Towards digital sustainability: the long

journey to the sustainable development

goals 2030
Sergio Sparviero and Massimo Ragnedda

Sergio Sparviero is based Abstract

at the Paris Lodron Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest that, to build a digital sustainable society, core terminal
University of Salzburg, and instrumental values of sustainability and sustainable development should be followed across different
Salzburg, Austria. worldviews, and in the formulation of policies or other initiatives form private and public stakeholders. These
Massimo Ragnedda is values are normative, they support the coordination of efforts of different stakeholders and can serve as
guidelines for driving the development trajectory of technologies contributing to a sustainable society.
base at the Northumbria
Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper defines digital sustainability from the
University, Newcastle upon
concepts of sustainability and sustainable development. From the Rio Process (1992), through the 2030
Tyne, UK.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), this paper analyzes and theoretically
discusses the intersection between digital aspects of human life and wider sustainability concerns for
humanity and the planet. Technologies and digital processes are functional catalysts to the achievement
of the UN 2030 SDGs and crucial for individuals’ everyday life, but their adoptions is also conditional to a
variety of conflicting worldviews.
Findings – This paper focused on the role of digital technologies in innovation and transformation and
their impact on the environment, individuals, society and economy, from a theoretical point of view. Digital
technologies have changed the way in which people communicate, study, work, interact and even look
for friends, relationships and love. It is, therefore, important to reflect upon the impact that this revolution
would have on the individuals and on the wider socio-economic, political and environment context. In this
vein, this paper attempted to reflect on the sustainability of this revolution, by sketching the concept of
digital sustainability drawing upon the concept of sustainability.
Originality/value – Digital sustainability – like sustainability – relies on three universal values: equality,
harmony, self-determination. In fact, to be sustainable, the use of digital technologies should be led by
the equality value, namely, the need to not compromise the future generations, both in terms of
exploitation of natural resources to produce them and in terms of to create and nor reduce job
opportunities for future generations. Second, digital technologies might help tackling both the ecological
and social crises through a universal collaboration according to the harmony’s value. Finally, the third
value for digital sustainability is self-determination. It applies to individuals and social formations and it
refers to the capability of being in control of your destiny.
Keywords Social sustainability, Digital sustainability
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
The 2020 decade is, simultaneously, an age of implementing digital transformations and of
pursuing ambitious global social goals. The United Nations (UN), through its 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets, aims at the realization of a “good” global
society and the role of digital technologies in promoting this sustainable future is certainly
Received 20 January 2021 crucial. However, although digital technologies are gaining a prominent position in our
Revised 1 April 2021
20 May 2021
everyday life, their vital role in enhancing and promoting a sustainable future, rather than
Accepted 3 June 2021 simply economic goals, is often at the margin of both academic and public discussion.

PAGE 216 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021, pp. 216-228, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2398-5038 DOI 10.1108/DPRG-01-2021-0015
This is not surprising, given the fact that even before the advent of digital media, the role
played by communication and culture in establishing a sustainable society was understated
(Fuchs, 2017).
The reflections and analysis presented in this paper concern the function of technology in
realizing a sustainable future. Throughout the paper, we underline that policymakers and
private stakeholders across the globe should coordinate their efforts by following guiding
principles for the development of technologies inspired by the core values of sustainability
and sustainable development. In contrast, we also infer that innovations, social or technical,
that are primarily guided and coordinated by technologies are likely to result in
unsustainable practices. This is also argued by providing concrete examples. In other
words, the principle idea defended in this paper is that digital technologies can provide an
important contribution to the realization of a sustainable future through a variety of different
paths, but only if they are applied by public and private actors for reaching the same cluster
of universal, terminal values.
Furthermore, we argue that exploiting the transformational capabilities of the digital age is
necessary to achieve the SDGs by 2030 because digital technologies can permanently
contribute to the goals of sustainable development. Hence, next to, but also from, the
concepts of sustainability and sustainable development, we develop the concepts of digital
sustainability and digital sustainable development. These concepts assume that if
technologies are mastered and wisely regulated and used, they can positively and
structurally impact society, economy, individuals and the environment. We remain aware
that although digital technologies have the potential to help tackle some of society’s most
challenging issues, the digital revolution can also exacerbate already existing inequalities
(Ragnedda, 2020) and have other negative impacts on the environment, society and
individuals.
To frame and discuss the concept of digital sustainability, we will first introduce the concept
of sustainability, historically and conceptually, starting from the Rio Process. We also
consider the differences between sustainability and sustainable development. We then
consider the existence of “universal” values of sustainability that apply to digital
sustainability as well. With these in mind and before drawing some conclusions, we critically
contemplate the examples of policies and interventions that aim at promoting sustainable
development but are not in line with the principles of digital sustainability.

