Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Customer Relationship Management in Shopping Malls: Mall–Retailer Collaboration Empirics
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Motivating Generation Z in the Workplace: Managerial Challenges and Insights
Previous Article in Special Issue
Voluntary Social Disclosure in an Emerging Country: The Case of Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/admsci15010030
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of ICT Energy Efficiency Disclosure to Improve Business Management Practices and Its Contribution to the SDGs

by
Manuela Sánchez-Vázquez
1,
Ainhoa Saitua-Iribar
2,
Noemí Peña-Miguel
2,* and
Javier Corral-Lage
2
1
Audinfor, 48001 Bilbao, Spain
2
Financial Accounting I Department, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48015 Bilbao, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010030
Submission received: 5 November 2024 / Revised: 29 December 2024 / Accepted: 13 January 2025 / Published: 19 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Challenges in Accounting: Sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: The new global approach to sustainability within the context of the SDGs is driving a digital transition. However, new technologies bring challenges related to the energy efficiency of their infrastructures. The aim of this exploratory work is to identify the companies with best practices in various aspects of the management, disclosure and verification of the energy efficiency of emerging technologies. Design/methodology/approach: Using a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach, the Non-Financial Information Statements of Spanish IBEX 35 companies are assessed. Findings: The results show that companies disclose non-financial information in relation to the materiality of energy efficiency and the actions implemented to improve it, but regulatory development is still required to ensure greater comparability of such information. Originality: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyse information on ICT energy sustainability in the context of Law 11/2008 in Spain, which also includes an analysis of information on the double materiality of risks and the policies and actions implemented by companies to manage them. Practical implications: Improving the information disclosed will increase its usefulness for the internal decision-making of companies, to improve ICT energy efficiency and SDG. Social implications: Improving the information disclosed will increase its usefulness for external decision-making by the different stakeholders, as regulators and other disclosing companies may take these selected companies as an example in each sector of activity.

1. Introduction

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by companies improves production and management processes (Zhou et al., 2022), as well as relations with stakeholders (Woźniak & Wereda, 2018). In the “third industrial revolution”, the end of work is predicted (Rifkin, 1995). Thus, ICTs are increasingly present, both in business and personal activity, to the point of making them almost indispensable (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996; Abdul-Wakeel Karakara & Osabuohien, 2022).
However, the mass use of ICTs leads to an increase in the volume of data; this makes management more difficult and is becoming an increasingly complex task for companies (Caviglione et al., 2017). The key element to handling the massive volume of data will be the current fourth industrial revolution (Observatorio Nacional 5G, 2021). It promises to change the processes and means of production of companies through “artificial intelligence” (AI), “Big Data”, “the Cloud” or “blockchain”, moving from the Internet of Information to the “Internet of Things” (IoT) (Joyanes, 2017; European Commission, 2018, 2021).
In the field of the preparation and verification of financial and non-financial information, advances in ICTs are moving towards the automation of tasks of little added value for organisations, thus reducing repetitive tasks and human error and providing greater quality to the documentation generated by the auditor in his/her working papers (Montoya Hernandez & Valencia Duque, 2020; Pérez, 2021). As times are moving in this direction, IT and auditing are complementing each other to improve the processes and management of all audit firms (Sian, 2022). Until recently, continued development and innovation in this area was the preserve of the Big Four, but the emergence of COVID-19 highlighted the need for a greater technological response (Farcane et al., 2023).
The “Communication on Progress 2022” report on sustainability identifies digitalisation, materiality, comparability and verification among the five key issues (Global Compact, 2023). But carbon footprint refers to the total greenhouse gases emitted by an individual, organisation, event or product (Belkhir & Elmeligi, 2018; BBVA, 2020), and the effects of ICT hardware itself on energy and climate are also coming under increasing scrutiny (Williams, 2011; European Parliament, 2021). In other words, the economy must be made “green” (European Parliament, 2007). Furthermore, according to the 2030 Agenda, organisations are expected to play an essential role in achieving the SDGs (Rosati & Faria, 2019). Thus, new challenges emerge from these ICTs, such as the need for the infrastructure that comes with this new era of digital economy to be sustainable, fair and transparent (Pastor, 2020).
Despite technological advances and their effect on the development of business activities, institutional theory emphasises the importance of social and cultural environments rather than technological dimensions (Benito et al., 2023). Following this framework, incorporating sustainable practices can serve as a strategy for addressing external pressures (Crane et al., 2008) and complying with legal requirements. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify their effects from the point of view of energy efficiency in the context of business sustainability and identify the companies that better manage and disclose it in diverse aspects. As secondary objectives, we aim to verify how many companies have cited the SDGs in their disclosures and how many have used the GRIs as a reference to elaborate their disclosures. Thus, identifying the companies that best manage and disseminate not only provides validity to institutional theory, but these actions serve as an example to other companies and other sectors. Indeed, various interest groups have recently called on the public sector to act in line with socially accountable criteria (Crane et al., 2008).
In this respect, as industrial development, and more specifically the use of more advanced technologies, has historically played a fundamental role in the environment, we analyse the information, paying special attention to the energy efficiency of ICTs. To this end, we review how IBEX 35 companies report on the materiality and risk associated with these technologies, as well as the policies adopted to mitigate this risk.
Following this introduction, Section 2 presents a literature review of academic and professional publications to put emerging technologies into context, and the impact they have, not only on corporate governance in general and the specific reporting process and auditing of accounts but also on corporate sustainability, with particular emphasis on energy efficiency. In addition, Law 11/2018 (2018) is reviewed in relation to the presentation of the Non-Financial Information Statement (NFIS) in Spain. Section 3 is devoted to the empirical study in which the qualitative and quantitative research methodology content analysis of the NFIS of IBEX 35 companies is used. The final section is devoted to the conclusions.

