supply chain to customers and stakeholders.
We subsequently present the TLBMC framework in more detail before proceeding to
address how digital technologies may play a role in sustainability accounting.
Systems 2021, 9, 33
4 of 20
2.2. The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC)
The literature suggests a large number of frameworks and methodologies for sustainability, such as sustainable and circular business models [2,41,42]. Sustainable business
models integrate economic, environmental, and social values together with interorganizational networks that are broader societal systems [43]. Sustainable business models allow
for enhanced understanding of the connection between environmental and social activities
and the economic result of the company, thus stimulating managers to balance the activities
within these three dimensions. Joyce and Paquin [2] suggested the TLBMC in 2016, aiming
to address the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability through
the lens of the business model canvas [41]. The TLBMC is one of the business models
for sustainability and consists of (1) an economic layer based on the original business
model canvas [41]; (2) an environmental layer that reflects the approach of the life cycle
assessment (LCA); and (3) a social layer that is linked to the stakeholder view.
The TLBMC is a visualization of how a company generates economic, environmental,
and social values. Thus, at the bottom of each layer, there is a result assessing how revenues
outweigh costs for the economic layer, environmental benefits and environmental impacts
for the environmental layer, and the social surplus based on the impacts and benefits
achieved. Furthermore, the model has horizontal and vertical coherences, meaning that
environmental and social practices are interconnected with each other as well as with the
economic performance [2]. The model with three layers is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The triple layered business model canvas (Joyce and Paquine, 2016).
The economic layer represents the original Osterwalder business model canvas that
consists of the following components: customer value proposition, segments, customer
relationship, channels, key resources, key activities, partners, cost, and revenues [41]. The
environmental layer of the TLBMC does not apply the entire approach of the LCA, but it
provides a lens of life cycle thinking, starting from the extraction of raw materials to the
end of the life cycle of a product. The social layer represents the social impact of a company
on internal and external stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, the local community,
the government, and NGOs. As the manufacturers investigated in this paper did not have
any knowledge of the TLBMC model and its parameters, we used the TLBMC to guide our
investigations on a general level without quantifying specific variables at each layer.
Systems 2021, 9, 33
5 of 20
2.3. Digitalization and Industry 4.0
Digitalization is receiving growing attention in supply chains among both practitioners and academics. New technology transforms data and information flows and may
increase the efficiency of production operations. Its most characteristic feature beyond
previous mechanical and electrical technologies is its inherent property of generating data
related to the digitalization of tasks or processes. This can be used to analyze the process
and find issues for improvement that, when implemented, can generate more data that
over time can create a dynamic environment, typically resulting in the entire process
being transformed into a new process, as described in the seminal work by Zuboff in
1988 [42]. This ability to generate data from the operations being digitized represents a
significant potential for supervising all digitized operations. Digitalization is the driver
of the term Industry 4.0 concerning digitalization of manufacturing industries. Digitalization is transforming both manufacturers and their associated global value chains [44,45]
into digital manufacturing systems that enable communication between machines and
digitized (smart) products [46,47]. Interestingly, the large amount of data resulting from
the digitalization of operations and products have the potential to facilitate sustainability
accounting at virtually zero cost since the data already exist. This research seeks to find
to what extent manufacturers are utilizing this potential by answering the posed RQs
developed in the Introduction.
2.4. Digitalization and Sustainability
Industry 4.0 brings unique opportunities for environmentally sustainable manufacturing [48]. However, there is lack of studies addressing the intersection between digitalization
and sustainability. Digitalization has been identified as an enabler of sustainability in terms
of improving resource efficiency and manufacturing performance by the flexible and smart
use of digital data [19]. Strandhagen et al. [49] elaborate on how the digitalization of manufacturing logistics influences business operations and sustainability, and give an overview
of how trends in logistics relate to each other and to sustainability. Digital technologies
provide the information needed to create iterative and restorative systems, thus enabling
the companies to move toward sustainable operations and products. Moreover, the study
explores how emerging technologies can improve the sustainability of logistics operations
in existing business models and how these technologies can contribute to developing
new and more sustainable business models. By coupling Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled
innovation with sustainability principles, companies may identify new business models.
Strandhagen et al. offer a model that can be used as a framework for analyzing businesses
and value chains and their interplay between logistics, business models, and sustainability.
The model is conceptual, based on literature and foresight studies [49]. Through digitalization, it is possible for manufacturers to improve and optimize capacity utilization, resource
efficiency, and inventory management operations, and apply technology for predictive
maintenance [19]. Moreover, digital technology can facilitate decision-making during
uncertainty [50].
Based on a literature review and expert interviews, [21] qualitatively assessed “the
potential of industrial value creation in Industry 4.0 in terms of its contribution to the shift toward sustainable value creation for sustainable value creation” ([21] p. 255). The point of the
departure for this study was the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
and the characteristics of Industry 4.0. The study assessed the macro and micro potential
with suggestions of how Industry 4.0-related technologies could facilitate sustainability.
The above-mentioned examples on how technology under the Industry 4.0 umbrella
may enable sustainability does not, however, explicitly address sustainable accounting.
Digital technologies have the potential for detailed accounting across the economic, social,
and environmental layers. Coupling digital technologies with sustainability principles can
help companies acquire more accurate information on their operations.
Burritt and Christ [12] claim that the focus on the development of Industry 4.0 has
been on “reduced errors, improved product quality, freeing humans from menial and/or
Systems 2021, 9, 33
6 of 20
dangerous tasks and providing customers with the products they desire at times when they
desire them” ([12] p. 24). They acknowledge that resource efficiency has been emphasized
and claim that the understanding of how a broader concept of corporate sustainability could
be incorporated into Industry 4.0 is underdeveloped. To address this issue, they examine
how corporate sustainability—through environmental accounting—might be incorporated
into developing a vision for Industry 4.0. They mention four potential improvements in
external environmental accounting ([12] p. 30):
•
•
•
•
Better data quality (timeliness, accuracy, reliability, comparability)
Reduced opportunity for “greenwash” and “brownwash”
Less management discretion regarding measurements
Higher credibility of data
The paper provides examples on how these potential improvements may contribute
to improve sustainable accounting, but it does not provide any empirical evidence of this.
The role of environmental management accounting is seen as a framework for internal decision-making [51], since well-designed environmental management accounting
(EMA) systems may facilitate the environmental and financial aims of the companies.