2. Defining digital sustainability from the Rio process

Innovation and digitalization are powerful tools for the realization of a better society, as they
transform people’s habits and ways of thinking and, consequently, the environment, society,
culture and the economy. We refer to digital sustainability here as the cluster of values that,
if applied, coordinate human efforts in developing and adopting digital technologies for a
sustainable future. The definition and application of these principles is a common
responsibility of scholars, policymakers, firms and citizens. As digital sustainability relies on
the concept of sustainability, we first reflect on the definition and the processes responsible
for its construction.
Sustainability and sustainable development (SD) are concepts shaped by collaboration
between government representatives, civil society and business organizations under the
coordination of the UN and through what became known as the “Rio process” (Tulloch and
Neilson, 2014). The first formal step of this process was the World Commission of
Environment and Development (WCED) formed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime
minister and minister of the environment of Norway, who was appointed in 1983 by the
erstwhile UN secretary-general Pérez de Cuéllar. The “Brundtland commission” was tasked
to come up with a “global agenda for change” (WCED, 1987, p. 5). Its work was influenced
by the simulations included in the “Limits to Growth” report (Meadows et al., 1972) prepared

VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j PAGE 217
 for the “The Club of Rome”. Founded in 1968, this club was an informal, international association
of scientists, educators, economists, humanists, industrialists and, national and international civil
servants united by the conviction that the major problems facing mankind were interrelated and
of such complexity that traditional institutions and policies were no longer able to manage them
(Meadows et al., 1972). The report investigated five major trends of global concern:

1. accelerating industrialization;

2. rapid population growth;

3. widespread malnutrition;

4. depletion of nonrenewable resources; and

5. deteriorating environment (Meadows et al., 1972).

The WCED was also influenced by arguments for public concern for the environment from
population biologists and ecologists in the 1960s and 1970s (Tulloch and Neilson, 2014). After
half a century, all these global concerns are still relevant and at the center of the policy agenda.
There are three takeaways from the Brundtland commission’s report “Our Common Future”
(WCED, 1987), which are relevant for this paper. First, solutions to sustainability problems are to
be found in human needs and value orientations (van Egmond and de Vries, 2011). Second, the
answer to present and future problems created by scientifically observed imbalances between
the growth of natural resources and demographic and economic trends must include re-
distribution principles. Hence, they require a political answer (van Egmond and de Vries, 2011).
Third, the WCED is still credited with the most popular definition of SD (Steurer et al., 2005),
despite the existence of many critical assessments and alternatives. They defined SD as a
process of change “in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the
orientation of technological development and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance
both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).
Many events of the Rio process that followed the WCED contributed to the current
understanding of sustainability and SD but also attempted to operationalize them into practical
goals. The UN Conference on Environment and Development, or “Earth Summit”, that took place
in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro produced the Rio Declaration that covered a wide range of issues
including poverty, demography, the economy, gender, youth, indigenous people and peace
while remaining primarily focused on the natural environment (Fuchs, 2017). The UN Millennium
Summit in 2000 produced the Millennium Declaration (United Nations General Assembly, 2006)
and the eight Millennium Development Goals (Cavagnaro and Curiel, 2017). These were later
replaced by 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) described in the “2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015), resulting from the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio þ 20, held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012.
Two additional steps of the Rio process are particularly relevant for media and
communication scholars: the 1995 World Summit for Social Development (WWSSD) held in
Copenhagen and the UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) 1999 report (UNDP, 1999).
The WWSSD and the UNDP pioneered the recognition of new ICTs as being able to support
the achievement of social development goals. The WWSSD acknowledges the need to
facilitate access to such technologies, also for people in poverty, to increase participation in
civil, political, economic, social and cultural life (UN, 2020). Along the same lines but with a
different focus, the UNDP report (1999) stressed the potential universal, economic benefits
of the adoption of new technologies and globalization.

3. Sustainability versus sustainable development

Understanding the principles of the Rio process is crucial for at least two reasons: first, to
grasp the concepts of sustainability and SD and their differences, and second, to discuss

PAGE 218 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021
and frame the concept of digital sustainability. We can identify three main principles that
characterize the Rio Process, namely, pragmatism, universality and collaboration.
Pragmatism defines this process because it is goal-oriented. It starts from the WCED
realizing that humanity is engaged in a structural, self-destructing spiral that is threatening
its existence. It seeks to move forward from present conditions toward the universally
accepted goal of survival (WCED, 1987). Second, universality defines this process because
the response to universal problems can only be global. Therefore, it involves a variety of
nationalities and interests from representatives of national government and international
intergovernmental organizations, civil society organizations to business communities.
Finally, collaboration defines this process because it attempts to accommodate, rather than
prioritize, different positions into a common agenda. Furthermore, the shortcomings of this
process are intrinsic to these characteristics, but also to the lengthy timespan required to
shape it in its current form. Key concepts are surprisingly vague and interdependent goals
represent tradeoffs and conflicting interests and values (Mensah and Ricart Casadevall,
2019; van Egmond and de Vries, 2011).
Sustainability and SD are concepts debated in more than 3,000 papers annually (Kajikawa
et al., 2007), while SD is also often used as a buzzword in development discourse, where it
is associated with different definitions, meanings and interpretations (Mensah and Ricart
Casadevall, 2019). Sustainability and SD are frequently used interchangeably in both
academic and popular discourses (Banerjee, 2008). However, scholars that separate these
terms consider sustainability the goal and SD the process (Mensah and Ricart Casadevall,
2019; Steurer et al., 2005). In this vein, and by adapting Rokeach (1968) to this last point,
sustainability can be interpreted as a cluster of terminal values, beliefs concerning
desirable end-states, while SD is one of instrumental values, which are desirable modes-of-
conduct (Rokeach, 1968). The UN approach to developing the 2030 goals is compatible
with this division, a the 17 “goals” can be re-framed as “end states” (e.g. goal 10, could be
framed as an end-state without inequalities, instead of aiming at “reducing inequalities”),
while the “targets” are instrumental values.