2. Background

2.1. ICT Opportunities and Challenges for Energy Sustainability

The Brundtland Report (United Nations, 1987) defined sustainability as the need to manage today’s resources without compromising the needs of the future. Subsequently, the 2030 Agenda of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was adopted by the United Nations, which commits countries regardless of their level of development, and is defined as an objective “to establish a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity, which also intends to strengthen universal peace and access to justice” (United Nations, 2015). In addition, the European Commission is currently promoting the double transition to a green and digital economy (European Commission, 2020).
Among the SDGs, one of the targets of SDG 7 is to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all and double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Furthermore, ICT is an essential element in addressing the challenge of lower energy consumption (Lu, 2018). In this regard, Directive 2019/944 defines energy efficiency as “the ratio between the output of a performance, service, good or energy and the expenditure of energy” and establishes the relationship between ICT and energy consumption (EU, 2019).
In general, information and communication technologies (ICTs) involve three main elements: hardware (computers, peripherals, etc.), software (computer programs) and communication networks (the Internet) (Vishwakarma et al., 2022). In addition, this framework generates other concepts such as IT security and the set of emerging technologies such as AI (artificial intelligence), Big Data, IoT (Internet of Things), and blockchain (Kim & Oh, 2022). Thus, the combination of these four ICTs may be the key to sustainable and digital development (Burmaoglu et al., 2019; Observatorio Nacional 5G, 2021). At the business level, the use of emerging technologies can help organisations better manage their resources for profit (Condom-Vilà, 2020). In particular, ICTs have enabled the evolution of the accounting information system and improved the collection, analysis and presentation of financial information, helping companies’ decision-making (Bodnar & Hopwood, 2001).
However, while digitisation contributes to decarbonisation, the large amount of energy required to support the emerging technologies industry by manufacturing electronic devices, such as PCs, servers, cooling equipment, etc., as well as their use through telecommunication networks, means that they are not energy sustainable (Zeadally et al., 2012; Greenpeace, 2017; Kaur & Chana, 2015; Shi et al., 2022). The 24/7 consumption of servers, including their cooling systems, and the consumption of fossil materials for the manufacture of their components, makes it necessary to evaluate the efficiency of their consumption and is, therefore, a challenge for all organisations with data centres (Laurent et al., 2020). Another challenge faced is the high energy consumption of telecommunications networks, as the consumption of the 5G network accounts for 10% of global electricity and will increase due to future demands derived from AI, the Internet of Things and the so-called Industry 4.0 (Aretxabala, 2020). Consequently, companies must also take this into account in their strategic planning, consumption and the impact of their business activity on the environment. Thus, from the OUT–IN approach of dual materiality, technology has positive aspects for the improvement of data management and decision-making in companies, which will improve the profitability and financial position of these companies. But from an IN–OUT approach, the use of technology has negative aspects, such as the energy consumption of computers running 24/7, which negatively impacts the environment.

2.2. From the Non-Financial Information Statement (NFIS) to the Sustainability Information

The application of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive 2014/95 (EU, 2014) required certain companies to submit a Non-Financial Information Statement (NFIS) that discloses information on environmental, social and corporate governance areas.
The Spanish Law 11/2018 (2018) went a step further and required the entity to report on its commitments to the SDGs. To this end, the Law highlights the use of the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) key indicator standard. In any case, since the entry into force of Law 11/2018 (2018), the GRI must also include information on human rights and the fight against corruption and bribery, including due diligence procedures to identify and assess risks (ICAC, 2021). In this respect, the GRI is divided into blocks: universal, sectoral and thematic. Furthermore, within the block of universal standards, GRI 3 explains how companies can determine the material issues and the process followed (Fundación ANDI, 2021). To assist in this process, the discussion on the role of blockchain in non-financial reporting is still sparse (Pizzi et al., 2022). But Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) will provide a boost by processing and packaging sustainability reports in a streamlined way by creating agile, transparent and automated data collection processes (Cerchiaro et al., 2021). In the United States and Canada, blockchain has proven well positioned to help accountants and auditors prepare and review sustainability information by providing reliable tracking and custodial support for sustainability information that many companies prepare, such as greenhouse gas emissions, conflict minerals disclosure, product sourcing, and others (Bakarich et al., 2020).
In Spain, the NFIS must currently be verified in a limited way (ICJCE, 2019). In this regard, the impact of ICT is especially reflected in the revised ISA 315 (ICAC, 2021) and ISA 330 (ICAC, 2013) to assess the risk not only associated with hardware and/or software components but also with processes.
Now, the CSRD establishes a phased entry into the application of the ESRS. Companies already obliged by the NFRD should apply them in January 2024, and other large companies the year after (2025), and list SMEs in 2026, and non-EU companies with branches/subsidiaries in the EU should apply them in 2028 (Giner et al., 2024).
Following the adoption of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (EU, 2022), limited assurance on sustainability reporting will be required in all other countries from 2024 onwards, either by the company’s statutory auditor or, at the choice of the Member State, by another auditor or by an independent assurance service provider, whereby Member States will have to establish equivalent requirements for the independent assurance service provider in terms of quality, independence and oversight. However, in the medium term, reasonable assurance, similar to that of financial reporting, will be sought and technological developments will open up great possibilities for the increased quality of these assurance reports, which is a major challenge for the auditing profession (Duran et al., 2021).

2.3. Materiality of the Company’s Sustainability Issues

Both financial and sustainability information reported by companies needs to be clear and proportionate, and not only communicate the good but also account for the risks faced in a fair, reliable and credible way. It seems necessary, therefore, to incorporate sustainability risk for the purposes of organisational risk analysis. The concept of materiality arises both from the conceptual accounting framework of the Spanish General Accounting Plan and from the International Accounting Standard IAS 1, which defines the principle of materiality, explaining how certain facts or data can be excluded from financial statements because they are not significant. More specifically, in relation to the Statement of Non-Financial Information, materiality refers to those aspects and indicators that are important for the company and stakeholders. Thus, the company must perform an analysis of the degree of significance of the information to be reported, and report the criteria used to determine materiality (Ortiz & Marín, 2022).
In 2021, the EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group) published a set of guidelines to define and explain the differences between financial materiality and impact materiality in the context of sustainability. Impact materiality refers to those sustainability-related aspects that affect people, the economy, the environment and human rights through the entity’s activity. Financial materiality refers to those sustainability-related aspects that are financially significant for the entity and may affect it beyond what is reported in the financial statements (EFRAG, 2021). Several years ago, the PWC already announced that auditing could consist of verifying the new management models of companies’ sustainable development strategy and that technological solutions will undoubtedly play a key role in corporate sustainability by reducing, for example, energy consumption (PWC, 2014).
Thus, the progress of ICTs produces important synergies in the accessibility, efficiency and verification of data by connecting the different business processes (Garrigues, 2014). However, it is important to analyse the impact of ICTs on production processes where equipment and human resources are combined, and also assess how they affect sustainability.