Despite a tendency to apply EMA for short-term operational decisions, it is expected
that long-run investment decisions will benefit from EMA evaluation tools. One of the
findings in the study by Burritt et al. [51] is the incremental rather than radical changes
of EMA practices in case companies. The authors suggest future research to investigate
how and when EMA supports and drives more radical changes in organizations toward
sustainable development.
A recent study by Tiwari and Khan [22] explores “what technology and architectural
features of Industry 4.0 can enable reliable and valid measurements of sustainability
accounting variables in the triple bottom line model?”, and “how can industries use these
features in practice to ensure reliable and valid measurements of sustainability accounting
per the GRI framework?” ([22] p. 2). Here, the GRI provides a universal standard for
triple bottom line variables. The study comprises primary data from two focus groups
and five interviews carried out in companies in small-scale industries in India, where
the respondents were asked how existing Industry 4.0 solutions (in general and offered
by Indian vendors) could contribute to sustainability reporting. The findings from this
study revealed that the sustainable variables were only partially covered in the focus group
discussion, and that the interview respondents were cautioned against extreme optimism
in investing in Industry 4.0 due to the low maturity level of artificial intelligence (AI). The
authors of the paper comment that the results of the study may be affected by the context in
which the study was carried out and are characterized by barriers such as low investment
in technology and limited competence in sustainability reporting and technology.
Burritt and Christ [12] mention several avenues for future research, which sums up to
aiming to establish “how Industry 4.0 might facilitate more accurate, high quality, real time
environmental management accounting and external environmental reporting in relevant
sectors, company sizes, across different management roles and collaborative settings, as
well as in intraorganizational settings such as supply chains“ ([12] p. 34).
3. Research Method
The RQs call for an explorative approach that can be applied in an in-depth case study
combined with secondary data. The case study research method provides an opportunity
to explore themes where we have limited knowledge. Yin [52] calls the case study method
an empirical inquiry, which examines a phenomenon (the case) in depth and within its
real-world context and when the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context
are not clear. The rationale for applying a case study is its ability to draw on broader
perspectives of the phenomenon under study, thus making it possible to understand a realworld case [52]. Thus, case studies carried out in manufacturing companies can shed light
on the sustainability accounting practices and the role of the digital technologies. We have
selected a multiple-case design that allows for a broader insight of the study phenomenon.
Systems 2021, 9, 33
7 of 20
The first stage of the research addresses how companies conduct sustainability accounting.
The second stage explores how digitalization technologies are applied in sustainability
accounting. To guide our research, we used the TLBMC [2].
Case Companies and Data Collection
Eisenhardt [53] points out that sample size is crucial for achieving research results and
defining limits for the generalization of the findings. Consequently, to ensure the external
validity of the findings on how the companies account for operations within environmental
and social sustainability layers, this study applied a multiple case study analysis. The
companies were chosen based on their orientation toward sustainability and digitalization.
The case firms for this study represent Norwegian manufacturing companies from four
different sectors as presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Case companies description.
Company
Revenue
NOK, Mill
Number of
Employees
Company A
Pipe manufacturer
1079
276
Company B
Furniture producer
236
112
Company C
Maritime equipment manufacturer
1095
347
Company D
Plastic products manufacturer
74
31
The information gathered during the interviews was supplemented by secondary data
collected from public annual and sustainability reports, website contents, relevant articles
from local newspapers, laws, and regulations. A total of eleven interviews were conducted
between 2018 and 2021. Data collection started in 2018 when an interview on examining
TLBCM was conducted with two Norwegian companies. Later, the idea for the research
was expanded to investigate sustainability accounting and the role of digital technology.
Hence, the TLBCM contributed to a large extent at the beginning of the research project
and was applied as a framework throughout the research. While the first interviews were
conducted in a face-to-face setting, the last round of interviews were carried out using
the Teams conferences software due to COVID-19 restrictions. Each interview lasted for
approximately 1–2 h. The interview questionnaire had a semi-structural design, which
comprised an identified set of questions and an opportunity to ask additional questions
during the interview process. This allowed for adjusting and reviewing the phenomenon
extensively, applying additional information. All interviews were taped and transcribed.
To obtain a structured data analysis, a qualitative data analysis computer software package
NVivo was used to classify and sort the information necessary for a comprehensive analysis
of findings.
4. Results
4.1. Company A, Pipe Manufacturer
Company A is a Norwegian subsidiary of an international manufacturer of plastic
piping systems for heating and plumbing, water pressure, electricity, cable ducting, gas, and
agricultural sectors. A large amount of the company’s production is allocated to exports. In
Norway, the company has three plants and its own research and development department
that continuously invests in new products to provide sustainable and environmentally
friendly production in Norway.
4.1.1. Company A’s Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
Sustainability is part of the company’s strategy that began with an environmental
protection initiative in the mid-1980s. Since 2010, the company has implemented environmental accounting to demonstrate its social responsibility long before it became more
common for organizations to improve and share their sustainability performance. The
company currently has the UN’s 17 SDGs framework as a base for their evaluation of
Systems 2021, 9, 33
8 of 20
current performance and identification of goals. Hence, the company’s sustainability policy states that to be sustainable, the company needs to systematically address the SDGs
by applying internal company goals for the Norwegian department; external company
goals with respect to suppliers, customers, and the market; and personal goals related to
each employee.
“We have two concepts that we have extensively worked on for decades. We had already
stated in the 1980s that it is appropriate to address environmental protection. Then we
started with EPD, LCA, and third-party certified documentation, and we realized that
with the available materials and properties, we can document it.” (Respondent)
Since 2010, Company A has carried out environmental accounting with a focus on CO2
emissions according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol [54] in two of their manufacturing
facilities. The main purpose of the accounting is to demonstrate to customers how the
company is working on the reduction of their carbon footprint. Furthermore, the company
performs emissions accounting not only to reduce their carbon footprint but also with
regard to six additional environmental and climate parameters. Among the motives
for implementing the emissions accounting system, the director of sustainability also
describes it as a way to demonstrate the general sustainability profile of the company to
potential customers:
“In future, we will address two types of accounting: environmental and economic
accounting. With focus on sustainability, we can achieve positive results for both. At the
same time, we can leave a sustainable planet for future generations.” (Respondent)
Almost every year, the management team updates environmental measures and goals.
The company recently developed its first Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) that
presents footprint per specific product during all phases of a product’s lifespan. It is
based on the standardized requirements declared in ISO 14,025 Environmental Labels and
Declaration Type III and applied to four product groups. Moreover, the company holds
ISO 9001 and ISO 14,001 certificates. The company must also comply with the European
Regulation, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction on Chemicals (REACH) directive.