4. Universal values
Sustainability starts with the needs of individuals (Cavagnaro and Curiel, 2017), and so it is
primarily grounded on individual values, before social ones. Here, it a cluster of terminal
values or individual beliefs concerning desirable end-states. Following Sparviero (2021), we
identify three fundamental, universal values composing the terminal value cluster of
sustainability. Namely, they are:

1. equality;
2. harmony; and

3. self-determination.
In the Millennium Declaration (United Nations General Assembly, 2006), equality is described
as respect for equal rights of all without distinction for race, sex, language or religion but also
by referring to the sovereign equality of all States. In the 2030 Agenda (United Nations General
Assembly, 2015), equality is the value underlying the areas “People” and “Planet”.
Intergenerational equality also plays a key role in achieving sustainability. For humanity to
endure, both current and future generations should be able to fulfill their needs. For this to
happen, the current generation cannot exceed in exploiting natural resources, a condition that
is incompatible with poverty. People of the current generation lacking resources cannot be
persuaded to save resources for future generations.
Harmony describes the ideal end-state of a balanced approach and a collaborative
process. As underlined in the WCED (1987), humanity’s survival depends on a balance
between the size of the population and the productive potential of the ecosystem.

VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j PAGE 219
 A response to the ecological and social crises affecting humanity can only be produced by
universal collaboration. This principle, embedded in the WCED, is echoed in the Millennium
Declaration (United Nations General Assembly, 2006) with the concepts of just and lasting
peace all over the world, international cooperation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature
and shared responsibility. In the 2030 Agenda (United Nations General Assembly, 2015),
harmony is the value underlying the areas “Peace” and “Partnership”.
Finally, the value of self-determination indicates the end state of empowerment, the
capability of being in control of one’s environment. It applies to people and is a human right
according to the WCED. The “Our Common Future” report states that only people that are
free, have rights and are mature and responsible citizens can participate in the protection of
the environment (WCED, 1987). It also applies to social formations, like communities and
countries. For example, the Millennium Declaration (United Nations General Assembly,
2006) also stresses the social dimension of self-determination and the respect for territorial
integrity and political independence. In the 2030 Agenda (United Nations General
Assembly, 2015), self-determination is linked to the area of “Prosperity”.
If sustainability is composed of three universal values, which are the end-of-state goals that
can save humanity from self-destruction, SD is the process leading to these goals and,
necessarily, a much more contested field. According to Tulloch and Neilson (2014), the
Brundtland Report already put economic growth, eradication of poverty and ecological
integrity on an equal footing. For Fuchs (2017), however, it was the WSSD in 2002 that
shaped the current understanding of SD based on three equal dimensions: environmental,
economic and social. Critics see the elevation of the economic dimension of SD as
controversial. They see it as an attempt to position free-market capitalism as central to the
protection of nature and the eradication of poverty (Tulloch and Neilson, 2014) or to foster
the growth of private businesses’ profits (Fuchs, 2017).
Furthermore, critics also argue that sustainability is presented as a non-ideological concept.
“Saving the planet” is a concept that “win the hearts and minds of individual citizens to the
cause” (Tulloch and Neilson, 2014, p. 27). Similarly, Fuchs (2017) argues that sustainability
is ideological because it is immensely positive and allows diverse groups with opposing
interests to project their political goals onto it. The concept of sustainability is also an
opportunity for corporations to use emancipatory rhetoric for concealing narrow business
interests (Banerjee, 2008). Corporation Social Responsibility (CSR), the consideration of the
broader impact that corporations have on society (Sirgy et al., 2006), is used by
corporations as a self-promotion opportunity and greenwashing exercise (Zappettini and
Unerman, 2016).
While certainly insightful, these criticisms only confirm that the logic and business practices of
corporations are integrated into the concept of SD. As we argued, the concepts of
sustainability and sustainable development were shaped by a process that built from a variety
of different perspectives, including those of representatives of the business sector. However,
these critical viewpoints do not dispute the existence of other viewpoints, or parallel narratives
(or “worldviews” as defined below), that are also a consequence of the process. Additionally,
they do not consider the difference between sustainability and sustainable development;
hence, they do not question the existence of a shared understanding of an ideal end-state,
which we define here with the universal values of equality, harmony and self-determination.
We nonetheless agree with Fuchs (2017) when he states that the Brundtland report is
missing human needs from the list, including cultural (e.g. education), political (e.g.
participation in collective decision-making) and social (e.g. protection from poverty). It can
be argued that cultural, social and political values are instrumental and necessary
conditions to the fulfillment of the end-states of equality, harmony and self-determination.
However, it can also be argued that the lack of consideration of these values in the seminal

PAGE 220 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021
reports, which initially shaped the concept of sustainable development and influenced the
entire Rio process so far, certainly downplayed their relative importance.