2.4. Institutional Theory and Literature Review

In relation to theories that may affect the accountability and disclosure of non-financial information, institutional theory advocates that organisations are influenced and shaped by the broader institutional environment, which is affected by social and environmental pressures (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Powell & Di Maggio, 1991). According to Meyer and Rowan (1977), organisations evolve to become more similar to each other. This may affect the level of disclosure of information on the SDGs reported by companies in this sector, not only because of the mandatory nature of the law but also because of the criteria to be used by the companies, which with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards will allow for greater comparability of the information provided by each company.
From this perspective, organisational design is seen as a process determined by internal and external factors that make organisations in a particular field and their form of action converge over time (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Powell & Di Maggio, 1991). This, in relation to the disclosure of information and despite the fact that it is mandatory, will make companies in the sector tend to report the same information as all companies opt for the same forms of action.
Although research began in the 1970s, the disclosure of non-financial information has increased exponentially over the past 10 years (Grueso-Gala & Zornoza, 2022).
Spain is an interesting case for study because it is one of the European countries that is the most strongly committed to the presentation of non-financial information, and the reports published by Spanish companies achieve high scores in sustainability indexes (Sierra-Garcia et al., 2018). They pointed out that companies that provide non-financial information in their sustainability reports are those that report the most on this topic. Van Zanten and Van Tulder (2018) analysed the results of a survey of 81 European and North American companies finding that multinational companies are more committed to SDG targets that are feasible within their operations (value chain) than to targets outside their operations, and more committed to SDG targets that “prevent harm” than to those that “do good”.
Nevertheless, there is still significant heterogeneity in the way companies publish their NFIS (García-Benau et al., 2022). Moreover, there is still a lack of understanding and guidance on SDG implementation (Sachs et al., 2019; Adams et al., 2020; SDG Impact, 2021). Perhaps this is due to the large number of concepts for which companies believe they are accountable. Although the literal interpretation of the wording of the SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation) and the Taxonomy Regulation strongly argues against an artificial disassociation of the concepts of sustainability, CSR and shared values (Balcerzak et al., 2023). Furthermore, there is still much to gain in SDG reporting; for instance, common reporting problems are intangibility, omission of negative impacts, poor standardisation, diversity of criteria and lack of comparability (Diaz-Sarachaga, 2021).
At the country level, Europe is making uneven progress towards the SDG targets, and northern regions, particularly Sweden, stand out positively and Spain ranks 20th out of 27 countries in terms of SDG compliance (Anselmi et al., 2024). The EU knows that it is necessary to balance between strict regulations and softer directives and it is critically important to engage in a multi-stakeholder model involving communications with national authorities and the ultimate addressees of the sustainability-related disclosures (Rubáček & MacGregor, 2023). Given this, research should try to elaborate a common framework for assessing disclosure quality and determine an optimal level of disclosure (Daub, 2007; Minutiello & Tettamanzi, 2022).
Although several studies have analysed how companies report their impact on the SDGs, information on the contribution of specific sectors to the SDGs has not been achieved. Regarding the ICT sector, Ramautar et al. (2023) focused on analysing the 2021 sustainability reports of the 23 largest ICT companies to determine how these companies contribute to the SDGs and found, as Mhlanga et al. (2018), that ICT companies display no consistent approach to determining their priority SDGs. Although in some cases they found that SDG reporting was comprehensive and supported by evidence. Kuhndt et al. (2006) found that ICT companies did not systematically prioritise sustainability aspects, and even more so, transparency was not guaranteed. Beske et al. (2020) pointed out that another approach to improving SDG prioritisation is to conduct a materiality assessment. We conduct such an assessment in this paper for the biggest companies of different sectors in Spain.

3. Methodology

Content analysis involves the elaboration of a classification plan, as well as the definition of standards for coding, measuring and collecting the information analysed (Krippendorff, 1990; Andréu, 2002).
The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation is based on qualitative data. In order to perform a homogenisation of this information, it is necessary to use a “content analysis” methodology. This consists of classifying and/or codifying the various elements of a message into categories in order to make their meaning adequately appear, in addition to analysing the presence and absence of terms or concepts independently of each other (Andréu, 2002). Therefore, following this methodology, the Non-Financial Information Statement of all IBEX 35 companies for the year ended 2021 was analysed. To subsequently determine the rules for coding, the information provided (or not provided by the companies) on the topic being addressed was scored as follows (Andréu, 2002):
-
0: No information
-
1: Only qualitative or quantitative information (not complete information)
-
2: Qualitative and quantitative information.
In summary, first, the common elements to be analysed were determined and then the information that each company contributes to these common elements was coded.
For the analysis, the information published by listed companies was considered, since the status of listed companies, being Public Interest Entities, is associated with the disclosure of non-financial information. More specifically, the Non-Financial Information Statement of all IBEX 35 companies for the year ended 2021 was analysed. Of the 35 companies that make up this stock market index, ARCELOR MITTAL, SA had not published its NFIS at the time of the analysis (July 2022) as it is based in Luxembourg, so the final sample was made up of 34 documents.
For each of the companies, the influence of ICTs was determined, as well as their energy efficiency. It was analysed whether these issues are reflected in the materiality and risk analysis of the companies, as well as the impact these risks may have for the Statutory Audit. In the event that the results obtained are mentioned in the IV Comparative Report on IBEX 35 NFIS (EY, 2021), the figure with respect to previous years was reported in order to be able to measure the evolution.

4. Empirical Study

4.1. Description of the Reports Analysed and Rankings on Various Aspects of Management and Disclosure About Energy Efficiency of ICT of Companies

The companies that made up the final sample of the analysis (34 companies) are shown in Table 1. In order to describe them, firstly, the Spanish National Classification of Economic Activities CNAE-93 is used, resulting in seven sectors. They correspond to: (a) consumer goods (five companies); (b) basic industrial and construction materials (seven); (c) oil and energy (eight); (d) consumer services (two); (e) financial services (six); (f) real estate services (two), and (g) technology and telecommunications (four companies).
Law 11/2018 (2018) requires that non-financial information be verified by an independent service provider, which brings transparency and security to the report. In the 2021 financial year, 100% of the companies stated that the non-financial information had been verified by an independent service provider.
In 2021 (Table 1), as was the case in 2020 (EY, 2021), all the verification firms belonged to the Big Four list and, in addition, presented an unqualified report. For the evaluation of this information, the external verifiers stated that they had used the NIEA 3000 (or ISAE 3000) standard. Also, as in 2020 (EY, 2021), 100% of the companies had prepared their reports in accordance with the GRI reporting standard, although some of them also mentioned using other frameworks more specialised in the sector in which they operated. In addition, 100% of companies linked their strategies and objectives to the SDGs.
The identification of the most relevant issues is key to the preparation of the NFIS. Therefore, it is essential that the company conducts a study of the material issues, assessing their importance. One hundred per cent of the companies had explained which issues they considered material for the company, both in 2021 and 2020 (EY, 2021), but 11.76% did not include the materiality matrix in their report, although they mentioned having done so. With the materiality assessment, companies not only reported on how external factors affected them (OUT–IN approach) but also how they impacted the environment (IN–OUT approach), increasing transparency and the ability to define a strategy to mitigate the risks associated with the most relevant aspects. This is why 35,29% of companies (which in this ranking in Table 1 appear in alphabetical order) present the matrix under the concept of dual materiality in 2021, compared to 9% in the previous year, which shows a positive trend in this regard (a 25 point increase).

