The Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), and big data have become indispensable in our society. In recent years, organizations have actively supported this technological boom by successfully carrying out the digital transformation of their operations.
However, the widespread adoption of these new tools has a direct impact on our carbon footprint. Organizations therefore find themselves facing a dilemma: digitalization is seen as essential to their survival, but appears to conflict with the approach of digital moderation that is necessary at a time when corporate social responsibility (CSR) requirements are becoming more stringent.
How is this dilemma addressed in the workplace? To find out, as part of a recent research project, we interviewed 33 individuals at digital services companies (DSCs). Our analysis of current practices reveals, in particular, that awareness of the environmental impact of digital tools remains particularly limited at this time.
First, we note that the term “digital sobriety” remains vague for our participants, leaving room for ambiguity. While some respondents seem to have a clear understanding of it, for others, the concept “doesn’t mean much right now,” as one instructional engineer admitted during an interview.
The diversity of these perceptions reveals different levels of maturity in terms of cost-effectiveness observed in the organizations surveyed. We have identified five main levels.
First, the “rejection” level , which refers to resistance to digital simplicity. Participants in this situation are unconvinced of the value of this approach. Conversely, some companies are characterized by inaction despite being aware of the issues at stake.
Respondents at this level say they are willing to get involved if the government or their company offers incentives to promote digital moderation. As the CSR representative from one company we met pointed out: “At our level, we’re not the ones who can change anything.”
Beyond this inaction, we observe a level of substitution characterized by a greater awareness of the benefits of digital moderation. The participants in our survey are known for taking small, concrete actions, such as regularly cleaning out their email inboxes.
Next, in terms ofoptimization, the participants in our survey are actively committed to moderating—or even reducing—the frequency of their use of information technology, with the goal of minimizing its negative effects. One consultant explains his approach: “Digital technology is a non-renewable resource, so we need to conserve it. […] It’s a solution […] but it’s also a problem if we misuse it.”
Finally, the level of de-adoption or decline is characterized by a desire to stop using information technologies or to avoid their use and adoption. This radical approach reflects a genuine awareness and a choice to drastically reduce one’s digital footprint. A CSR manager we interviewed explained that he is trying to reduce the adoption of new digital tools in his company: “Once you’ve adopted something, you get used to it, and it becomes almost impossible to ‘unadopt’ it.”
In addition to meeting environmental requirements, adopting a digital moderation approach offers a twofold benefit: first, in a context where recruitment is becoming increasingly competitive for many organizations, digital moderation is a major asset for their brand image as an employer; second, according to our participants, adopting a digital minimalism approach has a positive impact on employee well-being, particularly by reducing the number of emails received.
Digital sobriety poses a major challenge in catalyzing ecological and social change. However, our study reveals resistance among some individuals to the changes needed to reduce their digital footprint. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, it is imperative to explore these issues in depth not only within organizations but also in the academic communities that support them.