5. Digital sustainability and sustainable digital development

As stated above, we understand digital sustainability as a cluster of values. These values
are the same values as sustainability, so that, if applied to the creation and adoption of new
technologies, they contribute to a sustainable future. Sustainable digital development
indicates the instrumental values of creating and adopting technologies in the pursuit of
sustainability. Like sustainable development, we posit that economic, social and
environmental goals need to be considered simultaneously. To these three instrumental
goals, we add “individuals” to define digital sustainable development, because unlike other
interventions aimed at supporting sustainable development, the efficient use of
technologies for the creation of economic, social, or environmental value depends on the
level of digital literacy of individuals. Digital literacy, which encompasses a set of skills that
goes beyond the simple ability to use computers, has been defined in different ways.
UNESCO (2008) set up a task force to define and measure digital literacy, defining it “as the
ability to access, manage, understand, integrate, communicate, evaluate and create
information safely and appropriately through digital devices and networked technologies for
participation in economic and social life. It includes competencies that are variously
referred to as computer literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy, and media literacy”
(UNESCO, 2018, p. 21). Digital literacy is avvital component of the SDGs. The 4.4 target
aims at increasing the share of individuals with relevant technical and vocational skills for
qualified jobs.
Interventions and policies concerned with sustainable digital development can vary and yet
converge toward the same ultimate goals of sustainability. They vary because stakeholders
have different priorities and strategies, which depend on their worldview. A worldview is
perceived as a map that people use to orient and explain the world and from which they
evaluate and act and put forward prognosis and visions on the future. Worldviews,
therefore, are cognitive, perceptual and affective maps that people continuously use to
make sense of the social landscape and to find their way to whatever goals they seek. Just
to mention a few examples, concepts like “nature,” “man,” “resources,” “knowledge,” “the
universe” are interpreted differently from the perspective of a specific worldview (Van
Opstal and Hugé, 2013). These concepts are developed throughout a person’s lifetime
through socialization and social action. Worldview construction is collective work that is not
identifiable with only one individual, but tries to connect shared goals with acceptable and
specific views of these individuals or the social groups they are living in (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Values of digital sustainability and the characteristics of sustainable digital

development

VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j PAGE 221
 If the values on which worldviews are built are hegemonic (Brand, 2010), they can be
ideological. For instance, several authors have underlined the construction of the
hegemonic methods for “the representation of sustainable development and their
translation into non-Western habitats” (Valero Thomas, 2015, p. 135).
The consideration of different instrumental values for the formulation of policies and other
interventions related to digital technologies depends on cultures and the level of economic
growth. However, the ecological and social crisis on the one hand and digitalization on the
other hand, support the convergence of global and common strategies and priorities for a
sustainable future. Both private and public actors are significantly affected by the
digitalization of the society (Schmidt and Cohen, 2013; Gijzen, 2013; Hampton et al., 2013)
and higher attention to environmental issues (Embry et al., 2019; George et al., 2012). The
fact that these two trends are inevitably intertwined is increasingly acknowledged. Not only
public institutions, but private stakeholders also set ambitious environmental goals (Delmas
et al., 2019; Nave and Ferreira, 2019; York et al., 2018) to create economic value for
themselves while producing and developing environmental and social value (Di Domenico
et al., 2010; Howard-Grenville et al., 2014). However, many individuals, corporations and
public actors are still acting in unsustainable ways and are failing to meet the conditions for
a sustainable future (Johnston et al., 2007). This is creating a “sustainability gap,” namely,
“a growing disconnect between the importance of sustainability to many corporate
strategies and its lack of relevance to mainstream investors” (Lubin and Esty, 2014).
Similarly, we are also witnessing a sustainable global gap between different countries, as
some impose more restrictive rules to regulate the impacts of technologies on individuals,
society and the environment, compared to others. However, in an interconnected world, the
actions of one country have a strong impact on the whole planet. For this reason, now more
than ever, it is necessary to define a convergence mechanism for policymakers, firms and
citizens around the globe.