4.2. Analysis of Information to Assess Risk and Improvement Actions

Materiality assessment is the diagnosis of the most relevant aspects of the company’s strategy, as well as the evaluation of the real or potential impact of the organisation’s contributions to sustainable development (Ortiz & Marín, 2022). In this section, the items under analysis are energy efficiency, along with the level of relevance that each company gives to these concepts after the result of their analysis.
Globally, the use and production of energy have serious consequences on the climate (European Environment Agency, 2017). The Non-Financial Reporting and Diversity Act 11/2018 requires companies to address certain topics in relation to the environment, particularly pollution and climate change, the circular economy, and the sustainable use of resources and biodiversity protection. In this case, 100% of the companies in the sample included energy efficiency as a material aspect (Table 2), either directly (38% of the companies), or indirectly, through the material aspect of “climate change” (62%). By sector, in g) technologies and telecommunications, two of the four companies included energy efficiency as a material aspect, with Cellnex and Indra being the ones that valued the importance of this aspect through climate change in general.
If we look at the level of importance attached to it (see Table 2), 62% of the companies consider climate change, and therefore energy efficiency, to be a highly significant issue; 26% give it medium importance, and only 6% believe it has a low impact. Similarly, within the technology and telecommunications sector, two companies, in this case, Cellnex and Telefónica, directly consider energy efficiency to be material and of high impact, whilst the other two, Amadeus and Indra, set their level of relevance at medium.
After analysing energy efficiency more generally in terms of materiality and risk, we looked in more detail at what measures companies are employing to improve energy efficiency and which of these are related to the use of emerging technologies (Rotolo et al., 2015). The extent and detail of information provided by companies in their NFIS are highly heterogeneous, but all of them report on energy efficiency policies (see Table 3), compared to 91% in 2020 (EY, 2021), so there is also a positive development in this aspect. In addition, the reports detail the companies’ policies for mitigating this risk, but only 59% include energy efficiency in their risk analysis. One hundred per cent of the companies describe measures to improve energy efficiency, regardless of whether it is considered material, even if they did not include it in the risk analysis. This is because the NFIS is required by regulation to mention it.
The most common actions regarding energy efficiency are as follows. Firstly, 74% of companies refer to the purchase of renewable energies and 53% establish their action policies through improvements to air conditioning and lighting. Forty-four per cent adopt measures related to ICTs and smart grids as energy distribution systems that combine electronics and emerging technologies such as AI, Big Data or IoT. Among other significant actions, 32% mention the renewal of infrastructures and equipment for more energy-efficient ones. Furthermore, 29% mention the installation of photovoltaic panels for self-consumption.
All these measures are internal actions that are supposed to be implemented by the companies but, within the context of the limited review, the auditors do not check their veracity. Therefore, it was considered relevant to investigate whether, within the NFIS, companies mention external certifications as a guarantee of the work carried out to improve energy efficiency. One hundred per cent are certified according to the environmental standard ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004). However, this is insufficient to conclude whether the energy consumption of the companies is efficient not only on a general level but also including the data centres directly related to the use of ICTs. Only 53% have implemented an energy management system certified through the ISO 50001 standard, and a much lower percentage (only 9%) of companies indicate that they have carried out an energy audit.
To detect whether companies take into account the risk associated with the use of ICTs in terms of energy consumption, the types of companies that refer to the energy efficiency of their data centres were identified by sector.
In this respect, only two sectors ((g) technology and telecommunications, and (f) real estate services) take it into account in their NFIS and report information on it for all the companies in the sample (Figure 1). However, in the rest of the sectors, this does not occur in the same proportion, which shows intrasector mimetic isomorphism behaviour, which could be explained by institutional theory, i.e., by the institutional context in which each entity operates, which through normative, mimetic and coercive processes, creates its rules of action (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Amadeus explains quite extensively that its data centre accounted for 50% of the company’s estimated environmental impact until recently, and that improving energy efficiency remains a priority for the company today. Cellnex mentions the need for more sustainable servers with lower consumption on the path to digital transformation proposed in the 2030 Agenda. Indra, however, only refers to LEED Gold certification in the company’s data processing centres. Telefónica, like Amadeus, includes extensive information about the measures taken; such as, for example, switching off 2G and 3G networks, improving their environmental impact by 78%, improving energy consumption over data consumption, and including information on their evolution in the period 2015–2021. In addition, within its strategies, it highlights the need to keep energy consumption stable, despite the strong increase in ICT use and, therefore, in data traffic circulating through the networks.
The rest of the sectors do not provide much data. For example, Sabadell mentions the importance of the energy consumption of data processing centres; Endesa, the powerful infrastructure (servers, storage, security) required by ICTs; Ferrovial, the challenge of electrification and data mobility; Colonial and Banco Santander also include, like Indra, a mention of the “Leed Gold” certification of their data processing centres. This lack of information means that the impacts of those infrastructures that companies say they use cannot be accurately assessed. In addition, if they cannot be evaluated, these impacts cannot be corrected either.