The company states that by providing an EPD, it contributes, in a broader context, to
the calculation of the total footprint per building or infrastructure project. Moreover, it
provides the opportunity to compare the sustainability of materials and products. Although the company is not obliged to apply for footprint approval in accordance with the
Pollution Control Act, it works internally toward the reduction of environmental output
within the following aspects: use of resources such as energy and water; choice of raw
materials and processes; material balance; and footprint in the air, water, Earth—mainly
waste—and transportation of goods. Company A considers environmental sustainability
as an avenue for future economic growth as sustainable innovations will open more market
opportunities, particularly through the digitalization of pipe systems.
Within the social layer of sustainability accounting, parameters are not so well defined
compared to the environmental layer, in which international standards such as ISO 14,001
exist. The company selected the UN’s SDGs framework for socially related goals, targets,
and indicators. Hence, the management works on prioritizing 3–4 goals out of 17 and
concurrently working toward balancing the general recommendations for social sustainability goals. However, as the interviewee stated, it is more reasonable to work toward
improvements within environmental aspects. The managers concurrently stated that in
future, they expect the social sustainability aspect to become more comprehensive, thus
requiring reporting on detailed data and parameters.
The established requirements and regulations for compliance and reporting for sustainability practices often put pressure on and motivate supply chain actors to improve
performance and reporting [55–57]. Although this company mainly uses environmental
accounting for internal purposes, there are some national regulations in the market through
which it operates. The Norwegian government decided to implement environmental requirements for public procurement, which is seen as a driving force for “green transition.”
Systems 2021, 9, 33
9 of 20
“Until now, there has been no requirement that has asked about CO2 emissions and EPD,
so we have not clarified our climate accounts, but it is something that if we do it, we
want to show it. Having said that, the EU Green Deal is under implementation . . . ”
(Respondent)
However, Company A’s management recently realized that some of the public organizations have not implemented the regulations and do not consider environmental and
climate related requirements in public procurement.
4.1.2. The Role of Digital Technologies in Company A
The respondent in Company A stated that information technology is seen as part
of the current transformation toward a more sustainable and digitalized supply chain.
The company is using digital technologies in manufacturing, and sensors are installed
to monitor pipe systems at the end-customer’s location. In production, the company
focuses on digital technologies for interconnectivity and the improvement of effectiveness
as sensors are installed to measure energy and water consumption. When the company
bought a new product line, they first purchased and installed Industrial Internet of Things
(IIoT) technology in the form of sensors to connect all the product lines with an artificial
intelligence system. Through machine learning, managers work on optimizing product
line processes, energy effectiveness in production, reduction and use of material, and the
general optimization of a product’s profile. Moreover, the application of machine learning
is now considered for quality control in the pipes’ automation line. The company along
with a partner in telecommunications have developed a new digital monitoring system
for pipes and sump systems. With the help of small sensors mounted inside the pipes
combined with Narrowband (NB) IoT technology, the information on water conditions,
temperature, water level, and other data are collected and sent to a Cloud platform. This
remote monitoring control provides an opportunity for the customer to have an early
identification of problems.
“Combined with lifting the sensor data up in a Cloud platform, applying algorithms,
machine learning, artificial intelligence, and everything that is possible now, preferably
combined with data on weather conditions, we can predict events before they happen” [58]
The company considers technology development and digitalization to be driving
forces for more sustainable buildings and facilities, which can stimulate the reduction
of greenhouse gas emission. This provides new economic opportunities to reduce costs
and improve the competitiveness of the Norwegian business. One of the departments
is currently working on development of IIoT and Response to Intervention; thus, the
company can offer additional services such as data analyses and machine learning based
on real–time monitoring and data provided through IIoT. Increasing the use of 3D printing
provides an opportunity for product development and design that can reduce defects
in manufacturing.
The company is currently working on a project for digitalizing their value chain, allowing the storage of all data in product information modeling and the building of information
modeling databases including all physical, mechanical, hydraulic, and environmental data.
For instance, construction companies that have installed products from the company can
easily access complete data regarding the whole building as well as data on a specific
component through digitalization.
4.2. Company B, Furniture Producer
Company B is one of the largest furniture producers in Norway and is known for
its internationally recognizable furniture brands. The company was founded in 1934 in
north-west Norway. The company has ten manufacturing locations in the USA, Lithuania,
Thailand, and Vietnam, and five factories based in Norway. They provide products in large
parts of the world through their own sales companies or via importers.
Systems 2021, 9, 33
10 of 20
4.2.1. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting at Company B
An essential factor of the company’s sustainability strategy has been the growing
customers’ requirements that can be divided into retailers and end users. A respondent
stated that the customer requirements have fundamentally changed compared to five years
ago. Consequently, it was important for the company to revise its sustainability strategy.
“We have customers with their own end-user perspective where it is about sustainable
materials and how they see a sustainable product; it also concerns the entire value chain
and everyone around us.” (Respondent)
The new strategy will broadly focus on and emphasize the life cycle of the product,
while the previous version mainly focused on manufacturing operations. The company
publishes annual sustainability reports as part of the legal requirements for business
reporting specified in the Norwegian Accounting Act and the statement of corporate social
responsibility [8]. The company reports its greenhouse gas emissions in three scopes: the
first includes direct emissions from internal transport and heating with natural gas, oil, and
carbon dioxide during foam production; the second comprises indirect emissions from the
generation of electricity by the electricity provider; and the third involves emissions from
the treatment of waste, air travel, and authorized business use of motor vehicles. Thus,
transport is identified as a significant contributor of emissions as goods are transported
globally. Even though the company itself aims to collect data to report these parameters,
it has a contract with a consultancy firm that performs the data analyses necessary for
annual sustainability reports. This may indicate limited internal competence to process
and interpret sustainability data. Concurrently, the consultancy firm may not be able to
identify possible reasons for deviations and changes in parameters compared to previous
periods. The respondent stated that they experience that, compared to smaller companies,
Company B must comply with a comprehensive set of regulations and requirements.
