Encyclopedia
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects:
Management
In this study, we investigate the relationship between the sustainability indicators proposed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the goals defined by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the COBIT maturity model. As a result, we obtained a set of 50 indicators covering four dimensions of sustainability. In the Environmental dimension 11 indicators were observed, in Economic 06 indicators were listed, in Social 14 indicators were listed, and in the Governance dimension there were 19 indicators converging between COBIT and GRI. These 50 indicators were validated through content analysis of sustainability reports from 9 IT companies worldwide. In this analysis, it was observed that the SDGs are incorporated in the strategic goals of 7 of the 9 companies analyzed.
- governance indicators
- information technology
- maturity models
- software
- sustainability indicators
1. Introduction
In a competitive and highly connected world, technology companies play a key role as providers of solutions and services [1]. As a result of the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, these companies have seen their economic value increase, almost in proportion to the pressure from stakeholders and society for greater transparency in data management, ethics, and socioenvironmental responsibility [2].
To face these pressures, the adoption of strategic and operational management models aligned with sustainability, and the establishment of measurable goals through indicators that show the materiality of the operations, have become indispensable tools [3].
Indicators are generally implemented as a measure to assess a company in relation to the quality of its services and/or products, operational or financial performance, customer, employee, or stakeholder satisfaction, and are also used to assess the level of sustainability of a company, city, or country [4]. In the field of sustainability, several indicators have been proposed, but, according to [5], the set of variables used to compose these indicators, such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), Environmental Performance Index (EPI), Adjusted Net Economy (ANS), and the Ecological Footprint, present conflicting or contradictory results.
In view of this scenario, Agenda 21 was proposed, which reinforced the need to establish indicators that allow the sustainable development of the millennium to be assessed, giving rise to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are presented as relevant, measurable, easily communicated, accessible indicators, and with a focus on results [6]. However, the metrics proposed in Agenda 21 do not always meet corporate objectives, generating the need for a new set of indicators that assess sustainability in companies.
In the software engineering environment, the steps to determine the metrics can be oriented towards product evaluation—product inspection and quality control; process—evolution of the life cycle and management of activities at the operational level and system management—guarantee of product quality and technical information [7,8,9]. Another mechanism adopted is the maturity model that supports the development and control of processes, the optimization of established procedures, and also an improvement in product quality and the management of related activities, promoting the best use of available resources [10].
The optimization of resources can also be measured through annual or biennial sustainability and/or social responsibility reports, in which companies inform the results of their performance indicators and describe voluntary or mandatory actions to improve environmental, economic, and social performance operations [11]. This information, which started with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) approach, has gained new outlines and has recently come to be known as Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) criteria, making social and environmental issues an indispensable part of companies’ strategy [2,12].
One of the most adopted models to develop the Sustainability Report in companies is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which uses inventory processes as a basis for data collection. This standardized model provides an overview of an organization’s sustainable practices for investors, customers, employees, and stakeholders [11,13].
In software and information and communication technology (ICT) companies, the preparation and dissemination of sustainability reports has become a practice adopted by large companies or global organizations; however, among Brazilian micro and small software companies, which represent 95.5% of a total of 5924 companies in the sector, the dissemination of sustainable actions and practices has not yet occurred due to difficulties in implementing and measuring sustainability indicators [14,15].
Thus, this study has a main objective to develop a set of sustainable indicators that can be adopted by micro and small software companies, based on the connection between the sustainability indicators proposed by SGD and GRI, and the requirements of the COBIT maturity model. This set of indicators can help micro and small companies to assess their level of adherence to sustainability and identify points that need improvement.
2. Findings
The use of indicators to manage the sustainability goals established by companies and to establish sustainable standards of device production in the development of applications/software, suggested by Sage (1997) and Debreceny and Gray (2013), were identified in the analyzed reports.
Considering the SDGs and GRI reporting items, an analysis was carried out to identify their relationship with the requirements of the COBIT model, with the aim of generating a set of indicators that aggregate the three lines of corporate sustainability: environmental, economic, and social.
The result of these analyses is that the environmental and social indicators (GRI and ODS) are more adherent to the COBIT model, reinforcing the current trend of social and environmental indicators [27,28]. It was also observed that the economic indicators were less mentioned in the sustainability reports prepared and made available by the companies.
On the other hand, IT corporate governance, which permeates the sustainability aspects considered in this study, presented 19 converging items, reinforcing compliance with international rules linked to Sarbanes–Oxley’s transparency and compliance practices, as well as the definitions of the management and strategic alignment established by the GTI and adoption of the COBIT model itself, which is an efficient tool for managing activities carried out in software and information and communication technology companies.
Regarding the set of 50 proposed indicators, it was observed that they are unevenly distributed between environmental, economic, and social aspects, as described below.
-
Environmental aspect → this dimension linked to the GRI items related to energy presented four items for energy, one item for manager environmental, and three items for products and services, adding up to eight COBIT requirements.
-
Economic aspect → this dimension has seven items related to the economic and product aspects. One item of policies, two items of corporate environment management, one item of financial management, two items of contract management, and one of data management were verified, totaling seven COBIT requirements.
-
Social aspect → Five items of the GRI social—labor relations and one item of social—society are strongly similar to eight requirements of COBIT, as shown in Table 1 of this study.
It was also observed that 29 items of governance, strategy, and engagement of stakeholders established in the GRI are following 16 requirements of the EDM dimension of COBIT, and that these comprise the analysis of the ESG indicators of the rating companies. In view of the results, it was confirmed that the proposed indicators include the three aspects of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social.
Regarding the feasibility of using the proposed set of indicators, although limited, given the number of sustainability reports analyzed, these were adequate to the current concerns of technology companies with the use of renewable energy, and sustainable productive means, considering the entire product and/or service life cycle and greenhouse gas emissions from its operations and suppliers.
At the same time, it is observed that investors have been looking for companies that have their strategy focused on the sustainability of their operations, especially those that aim to preserve and optimize the use of natural resources, control greenhouse gas emissions, and manage waste generated, as well as adopting inclusive policies in the hiring of its employees, engaging partners, suppliers, and local communities in business, and within its area of operation, generating value for society.
In this new scenario of opportunities, micro and small companies can and should take ownership of sustainable practices aiming to improve their operational performance, due to the satisfaction and engagement of their employees and partners, at the same time obtaining investments to expand their business and expand the portfolio of customers, generating value for partners, employees, and the parties involved.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su132313247
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