4.3. Discussion

This analysis of the 34 companies’ NFIS finds that all have cited the SDGs. It confirms that Law 11/2018 (2018), which is obliged to report on the SDGs going further than Directive 2014/95, had its fruits in Spain by getting companies to cite the SDGs in their non-financial disclosures.
From the analysis of the NFIS of the 34 companies, we found that all have used the GRIs as a reference. In this case, there was considerable homogeneity of references used to elaborate the information (all of them had used the GRI), but the 2014/95 directive allowed many options, which did not guarantee the comparability of the disclosure practices. In this sense, we believe that the CSRD Directive of 2022 and, above all, the approval of the ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards) in 2023, will increase the level of comparability by making it mandatory for all companies to use the same set of standards.
Almost all the companies address the potential of applications of emerging technologies such as AI, Big Data or IoT, but only Amadeus and Telefónica address environmental impacts and concrete measures to minimise them in a transparent and comprehensive manner. We believe that regulators need to develop guidelines and recommendations to drive an environmentally and climate-friendly transition to digitalisation through energy efficiency. Companies must be more energy efficient and this must be achieved not only by applying renewable energy or self-consumption facilities, but also by making data centres and telecommunications networks more efficient in terms of consumption. A clear example is the case of Telefónica, which has already reduced energy consumption considerably by shutting down 2G and 3G networks.
The use and implementation of ICTs in companies allow greater access to the information necessary for decision-making and a reduction in errors, which brings great benefits in terms of increased productivity, resulting in greater value as a differentiating element for companies. Therefore, it is necessary to take advantage of ICTs in financial and non-financial reporting practices to respond, on the one hand, to the need for business transparency and, on the other hand, to communicate information of interest in the environment. Thus, this work is in line with Bierstaker et al. (2001), who state that the audit or verification of accounting information should also become more technological. The benefits of applying emerging technologies will range from reducing the risk of material misstatement, to being able to analyse more data in real-time, or even to broadening the scope and depth not only of financial but also of non-financial information.
ICTs are therefore of great relevance, both in business information and in the verification or auditing function, but they must also be sustainable in order to be integrated into climate change mitigation criteria. This paper puts forward a practical demonstration of how digitalisation provides highly dynamic tools for advancing environmental protection or climate action, although it shows that companies do not sufficiently analyse the risk associated with the use of emerging and sustainable technologies. In this respect, the NFIS can be highly useful in providing insight into the management of companies, particularly the aspects that are important for both organisations and stakeholders, which require an analysis of materiality. Materiality, although it arises from the accounting field, goes a step further thanks to the GRI standards, and due to the interest that this concept has acquired, we have analysed how it is implemented in IBEX 35 companies.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this article has been to identify the companies that better manage and disclose information on the energy efficiency of ICTs, which are useful, both in the management and preparation of financial and non-financial information of companies, as well as its auditing or verification by external entities. We have found that all the companies in the stock market index mention which aspects they consider material, but we believe that they should go further by including the analysis of double materiality, as in 2021, only 34% of the companies analysed did so. In the context of increasing infrastructures and computing devices, data processing through large servers or telecommunication networks considerably increases energy consumption (Van Heddeghem et al., 2014). However, the results of this empirical study on the mainly Spanish-listed companies show that little or no attention is usually paid to the obvious risk that digitisation contributes to increased energy consumption and thus CO2 emissions. This evidence suggests that it would be necessary to incorporate basic indicators of the environmental impact of the digital transition, such as PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness), which measures the energy devoted specifically to IT equipment, or to report on the life cycle of ICTs.
Regarding the aim of identifying their effects from the point of view of energy efficiency in the context of business sustainability, this study puts forward a practical demonstration of how digitalisation provides highly dynamic tools for advancing environmental protection or climate action. However, it shows that companies do not sufficiently analyse the risk associated with the use of emerging and sustainable technologies. Only two companies address environmental impacts and concrete measures to minimise them in a transparent and comprehensive manner. Although larger companies have a higher business performance regarding the reduction of direct and indirect energy consumption, there is a long way to go, which can be smoothed if all companies commit to this objective by not only seeking to comply with the rules but also being aware of the improvements that it can cause in the management of their entity itself.
The main limitation in carrying out this study was the lack of homogenisation of the information disclosed by the companies. On the one hand, as far as the location of the information is concerned, it is relatively easy to find a piece of information in the annual accounts, as users know where to look for it. On the other hand, in the NFIS, despite the proposals for indicators and national and international standards, it is more complex to find the desired information. Moreover, in terms of the type of indicators, we found diversity in the ways of measuring data and in the ways of presenting them, complicating their comparability.
Therefore, the current regulatory framework on which this work is based does not ensure that users’ information needs are met. Companies either do not report on sustainability issues or what they do report is not sufficiently useful. This leads to users of the information not being able to adequately take into account sustainability-related risks that threaten the financial stability of the organisation. In short, we believe that more work needs to be done to increase the transparency of reporting, but in a more consistent way. It is reasonable to believe that the activity of companies, and their audit and regulatory bodies, are is affected by technological changes to a greater or lesser extent and that the processes on which risk assessment and management are based will need to be updated by all parties. These ICT risks are relatively recent and an immediate response to the various threats arising from these technologies is necessary. In any case, we believe that there is still a lack of definition as to what digitalisation entails. The main regulatory bodies should put more emphasis on regulating the use of these technologies, both in business activity and in the audit function, and make clear minimum guidelines to provide security, both to professionals when working with them and to users of the information.
Furthermore, the above-mentioned measures can help to improve the information disclosed, which will increase its usefulness for external decision-making by the different stakeholders, and regulators and other disclosing companies may take these selected companies as an example in each sector of activity.