The company aims to make environmental information available through EPDs as
well as providing objective and open information about how the company handles its environmental responsibility. Company B follows the requirements for strength, stability, and
security by the Norwegian Møbelfakta [59]. It is also involved in the UN’s Global Compact
initiative [60]. Furthermore, the company monitors energy use, which currently relies on
95% of hydropower electricity generation in Norway, on fossil fuel oil that was planned
to be replaced by the end of 2020, and woodchips—a by-product of the manufacturing
process—which is a main energy source at the Norwegian factories. The company is also
continuously working on the reduction of waste by sorting. It is using by-products and
recycling where possible, and non-recyclable waste is being utilized for energy-recovering
processes such as heat and electricity production. The company acts in accordance with ISO
9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015 standards. Social aspects are provided as part of their annual
sustainability reporting. In the reporting of social sustainability, the company mainly
focuses on the internal policy and practices directed toward employees—for example,
reporting on gender equality, activities directed to follow the Anti-Discrimination and
Accessibility Act, health and industrial safety, personal development, and the apprenticeship program.
4.2.2. The Role of Digital Technologies at Company B
Overall, the technology and digitalization level in Company B can be described as
relatively high. Thirty years ago, the company began its first efforts on automatization.
The company has automated and digitalized processes such as the manufacturing of
wooden components, painting, and sewing. Robotization and automation make production
processes more effective, contributing to meeting the demand and building competence to
remain competitive in terms of production in a high-cost environment.
“New technologies, environment-friendly materials, and new product solutions have
resulted in one of the most efficient manufacturing environments in the furniture industry
today.” (Respondent)
Systems 2021, 9, 33
11 of 20
By introducing new means of technology for various operations, the company has
digitalized most of the product development process where they are using 3D printing
in the prototyping process. Furthermore, designers are working on a joint digitalized
platform where the rest of the employees can work on their own tasks, which makes it
easier to introduce changes in the product development process and reduce the lead-time.
Even though digitalization plays an important role in the production and product
development phases, the company lacks the direct application of technology for the
measurement of environmental and social values. However, the company claims that
through digital technology, they can receive relevant data for sustainability reporting
and decision-making:
“Obtaining relevant data and—not least—the opportunity to make good analyses across
different data sources is becoming more and more important in order to be able to make
the right decisions” [61]
Based on the aim for a broader focus on sustainability taking the value chain perspective, it is expected that technology will be considered as a tool for realizing these plans in
the future, especially for tracking product information along the life cycle and tracking
supplier information and their practices.
4.3. Company C, Maritime Equipment Manufacturer
Company C is a mechanical equipment manufacturer that supplies products for the
maritime industry. The company is part of the maritime industry in western Norway,
and the whole production value chain is controlled by the company and concentrated in
the country. The company has its own design, manufacturing, marketing, and after-sales
services. The company also has a wide range of products, and for some years, it has been
producing environmentally friendly products that have lower energy consumption, noise,
and vibration.
4.3.1. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting at Company C
The managers point out that customer requirements regarding sustainability reporting
vary. For instance, a customer in China may not set high expectations regarding documented environmental performance compared to a customer in Europe. Moreover, there
can be different expectations from supply chain actors and the end-customer. The data
collected for the social and environmental layers cannot fulfill the information needs of
all the layers; thus, the company have data only on the production stage (Klymenko and
Nerger, 2018).
Regarding environmental accounting, the company is currently focusing on internal
reporting to improve its environmental performance. An internally developed sustainability roadmap has been distributed among the employees. The roadmap follows two main
goals. The first is to increase awareness of sustainability as a topic and share the status of
sustainability performance with the employees. The second is to share the developed sustainability strategy map by involving and encouraging employees—who perform different
roles in various departments—in the process of improving the company’s sustainability
performance. Part of the report addresses the identified key goals from the 17 UN SDGs.
The environmental part of the roadmap defines a strategy for more effective use of energy
and materials in production. Hence, the internal road map increases the awareness of
employees regarding sustainability reporting. The company states that external reporting
has not been prioritized mainly because of the few requirements from the customer side.
Thus, external pressure and regulations are driving forces for the company to engage and
fulfil the upcoming expectations and requirements.
4.3.2. The Role of Digital Technologies at Company C
The company has automatized some of its manufacturing operations. However, the
company is still at the planning stage when it comes to applying digital technologies to
engage in more environmentally friendly, social, and ethical operations while creating
Systems 2021, 9, 33
12 of 20
economic profit. The company is currently using sensors for the remote monitoring of
mechanical equipment in vessels to detect problems and evaluate the conditions. Live
monitoring of equipment is available on more than 20 vessels, which provides online data
that are transferred to the control center in Norway. The managers see the growing demand
for such kind of monitoring systems. Hence, they are aiming to commercialize this in future
by offering a package with monitoring and service. The idea of these systems is to provide
an opportunity for early detection of problems and then provide the necessary maintenance
and repair on demand, which altogether can increase the lifespan of the equipment and
decrease the chances of larger failures. Recently, due to the travel restrictions related to
COVID-19, the company has started running extended tests at the vessel location to avoid
unnecessary travel and detect the specific solution that is needed for the specific cases. A
respondent suggested that they evaluate ideas on digitalized supply chains where it would
be possible to monitor suppliers and their practices by collecting information regarding
product materials and components. However, there is a possibility that customers may not
accept interconnectedness with all suppliers. Nevertheless, they see multiple benefits of
this opportunity.
“Many suppliers would like to be connected with the customer, but it does not always
mean that the customer wants it to become dependent on the supplier, so this is a negative
aspect of the digitalized value chain. On the other hand, we have an ideal cooperation
with one supplier for optimizing the production processes. If you make sure that the entire
supply chain is digitally traceable, you can see all the components and simultaneously
plan the entire supply chain. Then, you can perform a great deal of optimization regarding
waste in the value chain.” (Respondent)
Hence, the decision to digitalize the supply chain actors in the shipbuilding value
chain would depend not only on a particular supplier but also on the joint decision of all
value chain actors. This can hinder the digitalization along the value chain necessary for
data tracking and data availability for sustainability accounting at the supply chain level.
The managers state that they could optimize the existing business models and possibly
introduce alternative business models that would also require technology solutions—for
instance, for taking back equipment at the end of the life cycle, rebuilding, and selling it
again for reuse.
4.4. Company D, Plastic Products Manufacturer
Company D is a family-owned manufacturer of plastic products for different industries. The company has automated production supported by internal competence
and participation in research projects involving external partners. The engineers’ team
works closely with each customer in the product development phase to make the product
competitive in the market.
4.4.1. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting at Company D
Sustainability represents an important dimension of this company’s values and strategy. The first efforts to engage in environmental certification dated to the end of 1960. A
respondent stated that the company’s customers decide whether reporting on environmental issues associated with the products should be provided. Some customers require more
detailed environmental impact information than others. This is a case of customers asking
for detailed data on the environmental footprint that can be used for EPDs. The respondent
claims that the company’s ability to provide the environmental information for a product
may represent a competitive advantage for the company, especially in meeting the new
requirements and regulations.
“There will be regulations, and there will be pushes from the market, and if we can be
at the forefront and have the solution ready, it will create dependence on us and create
new opportunities in new markets that place greater emphasis on sustainability and
responsibility for consumption and production.” (Respondent)
Systems 2021, 9, 33
13 of 20
The company performs a life cycle analysis that demonstrates the reduction of CO2
output by 75%. The company also complies with the REACH directive and ISO 14001:2015
and 9001:2015 standards.
Company D performs continuous product development aiming to improve the circulation of plastic materials. For example, they developed a new product using 100% recycled
marine plastic materials.
Manufacturing is carried out in a closed system without any emission to the environment. Furthermore, the company monitors energy consumption during production.
Production runs for 24 h a day, 5 days a week.
4.4.2. The Role of Digital Technologies at Company D
The company has a high degree of automation for its production processes, which
is one of the core competences of the firm. Although the company has automated the
production process, digital technology is not widely used for sustainability accounting.
For instance, the monitoring of energy use in production is performed manually. Material
suppliers provide data on the environmental footprint, which are stored in the internal
database. Furthermore, the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system provides data on
the production date of components as well as materials used in the products. The company
is also involved in an initiative that evaluates opportunities for tracking plastic along its
lifespan through block chain technology. The idea is at an early stage and involves different
actors that can be involved in the plastic value chain comprising waste pickers, recycling
actors, and manufacturers that use recycled plastic material. The digital platform can track
and store information on the plastic materials from cleanup to processing.
5. Discussion
Previous studies within sustainability and digitalization have mostly focused on the
role of digital technologies in enabling more sustainable manufacturing operations, improving production processes, and increasing efficiency [20,21]. In this study, the emphasis is on
sustainability accounting and the role of digital technologies in supporting these processes.
Regarding sustainability accounting practices, we found that companies do not perform comprehensive internal and external sustainability accounting and reporting. This
indicates that companies are not prepared to reveal their environmental and social performance to the public. While Company C and Company D cases underline their limited
role as suppliers—which hinders opportunities for accounting along the lifespan of a
product—Company C states that it is challenging to organize this type of monitoring,
despite a high technology level in manufacturing. Furthermore, there is limited information shared between case companies and their suppliers, which does not allow for
traceability between suppliers and a focal company. To illustrate, Company D receives
only part of the material information and parameters from the suppliers. Internal strategy and own motivation are factors that allow for the collection of data for sustainability
accounting and reporting, which was revealed in the example of the Company A case.
In other cases, such as Company B, the main motive for sustainability accounting comes
from the customers’ expectations and requirements, while the findings from Company C
indicate that their main motive comes from regulations and sometimes customer pressure
for environmental and social practices. Findings from both Company B and Company
D indicate that the availability of well-documented environmental information can be
used as a sales argument for customers to choose them as a supplier. For the social layer,
Company C and Company B’s reporting is limited to the level of employees, including
information on health and safety in production, training and educational programs, and
anti-discrimination measures. Moreover, in social responsibility reporting, the companies
describe the value and contribution they provide to the local community. Despite the
growing tendency for environmental accounting through greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, internal environmental certifications, and compliance according to requirements, the
parameters for social layer accounting are still not well identified. At the strategic level,
Systems 2021, 9, 33
14 of 20
the companies in this study communicate a clear ambition regarding sustainability issues.
However, we observed that they tend to fulfil minimum requirements in sustainability
reporting and accounting. The findings indicate that strategic decision-making is mainly
supported by economic benefits; otherwise, companies only engage in sustainability to
comply with regulations or respond to specific customer pressure. The absence of reporting
and accounting standards for sustainability allows for a certain degree of freedom for
companies in deciding what information they want to share with or keep from the public.
Regarding the role of digital technologies for sustainability accounting, the findings in
this study reveal that managers do not consider the whole potential that digital technologies
can bring to sustainability accounting operations. All manufacturers investigate the use
digital technologies in manufacturing to a large extent; from incoming raw materials and
components with stock levels in digital records in the inventory management system, and
through the production process with highly digitized shop floors with extensive use of
computer-controlled robots and milling, drilling, sanding, and painting machines. We have
not identified any workstation that does not have a high degree of digital technologies
embedded. Moreover, the stock level of finished goods is kept in digital records in inventory
management systems. From this, we can see that the manufacturers are highly digitized,
leading to an abundant amount of data available. However, we observe that the digitally
enabled equipment are digital islands with limited or no connections between them. Some
are connected vertically to management systems, but these are solely used for managing
the equipment’s operations. We did not identify a structured approach to harvesting the
vast amount of digital data available for usage as input for economic, environmental, or
social accounting. Similarly, the research of Burritt and Christ [12] highlights that some
firms lack the appropriate technology for collecting data for environmental accounting.
We found some examples that illustrate how IIoT can be used to sense some of the
sustainability accounting parameters and provide data needed for artificial intelligence
to evaluate problem areas and develop smart solutions [62]. Additive manufacturing
can improve the parameters by optimizing the use of energy and water in production,
reducing waste, and improving the use of resources and materials [20]. Table 2 presents a
summary of digital technologies already applied or considered for the future application
by the case companies with respect to their implementation for sustainability accounting
and reporting.
The table shows how digital technologies both implemented and planned to be implemented are expected to impact on sustainability accounting. Company A is more mature
regarding digitalization covering manufacturing processes and the product use phase and
has a higher potential in applying digital technology for environmental values. Company
B sees a high potential in the digitalization of product development and manufacturing
operations, but it has relatively lower positioning in terms of Industry 4.0 application for
sustainability accounting. Company C and D see high potential in future applications of
Industry 4.0. We see signs of the COVID-19 pandemic having been a catalyst for digitalization as it has led to an increase in the use of digital technologies across functions, including
remote testing and travelling.
In general, we observe a shift from a focus on sustainability issues related to the
internal manufacturing process, to a focus on sustainability issues for the entire life cycle
of the product. This includes a drive towards exploring new business opportunities in
the post-sales phases of a products life. Consequently, the demand for sustainability
accounting at the supply chain level will increase as supported in the study by Burritt and
Schaltegger [63], who underline the recognition of a new entity for accounting allowing for
broader measurement and disclosure required for supply chains.
Systems 2021, 9, 33
15 of 20
Table 2. The role of digital technology and its implementation for sustainability accounting.
Company
Company A
Company B
Digital Technology:
Implemented/in Planning Phase
How It Contributes to Sustainability
Accounting and Reporting
Sensors for product lines—implemented. Installation
of sensors is the first operation conducted for newly
implemented product lines. It provides data on
energy and material use in production.
Provides data that contribute to the general
environmental profile with economic evaluation of a
product at the manufacturing stage.
Machine learning—implemented. It processes data
provided through sensors and directed to the
optimization of product line processes, energy
efficiency in production, more efficient material use,
and general optimization of a product profile.
Provides data on improvement in production
efficiency, environmental performance, and
economic gains that in total can present changes
gained during the taken period compared to the
previous ones.
3D printing—implemented. Product development
and improvement of product design that can reduce
defects in manufacturing.
Not directly associated with sustainability
accounting and reporting.
Sensors and system—implemented, provide data on
internal water and energy use.
Internal reporting requires these types of data.
PIM and BIM databases—implemented. Collect and
structure data for digitalized value chains. All data
that include all physical, mechanical, hydraulic, and
environmental information on a product are saved
in the PIM database. Thus, the building company
can easily access complete data regarding the whole
building as well as data on a specific component.
Primarily for internal accounting and reporting that
contains complete data on both the whole project or
building and each specific component.
Digital monitoring systems for pipes—implemented.
With the help of small sensors mounted inside pipes
combined with NB-IoT telecommunication
technology, the information on water conditions,
temperature, water level, and other data will be
collected and sent to a Cloud platform. This remote
monitoring control providew an opportunity for
customers to have an early identification
of problems.
Can potentially track data for sustainability
accounting and reporting.
Digitalization of product
development—implemented.
Joint digital platform based on 3D modeling
accessible to employees responsible for each stage
from design to final manufacturing. Reduces
lead time.
Not directly associated with sustainability
accounting and reporting.
Robotization and automation of manufacturing
processes—implemented. Make production
processes more effective. Planning of operations
with painting robot reduces water wastage
during processes.
Not directly associated with sustainability
accounting but can be equipped with tools and
programs for monitoring energy and material use,
amount of waste.
QR-codes—in planning phase.
Directed toward tracing a product’s information
along the lifespan supplemented by
supplier information.
Can potentially store and provide data on supplier
environmental and social performance.
Machine learning—in planning phase. (a) Evaluates
collected information on energy consumption for
forecasting energy demand, and can manage energy
usage, reducing it.
(b) Facilitates the sorting of complex materials,
separation of complex waste, improves
recycling efficiency.
Machine learning monitors and collects information
on energy consumption in production and recycling
of materials. This information can be used for
internal and external reporting.
Systems 2021, 9, 33
16 of 20
Table 2. Cont.
Company
Company C
Company D
Digital Technology:
Implemented/in Planning Phase
How It Contributes to Sustainability
Accounting and Reporting
Sensors that provide data on product location and
how the equipment were used during the
lifespan—in planning phase. These data can be used
for maintenance based on the conditions in which
the equipment were used. At the end of the skip life
cycle, the equipment can be detected and taken back
to the producer to prolong its use through
rebuilding, reusing, or recycling.
Sustainability accounting and reporting can be
expanded using data on how the products are being
treated during and at the end of the life cycle—for
example, recyclability and reuse rates.
Sensors, RFID—in planning phase. This could
provide more transparent data regarding suppliers,
the company’s environmental performance, social,
and ethical practices. The company plans to demand
documentation regarding recyclability of
components and detailed data on materials used.
Ability to expand sustainability accounting to the
supply chain level by incorporating information
regarding suppliers toward management practices at
the end of the life cycle.
Digitalized supply chain for maritime
equipment—in planning phase. Provide an
overview of all the components and materials that
the product consists of, including various materials
and electric and electronic components. Mapping of
the components and elements can simplify the
recycling process.
Ability to expand sustainability accounting to the
supply chain level by incorporating information
regarding product components, materials, and
emissions.
Blockchain technology for digitalized plastic supply
chain—in planning phase. Tracking and storing
information on plastic from cleanup to processing.
Contribute to sustainable and circular production
and consumption.
Provide data on reuse and recycling of plastic.
ERP systems—implemented. Allows tracking
information on manufactured products. Each
component is registered in the database with
information on raw materials batch used for
production, some of the parameters, and the date
of production.
Allows tracking of basic parameters of raw materials
that were used for production of components.
The companies in the Norwegian context are well aware of sustainability issues. Moreover, the products that are made in Norway have a status in the international market that
guarantees to customers that manufacturing took place in favorable working conditions
for employees and that the choice of materials is based on regulations for minimizing the
use of forbidden chemicals. The four cases in this study prove that sustainability plays
an important role in organizational performance. Similarly, the level of digitalization and
the use of technology in the case companies are high, which makes their production competitive compared to low-cost countries, which are more dependent on manual work. In
fact, this study proves that technology is often used to improve the efficiency of production
processes and to make operations more sustainable. Moreover, technology is not directly
applied to measuring environmental and social value, which supports the statement of
Burritt and Christ [12] who argue that companies are lacking appropriate technology for
measuring environmental parameters. This is illustrated by the statements made from
respondents from Company D and Company B that they applied a manual approach in
analyzing energy consumption in production.
Regarding the TLBMC framework, the case study on its application underlines that
sustainability is a data- and information-demanding area. Companies do not account for
sustainability parameters across the whole product life cycle as defined in the environmental layer. The idea of the TLBMC is seen as an example of an approach for accounting for
economic, environmental, and social layers of sustainability, which can further be used
Systems 2021, 9, 33
17 of 20
for various purposes of internal and external reporting. The model does not, however,
take into account how digitalization can be applied in the evaluation of the economic,
environmental, and social dimensions.
The study aims to expand the research within sustainability accounting and to shed
light on the contribution of digitalization in achieving sustainability for manufacturing
companies. Recent studies have enabled the investigation of sustainability accounting
and reporting through the lens of Industry 4.0 [22], with emphases on internal and external sustainability accounting [12], and with consideration of the supply chain level for
accounting [63,64]. Previous research studies highlight the importance of digitalization for
enhancing sustainability; however, there is a lack of empirical studies on the adoption of
I4.0 enabling technologies for supporting environmental and social value creations. The
study offers insight into how manufacturing companies address sustainability at a strategic
level and sustainability accounting, but lack a comprehensive approach for environmental
and social accounting at the operational and supply chain level. While digitalization is
implemented in manufacturing operations, there is limited use of digital technology to
provide real-time data for sustainability accounting purposes.
As seen in the example of the three companies, each of them receives varying customer
expectations and requirements regarding sustainability in operations. However, the role
of regulation for sustainability compliance and reporting is expected to increase in future.
One of the regulations is the European Green Deal issued by the European Commission [4],
which is directed to stimulate investment in sustainable economic activities and requires
non-financial reporting. The first part of this regulation involves banks and other financial organizations; this will be expanded to other business actors outside the financial
market by 2022–2023. Practitioners could consider adopting more sustainable accounting
practices that are expected to be demanded in future. The findings reveal that even alreadyestablished regulation toward environmental requirements in public procurement may not
yet be implemented. Furthermore, the companies expect new emerging business models
to be developed to make the transformation toward more sustainable operations possible.
Practitioners could consider new technology to support the changes in business models
through vertical integration, which involves various hierarchical levels of a company, and
horizontal integration, by capturing the collaboration between enterprises with resource
and real-time information exchanges [65].
6. Conclusions
This paper presented an explorative study on digitalization and sustainability accounting from the perspective of four manufacturing firms. The companies are highly
aware of the demand for more sustainable operations and products with strategies for
how to engage in the transition towards sustainability. Sustainability accounting supports
manufacturers in decisions on balancing sustainability benefits versus its costs. However,
their efforts toward sustainability accounting are limited since environmental and social
regulations often are not enforced, and since the pressure from business customers and
suppliers typically satisfy minimum requirements. In terms of the environmental layer, the
companies have an overview of some environmental parameters for production and some
from upstream suppliers regarding materials and components. Thus, the purpose of the
environmental layer accounting for the complete life cycle of a product is not done.
The findings reveal that the case companies are actively using digital technology for
automation and robotization, resulting in an abundance of digital data for operations;
however, these data are not applied for the accounting of environmental and social values.
Hence, sustainability accounting and digitalization are seen as two separate phenomena
and the intersection between them needs to be better elaborated. This represents opportunities for manufacturers and supply chain actors to utilize data from Industry 4.0
technologies to facilitate sustainability accounting, using the TLBMC tool to investigate
how the companies balance sustainability benefits and costs are evolving. In particular,
compared to the variety of the environmental impact, there is less attention dedicated
Systems 2021, 9, 33
18 of 20
to social parameters. Thus, the current level of social accounting in the companies lacks
parameters such as social value, scale of outreach, and social impacts in order to give a
bottom line.
This study has shown how manufacturers can move towards more sustainable operations and products by utilizing already-existing data in Industry 4.0 technologies. Combining sustainability accounting and digitalization is needed to stay competitive. As future
research directions, it would be interesting to investigate further the combination of the
hereto separately treated phenomena of sustainability and digitalization by manufacturers.
How accounting can help in quantifying sustainability benefits and costs to better manage
the transition towards sustainable operations and products should be further investigated
in different contexts and other geographical areas. Various accounting challenges should
be studied from a sustainability perspective to gain further insight in this direction.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization of sustainability accounting, L.L.H.; TLBMC, O.K.; methodology, O.K.; data collection, O.K., L.L.H. and B.J.; writing—original draft preparation, O.K., L.L.H.,
B.J.; writing—review and editing, O.K., L.L.H., B.J.; visualization, O.K.; All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The personal data processed according to Norwegian Centre
for Research Data (NSD) https://www.nsd.no/en accessed on 5 December 2020.
Informed Consent Statement: The personal data processed according to Norwegian Centre for
Research Data (NSD) https://www.nsd.no/en accessed on 5 December 2020.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Grin, J.; Rotmans, J.; Schot, J. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [CrossRef]
United Nations. The sustainable development agenda. In Department of Public Information; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission—The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 Final. 2019. Available
online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (accessed on 26 March 2021).
Global Reporting Initiative. Global Reporting Initiative. 2021. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed on
24 March 2021).
International Organization for Standardization. ISO Standards. 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standards.html
(accessed on 24 March 2021).
Arbeids- og Sosialdepartementet. (1997, 01.07.2017). Forskrift om Systematisk Helse-, Miljø- og Sikkerhetsarbeid i Virksomheter
(Internkontrollforskriften). FOR-1996-12-06. Available online: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1996-12-06-1127
(accessed on 22 March 2021).
Finansdepartementet. Lov om Årsregnskap m.v. (regnskapsloven). LOV-1998-07-17. 1998. Available online: https://lovdata.no/
dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-56#KAPITTEL_3 (accessed on 21 March 2021).
The Global Language of Business. GS1 General Specifications: The Foundational GS1 Standard that Defines How Identification
Keys, Data Attributes and Barcodes Must Be Used in Business Applications. Release 21.0.1. 2018. Available online: https:
//www.gs1.org/docs/barcodes/GS1_General_Specifications.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2021).
Jaeger, B.; Upadhyay, A. Understanding barriers to circular economy: Cases from the manufacturing industry. J. Enterp. Inf.
Manag. 2020, 33, 729–745. [CrossRef]
Lieder, M.; Rashid, A. Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 36–51. [CrossRef]
Burritt, R.; Christ, K. Industry 4.0 and environmental accounting: A new revolution? Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1,
23–38. [CrossRef]
Hörisch, J.; Schaltegger, S.; Freeman, R.E. Integrating stakeholder theory and sustainability accounting: A conceptual synthesis. J.
Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 124097. [CrossRef]
Ng, A.W. From sustainability accounting to a green financing system: Institutional legitimacy and market heterogeneity in a
global financial centre. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 585–592. [CrossRef]
Systems 2021, 9, 33
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
19 of 20
Rodriguez, A.; Cotran, H.; Stewart, L.S. Evaluating the effectiveness of sustainability disclosure: Findings from a recent SASB
study. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. 2017, 29, 100–108. [CrossRef]
Clarke-Sather, A.R.; Hutchins, M.J.; Zhang, Q.; Gershenson, J.K.; Sutherland, J.W. Development of social, environmental, and
economic indicators for a small/medium enterprise. Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag. 2011, 19, 247–266. [CrossRef]
International Electrotechnical Commission. Factory of the Future. White Paper. 2015. Available online: http://pubweb2.iec.ch/
whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-futurefactory-LR-en.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2021).
Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2015, 93, 96–114.
Morlet, A.; Blériot, J.; Opsomer, R.; Linder, M.; Henggeler, A.; Bluhm, A.; Carrera, A. Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular
Economy Potential; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2016; pp. 1–25.
Bonilla, S.H.; Silva, H.R.; Terra da Silva, M.; Franco Gonçalves, R.; Sacomano, J.B. Industry 4.0 and Sustainability Implications: A
Scenario-Based Analysis of the Impacts and Challenges. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3740. [CrossRef]
Stock, T.; Obenaus, M.; Kunz, S.; Kohl, H. Industry 4.0 as enabler for a sustainable development: A qualitative assessment of its
ecological and social potential. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 118, 254–267. [CrossRef]
Tiwari, K.; Khan, M.S. Sustainability accounting and reporting in the industry 4.0. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120783. [CrossRef]
UNWCED. Report of the World Commision on Evironment and Development: Our Common Future; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 1987.
Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber,
H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bebbington, J.; Larrinaga, C. Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration. Account. Organ. Soc. 2014, 39,
395–413. [CrossRef]
Kolk, A. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 367–374. [CrossRef]
Berthelot, S.; Cormier, D.; Magnan, M. Environmental, disclosure research: Review and synthesis. J. Account. Lit. 2003, 22, 1–44.
Laine, M. Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a
leading Finnish chemical company. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2009, 22, 1029–1054. [CrossRef]
Stock, T.; Seliger, G. Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 536–541. [CrossRef]
Hsu, C.-W.; Lee, W.-H.; Chao, W.-C. Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: A case study at Lite-On Technology
Corporation. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 57, 142–151. [CrossRef]
Yu, E.P.-Y.; Van Luu, B.; Chen, C.H. Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Res. Int. Bus. Financ.
2020, 52, 101192. [CrossRef]
Pimonenko, T.; Bilan, Y.; Horák, J.; Starchenko, L.; Gajda, W. Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable
Development Goals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1679. [CrossRef]
Hourneaux, F., Jr.; da Silva Gabriel, M.L.; Gallardo-Vázquez, D.A. Triple bottom line and sustainable performance measurement
in industrial companies. Rev. Gestão 2018, 25, 413–429. [CrossRef]
Lee, T.M.; Hutchison, P.D. The Decision to Disclose Environmental Information: A Research Review and Agenda. Adv. Account.
2005, 21, 83–111. [CrossRef]
York, J.; Dembek, C.; Potter, B. Sustainability Reporting to Improve Organizational Performance; Ivey Business School: London, ON,
Canada, 2017; 55p.
Kamp, B.; Parry, G. Servitization and advanced business services as levers for competitiveness. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 60,
11–16. [CrossRef]
Baines, T.; Lightfoot, H.W. Servitization of the manufacturing firm. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014, 34, 2–35. [CrossRef]
Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Perona, M.; Saccani, N. Exploring How Usage-Focused Business Models Enable Circular Economy
through Digital Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 639. [CrossRef]
Hartmann, J.; Moeller, S. Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior.
J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 281–294. [CrossRef]
Porter, M.E.; van der Linde, C. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 120–134.
Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C. Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Commun. Assoc.
Inf. Syst. 2005, 16, 1. [CrossRef]
Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
Bocken, N.M.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J.
Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [CrossRef]
Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; Portfolio Penguin: London, UK, 2017.
Brettel, M.; Friederichsen, N.; Keller, M.; Rosenberg, M. How virtualization, decentralization and network building change the
manufacturing landscape: An industry 4.0 perspective. Int. Sch. Sci. Res. Innov. 2017, 8, 37–44. [CrossRef]
Vyatkin, V.; Salcic, Z.; Roop, P.S.; Fitzgerald, J. Now That’s Smart! IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2007, 1, 17–29. [CrossRef]
Hermann, M.; Pentek, T.; Otto, B. Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 49th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; pp. 3928–3937.
De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Foropon, C.; Filho, M.G. When titans meet—Can industry 4.0 revolutionise the
environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132,
18–25. [CrossRef]
Systems 2021, 9, 33
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
20 of 20
Strandhagen, J.O.; Vallandingham, L.R.; Fragapane, G.; Stangeland, A.B.H.; Sharma, N. Logistics 4.0 and emerging sustainable
business models. Adv. Manuf. 2017, 5, 359–369. [CrossRef]
Gürdür, D.; El-Khoury, J.; Törngren, M. Digitalizing Swedish industry: What is next? Data analytics readiness assessment of
Swedish industry, according to survey results. Comput. Ind. 2019, 105, 153–163. [CrossRef]
Burritt, R.L.; Herzig, C.; Schaltegger, S.; Viere, T. Diffusion of environmental management accounting for cleaner production:
Evidence from some case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 479–491. [CrossRef]
Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018.
Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [CrossRef]
Public Sector Protocol. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. 2008. Available
online: https://ghgprotocol.org/public-sector-protocol-0 (accessed on 5 January 2021).
Ji, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Yang, G. Constructing sustainable supply chain under double environmental medium regulations. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2014, 147, 211–219. [CrossRef]
Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Environmental sustainability in the service industry of transportation and logistics service
providers: Systematic literature review and research directions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 53, 454–470. [CrossRef]
Gong, M.; Gao, Y.; Koh, L.; Sutcliffe, C.; Cullen, J. The role of customer awareness in promoting firm sustainability and sustainable
supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 217, 88–96. [CrossRef]
Strand, S.S. Pipelife Lanserer IoT-Løsninger for Rør og Kummer. Byggeindustrien. 2020. Available online: https://www.bygg.
no/article/1430750 (accessed on 20 February 2021).
Norsk Industri. Møbelfakta. 2021. Available online: https://www.norskindustri.no/kampanjesider/mobelfakta/mobelfakta/
(accessed on 24 March 2021).
United Nations Global Compact. About the UN Global Compact. 2021. Available online: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/
about (accessed on 29 March 2021).
Norwegian Rooms. Digitalisering gir økt Konkurransekraft. 2018. Available online: https://www.norwegianrooms.no/nyheter1
/digitalisering-gir-okt-konkurransekraft/ (accessed on 21 March 2021).
Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Urbinati, A.; Chiaroni, D.; Terzi, S. Assessing relations between Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: A
systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1662–1687. [CrossRef]
Burritt, R.; Schaltegger, S. Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply chains. Br. Account. Rev. 2014, 46,
327–343. [CrossRef]
Frederico, G.F.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Anosike, A.; Kumar, V. Supply Chain 4.0: Concepts, maturity and research agenda. Supply
Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 25, 262–282. [CrossRef]
Dalenogare, L.S.; Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial
performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 383–394. [CrossRef]