6. Assessing policies and interventions toward the concepts of digital sustainability

and sustainable digital society
Initiatives across the globe, from the very beginning of the rise of digital society considered
the potential environmental impact of digital technologies. While national policies for
realizing the digital society and protecting the environment were initially shaped and
implemented separately, they are now, more often, clustered together. For instance, EU
policymakers, following the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
(2002), clearly identified the potential of the information society “to strengthen economic
development with less pressure on the environment” (Alakeson and Wilsdon, 2003, p. 10).
Since then, significant progress, has been made, almost everywhere, in recognizing the
impact that technologies have in implementing specific policies to protect the environment,
society, individuals and the economy. Therefore, we are following a rich path of research
that underlined how the advent of digital technologies is a way to support sustainable
development (Melville, 2010; Elliot, 2011; Seele, 2014), to tackle environmental crises and
promote a sustainable future.
However, despite its importance, digital sustainability has often been interpreted in terms of
business development and corporations’ strategies (Mithas and Lucas, 2010) or forms of
digital preservation (Bradley, 2007), therefore, limiting its theoretical and practical impact.
Moreover, strategies to use technologies wisely while respecting the environment,
employees and customers are not new. For example, in the seventies, Haas highlighted
how companies have, besides performing their usual functions, increased responsibilities
for “pollution control, charitable foundations, assistance to the disadvantaged and to
educational institutions” (1973). However, digital sustainability is not an update to strategies
and approaches taken by a company to achieve better sustainability through wiser use of
digital technologies. It is neither the strategy adopted by small or big businesses to run an

PAGE 222 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021
environmentally sustainable company. Business models and economic structures of
organizations while critical to sustainability, are not enough to define and determine digital
sustainability. In other terms, digital sustainability is not only technological sustainability,
namely, the fact that digital technologies must be sustainable in terms of environmental
costs and should not harm customers and employees. It is the holistic, normative approach
that should be adopted both by private and public actors in using digital technologies to
protect the environment and empower citizens and future generations. In short, digital
sustainability could be interpreted as the attempt to lead the technological revolution in line
with UN criteria, instead of being driven by it.
With its goals, the concept of digital sustainability underlines the consideration of digital
technologies’ potential negative effects on the environment, society, individuals and the
economy. The COVID-19 outbreak, for instance, has shown how digital skills, high-speed
internet and reliable hardware and software are essential conditions for work, health, social
interaction and education, thus influencing the quality of life (Ragnedda and Ruiu, 2021).
The digital transformation, accelerated by the pandemic, also has the potential to
exacerbate both digital and social inequalities (Robinson et al., 2020). However, it is not
only a matter of accessing digital technologies (known as the first level of digital divide) but
also a matter of digital skills and competencies in using ICTs (second level of digital divide)
and empowering life opportunities by using digital technologies (third level of digital divide).
The multidimensionality of the digital divide (Ragnedda, 2017) poses a serious challenge to
creating a sustainable future worldwide. Problems with (digital) literacy can produce
corrosive effects on social well-being (Büchi et al., 2018).
In the UK, for instance, inequalities both in terms of access to technology and basic digital
skills are evident (Office for National Statistics, 2019). According to the Digital Index 2020,
an estimated 9 million (16%) in the UK are unable to use the Internet and their device by
themselves, and 11.7 million (22%) are not equipped with the necessary skills for everyday
life. These issues related to different levels of the digital divide and digital inequalities are
evident almost everywhere in the world (Ragnedda and Gladkova, 2020), posing serious
challenges to a society that aims to be digitally sustainable. We suggest that measures
aiming at correcting these imbalances should be articulated from the values of equality,
harmony and self-determination.
Furthermore, some countries or regions have no internet access at all, and therefore, they
are totally excluded from all the benefits, in terms of business, knowledge and opportunities
that the Internet may offer. To help those who cannot afford to get online access to the Web,
often defined as the next billion users, several programs, both public and private, have
been launched. Policy options for “Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)” is, for
instance, a document developed by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF 2015), a
multistakeholder governance group for policy dialogue on issues of Internet governance
established by the UN in 2006. As reported by the IGF, website, “Internet governance was one
of the most controversial issues at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and at
the subsequent WSIS þ 10 review by the General Assembly in the wake of the adoption of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015” (IGF 2015). Accessing and using the internet
is, therefore, considered vital for sustainable development.
In this vein, some big hi-tech corporations are offering free access to the internet but with
limited internet surfing. For instance, the Free Basics program offers free access in more
than 60 countries in the world, but only to a set of Facebook-curated websites. This guided
access to the internet – including news, health and employment sites – not only offers a
limited window of local news content and local languages, but the “data and content
limitations built into Free Basics are largely artificial and primarily aimed at collecting
profitable data from users.” (Wang, 2017). While offering free access to the internet is in line
with SDGs, directing the access to specific information, knowledge and resources is
dangerous and not sustainable and undermines the value of self-determination.

VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j PAGE 223
 Furthermore, the uneven access to the internet exacerbates social inequalities (Ragnedda,
2017), reinforcing already existing disparities between and within states.
Finally, if on the one hand, digitalization might help reduce the impact that human activities
have on the environment, on the other hand, we need to bear in mind that big tech
corporations and the latest digital technologies can also produce negative effects on the
environment. For instance, blockchain technologies (Ragnedda and Destefanis, 2019) rely
on servers that require huge amounts of energy to power them, thus having an increasingly
negative impact on the environment. Likewise, despite claiming to have zero net carbon
emissions, Google’s impact on the environment is considerable. Only in the USA, in 2019,
“Google requested, or was granted, more than 2.3 billion gallons of water [8.7 million liters]
for data centers in three different states” (Sattiraju, 2020). To this, we need to add similar
requests made by Amazon, Microsoft and other big tech corporations. This is creating an
increasingly unsustainable cost for the environment, thus undermining the principles of
equality and harmony between generations.
These are just a few examples of the negative impact that digital technologies might have
on the environment, society, individuals and the economy. Therefore, promoting digital
sustainability means putting a way to tackle the negative impact related to the advent of
digital technologies at the center of policymakers and private stakeholders’ agenda.
Thinking about a sustainable digital future does not mean rejecting the latest technologies,
such as blockchain, artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things. Given that the societal
complexity of the global nervous system is deeply connected, the latest digital technologies
can help enhance sustainability in the environmental, social and economic sphere (Helbing,
2012; Gijzen, 2013; Hampton et al., 2013), promoting a sustainable world that considers
future generations. Thinking and planning, in terms of digital sustainability, means wisely
using digital technologies to enhance the universal values of sustainability (equality,
harmony, self-determination) to improve the quality of life of individuals, having a positive
impact on society and the economy, all while respecting and protecting the environment.

7. Conclusions
This paper focused on generalizations about the role of digital technologies in innovation
and transformation and their impact on the environment, society, individuals and the
economy. Digital technologies have changed how people communicate, study, work,
interact and even look for friends, relationships and love. It is, therefore, important to reflect
upon the impact that this revolution would have on individuals and on the wider socio-
economic, political and environmental context. In this vein, this article attempted to reflect
on the sustainability of this revolution, by sketching the concept of digital sustainability from
the concept of sustainability. As we have seen, digital sustainability – like sustainability –
aims at the realization of three universal values: equality, harmony, self-determination. To be
sustainable, the use of digital technologies should be led by the value of equality, namely,
the respect for equal rights of all, without distinction for race, sex, language or religion.
Particularly important is the consideration now of the rights of future generations. Second,
digital technologies might help in tackling both the ecological and social crises through a
universal collaboration according to the harmony value. Finally, the third value for digital
sustainability is self-determination. It applies to individuals and social formations and it
refers to the capability of being in control of your destiny. Technologies can support this
purpose, but also take over and partly dispossess individuals and social formation from
their options.
We also argued that digital innovation might enhance the quality of life at individual and
societal levels, but might also add risk of exacerbating inequalities. Digital technologies,
indeed, may help to transform the world into a more equal and sustainable environment, but
only if we lead the transformation and not if we are led by technologies. We have underlined
how digital sustainability might contribute to defining and leading the direction toward which

PAGE 224 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021
digitalization is going. In this vein, we need the reminder that the development of
technologies is a tool for creating and promoting a sustainable world, in line with the UN’s
2030 sustainable goals.
We have also underlined throughout the article how Sustainable Digital Development – like
Sustainable Development – can be based on different worldviews. Strategies and actions of
different stakeholders involved (governments, corporations, intergovernmental organizations,
private non-profits, individuals, etc). depend on their understanding of existing conditions, their
priorities and history. We argued that while this plurality of different worldviews is normal (like for
SD), they should all converge by being articulated around the long-term values of sustainability.
Notably, this creates problems. Sustainable Digital Development, which is a cluster of different
paths toward sustainability, should consider – like SD – the links between the economic, social
and environmental. We also argued that individuals should be at the center of the digital
sustainable agenda and we need to consider the interplay between the economic, social,
environment and individual, as intertwined elements that mutually influence each other.
We reiterate the idea that digital sustainability can play a positive role on productivity and
development in emerging countries. Policymakers, both at regional and international levels,
need to drive and orient technological development toward a sustainable world. Technological
progress, therefore, cannot and must not be stopped. It must be ruled by private and public
actors in a direction that is compatible with and instrumental for to a sustainable future.
Finally, and in more concrete terms, we suggest that the current framework designed by the UN
to achieve a sustainable global world by 2030 is rather conservative regarding the potential role
that ICTs can play in this process. On the one hand, there is recognition of the “great” potential
from the adoption of ICTs to “accelerate human process” (United Nations General Assembly,
2015, p. 5). However, on the other hand, only few “targets” refers to the adoption of ICTs. These
include for example target 5 b, that suggests the use of ICTs to empower women, and targets
9.c. and 17.8 which suggests to broaden universal, internet access and facilitate the adoption of
ICTS (UN General Assembly, 2015). Furthermore, the indicators used to monitor progress in the
realization of these targets only refer to broadening access (e.g. proportion of individuals who
own a mobile telephone, by sex; proportion of population covered by a mobile network, by
technology; and proportion of individuals using the internet, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, 2021). As argued in this paper through the concept of digital sustainability, adoption of
ICTs does not necessarily contribute to a more sustainable society. Therefore, we argue for the
formulation of more specific targets and indicators that specifically connect the adoption of ICTs
with fundamental, universal value but also, with the specific goals of the 2030 agenda.

References
Alakeson, V. and Wilsdon, J. (2003), “Digital sustainability in Europe”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 10-12, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1162/108819802763471744
(accessed 4 January 2021).

Banerjee, S.B. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: the good, the bad and the ugly”, Critical
Sociology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 51-79, doi: 10.1177/0896920507084623.
Bradley, K. (2007), “Defining digital sustainability”, Library Trends, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 148-163.
Brand, U. (2010), “Sustainable development and ecological modernization – the limits to a hegemonic
policy knowledge’ innovation: the”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 135-152.
Büchi, M., Festic, N. and Latzer, M. (2018), “How social well-being is affected by digital inequalities”,
International Journal of Communication, Vol. 12, pp. 3686-3706.
Cavagnaro, E. and Curiel, G.H. (2017), The Three Levels of Sustainability, Routledge.
Delmas, M.A., Lyon, T.P. and Maxwell, J.W. (2019), “Understanding the role of the corporation in
sustainability transitions”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 87-97.

VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j PAGE 225
 Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021), Sustainable Development, United Nations (accessed
19 May 2021), available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H. and Tracey, P. (2010), “Social Bricolage: theorizing social value creation in
social enterprises”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 681-703.
Elliot, S. (2011), “Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: a resource base and
framework for IT-Enabled business transformation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 197-236.
Embry, E., Jones, J. and York, J. (2019), “Climate change and entrepreneurship”, in G. George, T. Baker,
P. Tracey, and H. Joshi (Eds), Handbook of Inclusive Innovation: The Role of Organizations, Markets, and
Communities in Social Innovation, Edward Elgar, pp. 377-393.
Fuchs, C. (2017), “Critical social theory and sustainable development: the role of class, capitalism and
domination in a dialectical analysis of Un/sustainability”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 443-458, doi: 10.1002/sd.1673.
George, G., McGahan, A.M. and Prabhu, J.C. (2012), “Innovation for inclusive growth: toward a
theoretical framework and research agenda”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 4,
p. 23.
Gijzen, H. (2013), “Development: big data for a sustainable future”, Nature, Vol. 502 No. 7469, p. 38.
Hampton, S.E., Strasser, C.A., Tewksbury, J.J., Gram, W.K., Budden, A.E., Batcheller, A.L., Duke, C.S.
and Porter, J.H. (2013), “Big data and the future of ecology”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 156-162.
Helbing, D. (2012), “The future ICT knowledge accelerator toward a more resilient and sustainable
future”, in Ball, P. (Ed), Why Society is a Complex Matter, Springer, Berlin, pp. 55-60.
Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S.J., Hoskins, B.J. and George, G. (2014), “Climate change and
management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 615-623.
Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santillo, D. and Robèrt, K.-H. (2007), “Reclaiming the definition of
sustainability”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research – International, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 60-66.
Kajikawa, Y., Ohno, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K. and Komiyama, H. (2007), “Creating an academic
landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 221-231, doi: 10.1007/s11625-007-0027-8.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. (1972), The Limits to Growth, (Vol. 102).
New York, NY: Universe Books.
Melville, N.P. (2010), “Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Mensah, J. and Ricart Casadevall, S. (2019), “Sustainable development: meaning, history, principles,
pillars, and implications for human action: literature review”, Cogent Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 1,
doi: 10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531.
Mithas, S. and Lucas, H.C. Jr, (2010), “What is your digital business strategy?”, IT Professional, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 4-6.
Nave, A. and Ferreira, J. (2019), “Corporate social responsibility strategies: past research and future
challenges”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 4.
Lubin, D.A. and Esty, D.C. (2014), “Bridging the sustainability gap”, MITSloan Manag Rev.
Office for National Statistics (2019), “Internet users, UK: 2019”, available at: www.ons.gov.uk/
businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2019 (accessed 16 December
2020).
Ragnedda, M. (2017), The Third Digital Divide. A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities, London:
Routledge.
Ragnedda, M. (2020), Enhancing Digital Equity. Connecting the Digital Underclass, London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ragnedda, M. and Destefanis, G. (Eds) (2019), Blockchain and Web 3.0: Social, Economic, and
Technological Challenges, London: Routledge.

Ragnedda, M. and Gladkova A., (Eds) (2020), Digital Inequalities in the Global South, London: Palgrave
Macmillan.