Future studies will be able to analyse the disclosure behaviour of companies in response to the new regulation. All this, insofar as the regulations to be applied will be modified in 2024 due to the recent approval of the Sustainability Directive (CSRD-Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) (EU, 2022), will have to be transposed into Spanish legislation, as well as the ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards) developed by the EFRAG, which will be mandatory for companies subject to the Directive. A future line of research may consider explaining inter- and intra-industry behaviour based on stakeholder, legitimation and institutional theories, among others.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.-V., A.S.-I. and N.P.-M.; methodology, M.S.-V., A.S.-I. and N.P.-M.; software, M.S.-V. and J.C.-L.; formal analysis, M.S.-V. and A.S.-I.; investigation, J.C.-L.; resources, M.S.-V., A.S.-I. and N.P.-M.; data curation, J.C.-L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.-V., A.S.-I. and N.P.-M.; writing—review and editing, A.S.-I., N.P.-M. and J.C.-L.; project administration, A.S.-I. and N.P.-M.; funding acquisition, N.P.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Consolidated Research Group of the Eusko Jaurlaritza (EJ/GV)—grant number [IT1523-22].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Manuela Sanchez Vazquez was employed by the company Audinfor. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdul-Wakeel Karakara, A., & Osabuohien, E. S. (2022). Threshold effects of ICT access and usage in Burkinabe and Ghanaian households. Information Technology for Development, 28(3), 511–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Adams, C. A., Druckman, P. B., & Picot, R. C. (2020). Sustainable development goal disclosure (SDGD) recommendations. ACCA. Available online: https://apo.org.au/node/303599 (accessed on 23 June 2024).
  3. Andréu, J. (2002). Las técnicas de análisis de contenido: Una revisión actualizada. Available online: https://gc.scalahed.com/recursos/files/r161r/w25794w/Las%20tecnicas%20de%20analisis.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2024).
  4. Anselmi, D., D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., & Lombardi, G. V. (2024). A comparison of economic, environmental and social performance of European countries: A sustainable development goal index. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(8), 20653–20677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aretxabala, A. (2020). Una reflexión más en torno al G y los retos de nuestra organización social. Available online: https://antonioaretxabala.blogspot.com/2020/07/una-reflexion-mas-en-torno-al-5g-y-los.html (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  6. Bakarich, K. M., Castonguay, J. J., & O’Brien, P. E. (2020). The use of blockchains to enhance sustainability reporting and assurance. Accounting Perspectives, 19(4), 389–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Balcerzak, A., MacGregor, R. K., Pelikánová, R. M., Rogalska, E., & Szostek, D. (2023). The EU regulation of sustainable investment: The end of sustainability trade-offs? Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(1), 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. BBVA. (2020). Huellas digital y de carbono: Rastros humanos en el siglo XXI. Available online: https://www.bbva.com/es/sostenibilidad/huellas-digital-y-de-carbono-rastros-humanos-en-el-siglo-xxi/amp/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw8e-gBhD0ARIsAJiDsaUaejk6HXJyCJb41d1yFy98m_HNXayPv9whJMhm9QCWSyDlHpoM_DIaAm3MEALw_wcB (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  9. Belkhir, L., & Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 448–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Benito, B., Guillamón, M. D., & Ríos, A. M. (2023). What factors make a municipality more involved in meeting the sustainable development goals? Empirical evidence. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Beske, F., Haustein, E., & Lorson, P. C. (2020). Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 162–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bierstaker, J. L., Burnaby, P., & Thibodeau, J. (2001). The impact of information technology on the audit process: An assessment of the state of the art and implications for the future. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(3), 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bodnar, G. H., & Hopwood, W. S. (2001). Accounting information systems (Vol. 8). Prentice Hall. Available online: https://pdfuni.com/sample/Accounting/AC201-300/AC216/sample%EF%BC%8DAccounting%20Information%20Systems%2011th%2011E.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  14. Burmaoglu, S., Sartenaer, O., & Porter, A. (2019). Conceptual definition of technology emergence: A long journey from philosophy of science to science policy. Technology in Society, 59, 101126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Caviglione, L., Wendzel, S., & Mazurczyk, W. (2017). The future of digital forensics: Challenges and the road ahead. IEEE Security & Privacy, 15(6), 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cerchiaro, D., Leo, S., Landriault, E., & De Vega, P. (2021). DLT to boost efficiency for financial intermediaries. An application in ESG reporting activities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Condom-Vilà, P. (2020). How technology evolution and disruption are defining the world’s entrepreneurial ecosystems: The case of Barcelona’s startup ecosystem. Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, 5(1), 14–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  19. Daub, C. H. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1), 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2021). Shortcomings in reporting contributions towards the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(4), 1299–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Duran, S., Peña, E., Castilla, A., & Bryan, K. (2021). Auditoría de Cuentas Anuales y del Estado de Información no Financiera. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. [Google Scholar]
  23. EFRAG. (2021). Proposals for a relevant and dynamic EU sustainability reporting standardsetting. Available online: https://www.efrag.org/Assets/Download?assetUrl=%2Fsites%2Fwebpublishing%2FSiteAssets%2FEFRAG%2520PTF-NFRS_MAIN_REPORT.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  24. EU. (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  25. EU. (2019). Directive EU 2019/944 of the European parliament and of the council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0944 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  26. EU. (2022). Directive 2022/2464 of the European parliament and of the council of 14 December 2022 (CSRD) amending regulation (EU) no 537/2014, directive 2004/109/EC, directive 2006/43/EC and directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  27. European Commission. (2018). A definition of AI: Main capabilities and scientific disciplines. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/definition-artificial-intelligence-main-capabilities-and-scientific-disciplines (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  28. European Commission. (2020). The EU’s cybersecurity strategy for the digital decade. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/eus-cybersecurity-strategy-digital-decade-0 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  29. European Commission. (2021). New rules for AI. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/qanda_21_1683 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  30. European Environment Agency. (2017). Energy and climate change. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/signals-2017/download (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  31. European Parliament. (2007). Declaration on establishing a green hydrogen economy and a third industrial revolution in Europe through a partnership with committed regions and cities, SMEs and civil society organisations. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007IP0197 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  32. European Parliament. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions by country and sector created 07/03/2018, updated 28/10/2021. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/expert/2018/3/story/20180301STO98928/20180301STO98928_en.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  33. EY. (2021). IV Informe Comparativo del Estado de la Información No Financiera (EINF) del IBEX 35. Available online: https://www.ey.com/es_es/webcasts/2022/01/iv-estudio-comparativo-sobre-los-estados-de-informacion-no-financiera-del-ibex-35 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  34. Farcane, N., Bunget, O. C., Blidisel, R., Dumitrescu, A. C., Deliu, D., Bogdan, O., & Burca, V. (2023). Auditors’ perceptions on work adaptability in remote audit: A COVID-19 perspective. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(1), 422–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fundación ANDI. (2021). Global reporting initiative. Fundación ANDI. [Google Scholar]
  36. García-Benau, M. A., Bollas-Araya, H. M., & Sierra-García, L. (2022). Non-financial reporting in Spain. The effects of the adoption of the 2014 EU Directive. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 25(1), 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garrigues. (2014). Guía sobre el potencial de las Tecnologías de Información y comunicación para el ahorro y la eficiencia energética. Available online: https://www.fenercom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Guia-sobre-el-Potencial-de-las-Tecnologias-de-Informacion-y-Comunicacion-para-el-Ahorro-y-la-Eficiencia-Energetica-fenercom-2011.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  38. Giner, B., Pardo, F., & Barreto, C. (2024). Interconnecting financial and sustainability information: Does the multi-capital approach explain adherence to the IIRC framework? Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 53(4), 395–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Global Compact. (2023, February 9). Communication on progress 2022: Business report on reporting in sustainability. Available online: https://www.pactomundial.org/noticia/comunicando-el-progreso-2022_informe_reporting_sostenibilidad/ (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  40. Greenpeace. (2017). Clicking clean 2017. Available online: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/click-clean/#top (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  41. Grueso-Gala, M., & Zornoza, C. C. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of the literature on non-financial information reporting: Review of the research and network visualization. Cuadernos de Gestión, 22(1), 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. ICAC (Instituto de Contabilidad y Auditoría de Cuentas). (2013). Norma internacional de auditoría NIA 330. Available online: https://www.icac.gob.es/node/69 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  43. ICAC (Instituto de Contabilidad y Auditoría de Cuentas). (2021). Norma internacional de auditoría NIA 315 (revisada). Available online: https://www.icac.gob.es/sites/default/files/2024-04/NIA-ES%20315%20%28Revisada%202019%29%2C%20RICAC%202024-04-11.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  44. ICJCE (Instituto de Censores Jurados de Cuentas de España). (2019). Guía de actuación sobre encargos de verificación del Estado de Información No Financiera. Available online: https://www.icjce.es/adjuntos/ga47(1).pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  45. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2004). ISO 14001. Environmental management systems—Requirements with guidance for use. Available online: https://ocw.un-ihe.org/pluginfile.php/3158/mod_resource/content/1/ISO_14001.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  46. Joyanes, L. (2017). Ciberseguridad la colaboración público-privada en la era de la cuarta revolución industrial (Industria 4.0 versus ciberseguridad 4.0). Cuadernos de estrategia, (185). 19–64. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6115620 (accessed on 24 June 2024).
  47. Kaur, T., & Chana, I. (2015). Energy efficiency techniques in cloud computing: A survey and taxonomy. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 48(2), 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, J., & Oh, I. (2022). Adoption of emerging technologies and growth of manufacturing firms: The importance of technology types and corporate entrepreneurship. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(10), 2476–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología de análisis de contenido. Teoría y Práctica. Piados Comunicación. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuhndt, M., von Geibler, J., & Herrndorf, M. (2006). Assessing the ICT sector contribution to the millennium development goals: Status quo analysis of sustainability information for the ICT sector (No. 3). Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Wuppertal. [Google Scholar]
  51. Laurent, A., Dal Maso, M., Wang, X., Zhu, X., & Dias, G. P. (2020). Environmental sustainability of data centres: A need for a multi-impact and life cycle approach. Available online: https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/environmental-sustainability-of-data-centres-a-need-for-a-multi-i (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  52. Law 11/2018. (2018). Law 11/2018, of 28th December, modifying the Code of Commerce, the Consolidated Text of the Spanish Companies Law approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2010, of 2nd July, and Law 22/2015, of 20th July, on Account Auditing, in terms of non-financial disclosure and diversity. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2018-17989 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  53. Lu, W. C. (2018). The impacts of information and communication technology, energy consumption, financial development, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions in 12 Asian countries. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 23, 1351–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mhlanga, R., Gneiting, U., & Agarwal, N. (2018). Walking the talk: Assessing companies’ progress from SDG rhetoric to action. Oxfam. [Google Scholar]
  56. Minutiello, V., & Tettamanzi, P. (2022). The quality of nonfinancial voluntary disclosure: A systematic literature network analysis on sustainability reporting and integrated reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Montoya Hernandez, A. Y., & Valencia Duque, F. J. (2020). Inteligencia artificial al servicio de la auditoría: Una revisión sistemática de literatura. Revista Ibérica De Sistemas e Tecnologias De Informação, E27, 213–226. Available online: https://ehu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/inteligencia-artificial-al-servicio-de-la/docview/2385756062/se-2 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  58. Observatorio Nacional 5G. (2021). 5G e Industria 4.0 Retos y oportunidades de la cuarta revolución industrial. Available online: https://on5g.es/report/5g-e-industria-4-0/ (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  59. Ortiz, E., & Marín, S. (2022). Materialidad en el ámbito de la información no financiera o en materia de sostenibilidad. Nota Técnica nº1 Comité de sostenibilidad y resiliencia. Consejo General de Economistas, febrero, Madrid. Available online: https://economistas.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Nota-tecnica-n-o-1-CSR.-Materialidad-Def-2202.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  60. Pastor, C. (2020). Industria 4.0 y pacto verde. Hacia un modelo de mercado sostenible. REVISTA DE TREBALL, ECONOMIA I SOCIETAT Nº 96. Available online: http://www.ces.gva.es/sites/default/files/2020-01/Art1.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  61. Pérez, I. (2021). Tecnología y auditoría: Principales retos. Portal del Auditor. Instituto de Censores Jurados de Cuentas de España. Available online: https://www.icjce.es/tecnologia-auditoria-principales-retos (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  62. Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Venturelli, A., & Caputo, F. (2022). Embedding and managing blockchain in sustainability reporting: A practical framework. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(3), 545–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Powell, W., & Di Maggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. PWC. (2014). La auditoría del futuro y el futuro de la auditoría. Available online: https://www.pwc.es/es/publicaciones/auditoria/assets/informe-temas-candentes-auditoria.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  65. Ramautar, V., España, S., Nguyen, M., & El Yousfi, A. (2023, June 5–9). Sustainable Development Goals in the ICT sector. 2023 International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S) (pp. 108–119), Rennes, France. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work: Technology, jobs, and your future. Putnam. Available online: http://pinguet.free.fr/rifkin1995.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  67. Rosati, F., & Faria, L. G. D. (2019). Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 1312–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rubáček, F., & MacGregor, R. (2023). The sustainability of ESAS triumvirate for sustainability—Related disclosures in the financial sector—All for one and one for all? Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, 105, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. SDG Impact. (2021). About the SDG impact standards. Available online: https://sdgimpact.undp.org/practice-standards.html (accessed on 18 May 2024).