PAGE 226 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021
Ragnedda, M. and Ruiu, M.L. (2021), “COVID-19 in the UK: the exacerbation of inequality and a digitally-
based response”, in Milan, S., Treré, E. and Masiero, S., (Eds), COVID-19 from the Margins. Pandemic
Invisibilities, Policies and Resistance in the Datafied Society, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam,
pp. 106-110.
Robinson, L., Schulz, J., Khilnani, A., Ragnedda, M., et al., (2020), “Digital inequalities in time of
pandemic: COVID-19 exposure risk profiles and new forms of vulnerability”, First Monday, available at:
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10845/9563 (access 12 March 2021).
Rokeach, M. (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change, Jossey-Bass.
Sattiraju, N. (2020), The Secret Cost of Google’s Data Centers: Billions of Gallons of Water to Cool
Servers, available at: https://time.com/5814276/google-data-centers-water/

Schmidt, E. and Cohen, J. (2013), “The new digital age”, Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and
Business, Knopf, New York, NY.
Seele, P. (2014), Unified Reporting: Integrating XBRL Data Repositories into Sustainability Reporting.
17th Environmental and Sustainability Management Accounting Network (EMAN): from Sustainability
Reporting to Sustainability Management Control. EMAN 2014.4, ISBN: 9789056770006; doi: 10.13140/
2.1.3311.5842
Sirgy, M.J., Michalos, A.C., Ferriss, A.L., Easterlin, R.A., Patrick, D. and Pavot, W. (2006), “The qualityity-
of-life (QOL) research movement: past, present, and future”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 76 No. 3,
pp. 343-466.
Sparviero, S. (2021), “The contribution of global media to ethical capitalism”, in Dal Yong, J. (Ed), The
Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Globalization, New York, NY, US and Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge, p.55-65.
Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005), “Corporations, stakeholders and
sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 263-281, doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-7054-0.
Tulloch, L. and Neilson, D. (2014), “The neoliberalisation of sustainability”, Citizenship, Social and
Economics Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 26-38, doi: 10.2304/csee.2014.13.1.26.
UN (2020), “Information and communication technologies (ICTs). retrieved 6 february 2020, from united
nations website”, available at: www.un.org/development/desa/socialperspectiveondevelopment/issues/
information-and-communication-technologies-icts.html
UNDP (1999), Globalization with a Human Face, New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
UNESCO (2018), Global Framework of Reference on Digital Literacy Skills for Indicator 4.4.2: Percentage
of Youth/Adults Who Have Achieved at Least a Minimum Level of Proficiency in Digital Literacy Skill (Draft
Report), Paris: UNESCO, available at: http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/draftreport-
global-framework-reference-digital-literacyskills-indicator-4.4.2.pdf (accessed 18 December 2020).

United Nations General Assembly (2006), “Millennium summit declaration. Retrieved 7 July 2020, from
wayback machine–internet archive website: https://web.archive.org/web/20061229095816/”, www.rcgg.
ufrgs.br/msd_ing.htm
United Nations General Assembly (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development”, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. United Nations,
21 October 2015, available at: www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
Valero Thomas, E. (2015), “Sustainable orientalism: hegemonic discourses for environmental
sustainability and their transmission to non-Western habitats. Critical planning, p. 22”, available at:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7ww6h030 (accessed 21 December 2020).
van Egmond, N.D. and de Vries, H.J.M. (2011), “Sustainability: the search for the integral worldview”,
Futures, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 853-867, doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.027.

Van Opstal, M. and Hugé, J. (2013), “Knowledge for sustainable development: a worldviews
perspective”, Environment Development and Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 687-709, doi: 10.1007/
s10668-012-9401-5.

Wang, S. (2017), “What sort of limited internet does Facebook’s free basics offer? Not much local content,
but plenty of corporate services from the US NiemanLab”, available at: https://www.niemanlab.org/2017/
07/what-sort-of-limited-internet-does-facebooks-free-basics-offer-not-much-local-content-but-plenty-of-
corporate-services-from-the-u-s/ (accessed 20 December 2020).

VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j PAGE 227
 WCED (1987), “Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future”,
available at: World_Commission_of_Environment_and_Development_(WCED)_website:www.un-
documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
York, J., Vedula, S. and Lenox, M. (2018), “It’s not easy building green: the impact of public policy, private
actors, and regional logics on voluntary standards adoption”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61
No. 4, pp. 1492-1523.
Zappettini, F. and Unerman, J. (2016), “‘Mixing’ and ‘bending’: the recontextualisation of discourses of
sustainability in integrated reporting”, Discourse & Communication, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 521-542,
doi: 10.1177/1750481316659175.

Further reading
IGF (2020), “Policy options for connecting and enabling the next billion(s)”, available at: www.intgovforum.org/
multilingual/content/policy-options-for-connecting-and-enabling-the-next-billions (accessed 20 December
2020).
Sattirahu, N. (2020), “The secret cost of Google’s data centers: billions of gallons of water to cool
servers”, Time, 2 April, available at: https://time.com/5814276/google-data-centers-water/ (accessed 5
January 2021).
UN (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”, doi: 10.1891/
9780826190123.ap02 xxx

Corresponding author
Massimo Ragnedda can be contacted at: MASSIMO.RAGNEDDA@NORTHUMBRIA.AC.UK

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 228 j DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE j VOL. 23 NO. 3 2021