  72. Shi, J., Li, C., & Li, H. (2022). Energy consumption in China’s ICT sectors: From the embodied energy perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, 112313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sian, S. (2022). Remote audit: The challenges of re-creating the audit room during the COVID 19 pandemic. In Accounting Forum (pp. 1–30). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sierra-Garcia, L., Garcia-Benau, M. A., & Bollas-Araya, H. M. (2018). Empirical analysis of non-financial reporting by Spanish companies. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Mansell, & R. Silverstone (Eds.), Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44–74). Oxford University Press. Available online: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/64821 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  76. United Nations. (1987). World commission report on environment and development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  77. United Nations. (2015). The general assembly adopts the agenda 2030 for sustainable development. Available online: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ares70d1_en.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  78. Van Heddeghem, W., Lambert, S., Lannoo, B., Colle, D., Pickavet, M., & Demeester, P. (2014). Trends in worldwide ICT electricity consumption from 2007 to 2012. Computer Communications, 50, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Van Zanten, J. A., & Van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3), 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vishwakarma, S., Kumar, V., Arya, S., Tembhare, M., Dutta, D., & Kumar, S. (2022). E-waste in information and communication technology sector: Existing scenario, management schemes and initiatives. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 27, 102797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Williams, E. (2011). Environmental effects of information and communications technologies. Nature, 479, 354–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Woźniak, J., & Wereda, W. (2018). Premises of using information and communication technologies (ICTs) in communication with stakeholders: Risk management perspective. Hyperion International Journal of Econophysics & New Economy, 11(2). [Google Scholar]
  83. Zeadally, S., Khan, S. U., & Chilamkurti, N. (2012). Energy-efficient networking: Past, present, and future. The Journal of Supercomputing, 62, 1093–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhou, L., Jiang, Z., Geng, N., Niu, Y., Cui, F., Liu, K., & Qi, N. (2022). Production and operations management for intelligent manufacturing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 60(2), 808–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 15 00030 g001
Figure 1. Energy efficiency in data centres. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 1. Energy efficiency in data centres. Source: Own elaboration.
Admsci 15 00030 g001
Table 1. Ranking of companies according to the characteristics of the non-financial information statements analysed and materiality type disclosed.
Table 1. Ranking of companies according to the characteristics of the non-financial information statements analysed and materiality type disclosed.
No.CompanySectorNFI
VERIF.		Risks Matrix. Materiality TypeRisks Matrix
DoubleClassicNo
1Acciona(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.KPMG1
2Aena(d) Consumer services DELOITTE1
3Banco Sabadell(e) Financial servicesKPMG1
4Banco Santander(e) Financial servicesPWC1
5Fluidra(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.EY1
6Grifols(a) Consumer goodsKPMG1
7Indra(g) Technology and telecommunicationsDELOITTE1
8Mapfre(e) Financial servicesKPMG1
9Red Eléctrica(c) Oil and energyKPMG1
10Repsol(c) Oil and energyPWC1
11Solaría(c) Oil and energyEY1
12Telefónica(g) Technology and telecommunicationsPWC1
13Acerinox(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.KPMG 1
14ACS(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.KPMG 1
15Amadeus(g) Technology and telecommunicationsEY 1
16Bankinter(e) Financial servicesPWC 1
17BBVA(e) Financial servicesKPMG 1
18Cellnex(g) Technology and telecommunicationsDELOITTE 1
19Cie Automotive(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.PWC 1
20Colonial(f) Real estate servicesPWC 1
21Enagás(c) Oil and energyEY 1
22Endesa(c) Oil and energyKPMG 1
23Ferrovial(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.EY 1
24Iberdrola(c) Oil and energyKPMG 1
25Inditex(a) Consumer goodsDELOITTE 1
26Meliá(d) Consumer services DELOITTE 1
27Merlín Properties(f) Real estate servicesPWC 1
28Pharmamar(a) Consumer goodsPWC 1
29Rovi(a) Consumer goodsKPMG 1
30Siemens Gamesa(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.EY 1
31Almirall(a) Consumer goodsKPMG 1
32CaixaBank(e) Financial servicesPWC 1
33IAG(c) Oil and energyKPMG 1
34Naturgy(c) Oil and energyKPMG 1
Total 12184
Total %35.29%52.94%11.76%
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 2. Ranking of companies according to the energy efficiency materiality relevance assessment.
Table 2. Ranking of companies according to the energy efficiency materiality relevance assessment.
Energy EfficiencyLevel of Relevance
No.CompanySectorDirectIndirectHighMediumLow
1Acerinox(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat.1 1
2Colonial(f) Real estate services1 1
3Enagás(c) Oil and energy1 1
4Iberdrola(c) Oil and energy1 1
5Repsol(c) Oil and energy1 1
6Telefónica(g) Tech. and telecom.1 1
7Amadeus (g) Tech. and telecom.1 1
8Inditex(a) Consumer goods1 1
9Mapfre(e) Financial services1 1
10Meliá(d) Consumer services 1 1
11Almirall(a) Consumer goods1 1
12Grifols(a) Consumer goods1 1
13CaixaBank(e) Financial services1
14Acciona(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat. 11
15ACS(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat. 11
16Aena(d) Consumer services 11
17Banco Santander(e) Financial services 11
18BBVA(e) Financial services 11
19Cellnex(g) Tech. and telecom. 11
20Endesa(c) Oil and energy 11
21Ferrovial(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat. 11
22Fluidra(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat. 11
23Merlin Propert.(f) Real estate services 11
24Naturgy(c) Oil and energy 11
25Pharmamar(a) Consumer goods 11
26Red Eléctrica(c) Oil and energy 11
27Siemens Gamesa(c) Oil and energy 11
28Solaria(c) Oil and energy 11
29Banco Sabadell(e) Financial services 1 1
30Bankinter(e) Financial services 1 1
31Cie Automotive(b) Basic ind. and constr. mat. 1 1
32Indra(g) Tech. and telecom. 1 1
33Rovi(a) Consumer goods 1 1
34IAG(c) Oil and energy 1
Total 13212192
% Total 38%62%62%26%6%
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 3. Ranking of companies according to the risk analysis and energy efficiency improvement actions.
Table 3. Ranking of companies according to the risk analysis and energy efficiency improvement actions.
Risk AnalysisTypes of Improvement ActionsThey Relate Their Efficiency to ICT UseInclude Information on Data Centre ConsumptionTypes of External
Verification
CodCompanyYesNoEnergy Efficiency Policies1. Renewable Energy2. Air Conditioning/Lighting3. Smart Nets/Software4. Renovation of Infrastructure and Equipment5. Self-Consumption/Photovoltaics6. Other1. ISO 140012. ISO 500013. Energy Audit4. Other
1Telefónica1 111111 1111
2Meliá1 1111 1 11
3Grifols1 1111 1 1
4Naturgy1 111 11 11
5Indra1 111 1111 1
6Merlin Properties1 111 1111
7Repsol1 11 11 111 1
8Almirall1 11 1 111 11
9ACS1 11 1 1 1 1
10Colonial1 11 1 11111
11Enagás1 11 1 1 11
12Cie Automotive1 11 1 1 1
13Bankinter1 11 1 1
14IAG1 11 1 1
15Iberdrola1 1 11 1 1 1 1
16Inditex1 1 11 1111
17Banco Santander1 1 1 11 111 1
18CaixaBank1 1 1 1 11
19Aena1 1 1 1 11
20Banco Sabadell1 1 1111
21Rovi 1111111 1
22Amadeus 1111 1 1111 1
23Mapfre 1111 1 11
24Acerinox 1111 1 1
25BBVA 1111 11
26Pharmamar 1111 1
27Siemens Gamesa 111 11 1 1
28Red Eléctrica 111 1 1 1
29Ferrovial 111 1 1111
30Fluidra 111 1 1 1 1
31Solaria 111 1 1
32Cellnex 11 111 1111
33Acciona 11 1 1 11
34Endesa 11 1 1111
Total201434251815111032612341835
% Total59%41%100%74%53%44%32%29%9%76%35%100%53%9%15%
Source: Own elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-Vázquez, M.; Saitua-Iribar, A.; Peña-Miguel, N.; Corral-Lage, J. Analysis of ICT Energy Efficiency Disclosure to Improve Business Management Practices and Its Contribution to the SDGs. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010030

AMA Style

Sánchez-Vázquez M, Saitua-Iribar A, Peña-Miguel N, Corral-Lage J. Analysis of ICT Energy Efficiency Disclosure to Improve Business Management Practices and Its Contribution to the SDGs. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(1):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010030

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-Vázquez, Manuela, Ainhoa Saitua-Iribar, Noemí Peña-Miguel, and Javier Corral-Lage. 2025. "Analysis of ICT Energy Efficiency Disclosure to Improve Business Management Practices and Its Contribution to the SDGs" Administrative Sciences 15, no. 1: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010030

APA Style

Sánchez-Vázquez, M., Saitua-Iribar, A., Peña-Miguel, N., & Corral-Lage, J. (2025). Analysis of ICT Energy Efficiency Disclosure to Improve Business Management Practices and Its Contribution to the SDGs. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010030

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop