Worldwide there has been an increasing pressure on organizations to address sustainable development issues. Given the pervasive nature of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), managers are confronted with a quandary over how to make responsible strategic decisions and take into account the economic, environmental, and social efects of technologies. This PhD research investigates the impacts of strategic sustainable ICT decisions, falling under Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) topic. The project aims at defining a mathematical model that can help organizations to anticipate the efects, both positive and negative of their CDR strategies to the environment and society. This research contributes to both theory and practice by advancing an emerging debate around the new concept of CDR, which aims to guide an organization's operations in order to foster an ethical and responsible development, deployment and usage of ICT.
Digitalisation is associated with high hopes to achieve sustainable development goals [
It is in this context that organisations face new challenges in governing their digital activities – how can they minimise the negative efects of ICT and of related digital activities and to maximise the positive ones to the environment and society? The ICT research community has also been urged to further incorporate and investigate the impact of digital technologies and their significance in the decision-making of sustainable development strategies [8, 9, 10].
Aiming to respond to these challenges, a new field of Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR) emerged, seeking to guide organisations in their attempts to ensure an ethical and responsible development, deployment, and use of digital technologies and data [11, 12].
One of the first occurrences of the term Corporate Digital Responsibility can be traced back to an Accenture report of 2015 [13]. Despite the early stages of the academic engagement with this concept, it has been popularised in the corporate world [14, 15, 16, 17] and is perceived as an increasingly important subject for all economic actors in the realization of their sustainable development policies [6, 18].
If ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S), based on Hilty and Aebischer [19] definition, can be considered as a sustainable development equivalence applied to the digital realm, CDR can be compared to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)[18, 11, 20]. Within the field of CSR there are diferent guidelines and methods enabling organizations to develop their CSR strategies [ 21]. However, in the field of CDR such guidelines, frameworks or standards do not exist yet. Lack of methodologies supporting sustainable decision making when it comes to the development, usage and deployment of ICT by organizations hurdles the adoption of ICT4S principles within organisations.
The main ambition of this project is, thus, to advance the construction of decision-making methods which would integrate the socio-environmental efects of ICT. In this vein, this project aims to contribute to a larger question of how organizations can use CDR as a migration path to become better aligned with their sustainable development strategy. With this in mind, it pursues two main objectives as described in the next section.
The first objective of this project is to contribute in addressing the question which was raised by Lobschat et al. [18, p. 12]: “How should we capture and assess an organization’s CDR readiness and degree of CDR implementation?”. Building on existing work around CDR, as well as other related scientific fields, such as Green Information Systems (IS), this work seeks to propose a framework to delineate the scope of CDR and to conceptualize strategic CDR decisions - ICT decisions considered to be responsible and in line with sustainable development principles. In this vein, this project aims to contribute to debates about CDR relation to CSR and about the perimeter of CDR.
Secondly, through mathematical modelling, I seek to contribute to the construction of methods enabling organizations to make better informed decisions when building their CDR strategies. I pursue to establish methods which allow to assess a link between CDR decisions and socio-environmental impacts. The existing scientific literature examines ICT impacts on the environment or society, and proposes theoretical implications of adopting Green IS practices. However, to my best knowledge, to date no study attempted to model the socio-environmental impacts resulting from CDR decisions. Yet, successful adoption of CDR hinges on an organizations’ ability to identify strategic decisions that will help them to generate the greatest positive socio-environmental impact in a context-specific scenario.
Questions surrounding digital responsibilities and risks are not unique to the CDR community other research communities have been grappling with them for decades. Mueller [12] posits that the conceptual roots of CDR lie within business ethics, CSR and computer ethics. A further shift in recognition that organizations have a responsibility to mitigate the negative impacts of digital products and services they make, design, use, and deploy extends to ICT4S and related research communities. Green IS community, for example, has proposed various frameworks and best practices to guide organisations in their strategies to mitigate the negative environmental impact of digital products and services [22, 23, 24, 25]. Discussions of digital risks and opportunities and the role that companies should play in aligning them with sustainability strategies are also found in other more specialized research communities, such as sustainable and ethical AI [26, 27, 28] or sustainable human-computer interaction (SHCI) [29].
Corporate Digital Responsibility hence finds itself at the intersection of research on business ethics, sustainable development and impacts of ICT.
Reflecting the fact that CDR research is still in its infancy, the current literature around CDR
mostly discusses the fundamental concepts and factors enabling CDR implementation, such as
motivations, barriers, readiness and awareness of CDR within organisations (Table 1). Scholars
discuss the reasons why organisations need to address diferent digital risks [ 18, 30], however a
limited literature attempted to structure and identify what those risks are. Herden et al. [6]
provided the first attempt to classify the digital risks for organisations based on ESG framework,
which is primarily a risk management and investment tool, that seeks to assess the financial
risks that environmental, social, and governance factors pose to the value of a company. Dörr
[
Yet fewer studies attempted to propose concrete practices and guidelines for CDR adoption, and to address the question of how to put CDR in practice. Some studies highlighted the way CDR could be implemented in a particular digital technology scenario, such as AI [32] or data management [35]. Other scholars suggested theoretical conceptualisation regarding CDR implementation [6, 18, 30], however there is a lack of empirical studies and methodologies which would accompany decision making process and governance with respect to CDR [36]. The development of such guidelines or frameworks for CDR is constrained by the lack of a common understanding of the scope of CDR.
An extensive literature attempted to propose frameworks to analyze diferent types of impacts
of ICT [48, 49, 19, 50, 51] and methodologies to measure them [
In 2010, Harmon et al. argued that the sustainability of digital technologies should be driven by CSR [56]. Most of the current literature reasons that, even if CDR merits a separate attention due to the pervasiveness of technologies and their unique nature [18, 20], CDR could benefit from existing CSR tools and knowledge [31]. In this vein, I propose to use a CSR tool and relevant literature review to establish the scope of CDR. The developed method will be tested within the industry and feedback will be gathered from practitioners in the field in order to improve it and test its pertinence. However, if such a model may allow for organizations to assess their degree of CDR implementation, it is only the first step in constructing a methodology which would empower organizations to design an impactful CDR, according to their strategy and positioning.
Therefore, the second objective of this research is to develop a mathematical model that can help anticipate the efects, both positive and negative, resulting from CDR strategies to the environment and society.
Considering the early stage of my research, I have not settled yet regarding the methodology to be used in order to define links between CDR practices and impacts. Building a model from reality is always an abstraction which, in the case of this project, will be afected by the complex nature of both ICT and sustainable development as well as by the existing uncertainty due to my imperfect knowledge of the world. To address such problems, a few studies have employed multiple attribute decision making (MADM) methods to estimate the overall efects of ICT on sustainability and to facilitate decision-making process for organizations and policy makers [57, 58]. A combination of MADM with other statistical techniques, such as sensitivity analysis, could allow to deal with incomplete and uncertain information [59]. This literature review remains to be extended in order to identify the right approach for modelling the impacts of CDR strategic decisions which in turn would help to make better informed decisions for organizations within their sustainable development strategies.
Being in my first year of PhD, I am still at the stage of exploring the potential methods to achieve the goals of the project. After having performed the literature review regarding the CDR and related research fields I was able to identify gaps in the existing literature and position my research with respect to the larger ICT4S landscape. Following the literature review and discussions with other researchers in my company, I have chosen a CSR tool - European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS)[60], in order to propose a structure for the scope of CDR. Based on a diverse literature analysis, I identified digital sustainability matters that concern impacts to people or the environment, resulting from an entity’s digital activities. The results have been submitted to two conferences in order to discuss them with a larger academic community.
Establishing dimensions of CDR and structuring the perimeter of CDR was a necessary step to advance in my research. The next stage is to identify methods which could serve in developing a methodology allowing to establish links between CDR practices and the aforementioned CDR dimensions. For this purpose and due to the interdisciplinarity of my research I am currently exploring literature from diferent academic fields, such as Green IS, econometrics, machine learning, CSR and management studies.
While feedback on the overall structure of my project would help me to grow as a researcher and would support me in producing quality research, I would be especially curious to benefit from expert advice regarding my second objective: development of a methodology to model socio-environmental impacts of CDR practices. Due to the novelty of CDR, there is a lack of historical observations and data which could be used to quantify the impacts using the traditional statistical methods. I believe that the interdisciplinary nature of ICT4S conference could help me to identify ways how to overcome this barrier in my research.
I am grateful to benefit from the knowledge of La Rochelle University where I am performing my Informatics and Applications PhD in the L3i laboratory. My project proposal has also been accepted under the French CIFRE scheme which means that I am working with an industry. Being employed by Square Management consulting company, I can benefit from access to the ifeld and the resources of their Research & Development department. However, since the nature of my subject is not a purely computer science subject and it has overlaps with other academic ifelds such as management studies, sometimes I feel challenged to navigate between multiple disciplines. An advice and feedback from ICT4S community on this question would be very appreciated. [6] C. Herden, E. Alliu, A. Cakici, T. Cormier, C. Deguelle, S. Gambhir, C. Grifiths, S. Gupta, S. Kamani, Y.-S. Kiratli, M. Kispataki, G. Lange, L. Matos, L. Moreno, H. Nunez, V. Pilla, B. Raj, J. Roe, M. Skoda, L. Schons, “Corporate Digital Responsibility”: New corporate responsibilities in the digital age, Sustainability Management Forum | NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum 29 (2021) 13–29. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 0 0 5 5 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 5 0 9 - x . [7] Digitalization for Sustainability (D4S), Digital Reset. Redirecting Technologies for the Deep Sustainability Transformation, Technical Report, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, 2022. [8] S. Lokuge, D. Sedera, V. Cooper, F. Burstein, Digital Transformation: Environmental Friend or Foe? Panel Discussion at the Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2019, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 48 (2021) 616–634. doi:1 0 . 1 7 7 0 5 / 1 C A I S . 0 4 8 4 6 . [9] S. Mann, O. Bates, R. Maher, Shifting the maturity needle of ICT for Sustainability, in: 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainability, volume 52 of EPiC Series in Computing, EasyChair, 2018, pp. 209–226. doi:1 0 . 2 9 0 0 7 / d 6 g 3 . [10] T. Santarius, J. C. T. Bieser, V. Frick, M. Höjer, M. Gossen, L. M. Hilty, E. Kern, J. Pohl, F. Rohde, S. Lange, Digital suficiency: Conceptual considerations for ICTs on a finite planet, Annals of Telecommunications (2022). doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 2 2 4 3 - 0 2 2 - 0 0 9 1 4 - x . [11] C. A. Mihale-Wilson, D. J. Zibuschka, R. B. GmbH, J. Zibuschka, K. V. Carl, Corporate Digital Responsibility – extended conceptualization and empirical assessment, ECIS 2021 Research Papers (2021) 17. [12] B. Mueller, Corporate Digital Responsibility, Business & Information Systems Engineering (2022) 689–700. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 2 5 9 9 - 0 2 2 - 0 0 7 6 0 - 0 . [13] T. Cooper, J. Siu, K. Wei, Corporate Digital Responsibility: Doing Well by Doing Good,
Technical Report, Accenture, 2015. [14] V. N. Andersen, Redesigning Corporate Responsibility: How Digitalization changes the role companies need to play for positive impacts on society, 2019. [15] Bundesministerium der Justiz, BMJ, CDR – Corporate Digital Responsibility Initiative, https://cdr-initiative.de/en/initiative, n.d. [16] C. Joynson, Corporate Digital Responsibility: Principles to guide progress, https://atos.net/en/blog/corporate-digital-responsibility-principles-guide-progress, 2018. [17] Corporate Digital Responsibility, The International CDR Manifesto, https://corporatedigitalresponsibility.net/cdr-definition, n.d. [18] L. Lobschat, B. Mueller, F. Eggers, L. Brandimarte, S. Diefenbach, M. Kroschke, J. Wirtz, Corporate digital responsibility, Journal of Business Research 122 (2021) 875–888. doi:/ / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j b u s r e s . 2 0 1 9 . 1 0 . 0 0 6 . [19] L. M. Hilty, B. Aebischer, ICT for Sustainability: An Emerging Research Field, in: L. M.
Hilty, B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT Innovations for Sustainability, volume 310 of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2015, pp. 3–36. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 - 3 1 9 - 0 9 2 2 8 - 7 _ 1 . [20] J. van der Merwe, Z. Al Achkar, Data responsibility, corporate social responsibility, and corporate digital responsibility, Data & Policy 4 (2022). doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 7 / d a p . 2 0 2 2 . 2 . [21] M. Theuws, M. van Huijstee, Corporate Responsibility Instruments: A Comparison of the OECD Guidelines, ISO 26000 & the UN Global Compact, Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), The Netherlands, 2013. [22] Q. Deng, S. Ji, Y. Wang, Green IT practice disclosure: An examination of corporate sustainability reporting in IT sector, J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc 15 (2017) 145–164. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 8 / J I C E S - 1 2 - 2 0 1 6 - 0 0 4 6 . [23] K. Erek, F. Loeser, R. Zarnekow, Reference Model for Sustainable Information Systems
Management: Establishing a Holistic Research Agenda, All Sprouts Content 511 (2013) 13. [24] R. R. Harmon, N. Moolenkamp, Sustainable IT services: Developing a strategy framework, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 09 (2012) 1250014. doi:1 0 . 1 1 4 2 / S 0 2 1 9 8 7 7 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 4 9 . [25] A. Molla, V. Cooper, S. Pittayachawan, The Green IT Readiness (G-Readiness) of Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis of a Construct and Instrument, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 29 (2011). doi:1 0 . 1 7 7 0 5 / 1 C A I S . 0 2 9 0 4 . [26] M. D’Agostino, M. Durante, Introduction: The Governance of Algorithms, Philosophy &
Technology 31 (2018) 499–505. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 3 3 4 7 - 0 1 8 - 0 3 3 7 - z . [27] A. Jobin, M. Ienca, E. Vayena, Artificial Intelligence: The global landscape of ethics guidelines, Nat Mach Intell 1 (2019) 389–399. doi:1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 2 2 5 6 - 0 1 9 - 0 0 8 8 - 2 . [28] J. Morley, L. Floridi, L. Kinsey, A. Elhalal, From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices, Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (2020) 2141–2168. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 1 9 4 8 - 0 1 9 - 0 0 1 6 5 - 5 . [29] S. Scuri, M. Ferreira, N. Jardim Nunes, V. Nisi, C. Mulligan, Hitting the Triple Bottom Line: Widening the HCI Approach to Sustainability, in: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 2022, pp. 1–19. doi:1 0 . 1 1 4 5 / 3 4 9 1 1 0 2 . 3 5 1 7 5 1 8 . [30] J. Wirtz, W. Kunz, N. Hartley, J. Tarbit, Corporate Digital Responsibility in Service Firms and
Their Ecosystems, Journal of Service Research 0 (2022). doi:1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 0 9 4 6 7 0 5 2 2 1 1 3 0 4 6 7 . [31] K. V. Carl, Corporate Digital Responsibility: Evaluating Privacy and Data Security Activities on Company-level, in: INFORMATIK 2021, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, 2021, pp. 757–771. doi:1 0 . 1 8 4 2 0 / i n f o r m a t i k 2 0 2 1 - 0 6 5 . [32] K. Elliott, R. Price, P. Shaw, T. Spiliotopoulos, M. Ng, K. Coopamootoo, A. van Moorsel, Towards an Equitable Digital Society: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR), Society 58 (2021) 179–188. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 2 1 1 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 0 5 9 4 - 8 . [33] P. Girrbach, Corporate Responsibility in the Context of Digitalization, Tehnički glasnik 15 (2021) 422–428. doi:1 0 . 3 1 8 0 3 / t g - 2 0 2 1 0 7 1 0 1 4 2 3 5 7 . [34] H. Trittin-Ulbrich, A. Böckel, Institutional entrepreneurship for responsible digital innovation: The case of corporate digital responsibility, Creativity and Innovation Management 31 (2022) 447–459. doi:1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / c a i m . 1 2 5 1 3 . [35] J. Londoño-Cardozo, M. Pérez de Paz, Corporate digital responsibility: Foundations and considerations for its development, São Paulo (2021) 1–31. doi:1 0 . 1 5 9 0 / 1 6 7 8 - 6 9 7 1 / e R A M D 2 1 0 0 8 8 . [36] C. Mihale-Wilson, O. Hinz, W. van der Aalst, C. Weinhardt, Corporate Digital Responsibility: Relevance and Opportunities for Business and Information Systems Engineering, Business & Information Systems Engineering 64 (2022) 127–132. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 2 5 9 9 - 0 2 2 - 0 0 7 4 6 - y . [37] M. P. Laranja Ribeiro, R. Tommasetti, M. Z. Gomes, A. Castro, A. Ismail, Adoption phases of Green Information Technology in enhanced sustainability: A bibliometric study, Cleaner Engineering and Technology 3 (2021) 100095. doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . c l e t . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 0 0 9 5 . [38] Z. Orbik, V. Zozuľaková, Corporate Social and Digital Responsibility, Management Systems in Production Engineering 27 (2019) 79–83. doi:1 0 . 1 5 1 5 / m s p e - 2 0 1 9 - 0 0 1 3 . [39] M. Aitken, M. Ng, D. Horsfall, K. P. Coopamootoo, A. van Moorsel, K. Elliott, In pursuit of socially-minded data-intensive innovation in banking: A focus group study of public expectations of digital innovation in banking, Technology in Society 66 (2021) 101666. doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . t e c h s o c . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 1 6 6 6 . [40] K. V. Carl, The status-quo of companies’ data privacy and security communication: An ethical evaluation and future paths (2022). doi:1 0 . 1 8 4 2 0 / I N F 2 0 2 2 _ 1 8 . [41] M. Fréminville, Corporate Governance and Digital Responsibility, in: Cybersecurity and Decision Makers: Data Security and Digital Trust, first ed., Wiley, 2020, pp. 39–68. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / 9 7 8 1 1 1 9 7 2 0 3 6 2 . [42] P. Jones, Corporate Digital Responsibility in the Retail Industry: Cameo Case Studies of Two German Retailers, Athens Journal of Business & Economics 9 (2022) 1–12. doi:1 0 . 3 0 9 5 8 / a j b e . X - Y - Z . [43] G. Liyanaarachchi, S. Deshpande, S. Weaven, Market-oriented corporate digital responsibility to manage data vulnerability in online banking, International Journal of Bank Marketing 39 (2021) 571–591. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 8 / I J B M - 0 6 - 2 0 2 0 - 0 3 1 3 . [44] G. Schneider, Framing Accountability in Business-to-Government Data Sharing: The Gap Filling Role of Businesses’ Corporate Digital Responsibility, SSRN Electronic Journal 2022 (2021). doi:1 0 . 2 1 3 9 / s s r n . 3 8 9 7 2 6 3 . [45] B. Weber-Lewerenz, Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) in construction engineering—ethical guidelines for the application of digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI) in user practice, SN Applied Sciences 3 (2021) 801. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 4 2 4 5 2 - 0 2 1 - 0 4 7 7 6 - 1 . [46] E. Pelters, Corporate digital Responsibility—Understanding and applying, in: T. A.
Herberger, J. J. Dötsch (Eds.), Digitalization, Digital Transformation and Sustainability in the Global Economy, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 71–84. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 3 - 0 3 0 - 7 7 3 4 0 - 3 _ 6 . [47] K. V. Carl, T. M. C. Zilcher, O. Hinz, Corporate Digital Responsibility and the current Corporate Social Responsibility standard: An analysis of applicability, in: H. Roßnagel, C. Schunck, S. Mödersheim (Eds.), Open Identity Summit 2022, Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 2022, pp. 75–86. doi:1 0 . 1 8 4 2 0 / O I D 2 0 2 2 _ 0 6 . [48] F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies on Environmental Sustainability: Speculations and Evidence, Report to the OECD, University of Sussex, Brighton, 2001. [49] A. Hankel, Understanding Higher Order Impacts of Green ICT:, in: ICT for Sustainability 2014 (ICT4S-14), Stockholm, Sweden, 2014. doi:1 0 . 2 9 9 1 / i c t 4 s - 1 4 . 2 0 1 4 . 4 8 . [50] N. C. Horner, A. Shehabi, I. L. Azevedo, Known unknowns: Indirect energy efects of information and communication technology, Environmental Research Letters 11 (2016) 103001. doi:1 0 . 1 0 8 8 / 1 7 4 8 - 9 3 2 6 / 1 1 / 1 0 / 1 0 3 0 0 1 . [51] S. Naumann, M. Dick, E. Kern, T. Johann, The GREENSOFT Model: A reference model for green and sustainable software and its engineering, Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems 1 (2011) 294–304. doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . s u s c o m . 2 0 1 1 . 0 6 . 0 0 4 . [52] V. C. Coroamă, P. Bergmark, M. Höjer, J. Malmodin, A Methodology for Assessing the Environmental Efects Induced by ICT Services: Part I: Single Services, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability, ACM, Bristol United Kingdom, 2020, pp. 36–45. doi:1 0 . 1 1 4 5 / 3 4 0 1 3 3 5 . 3 4 0 1 7 1 6 . [53] M. T. Majeed, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Environmental Sustainability in Developed and Developing Countries, Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 12(3) (2018) 758–783. [54] Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of ICT Equipment, Networks and Services; General Methodology and Common Requirements, Technical Report ETSI ES 203 199, European Telecommunication Standards Institute Environmental Engineering (ETSI EE), 2015. [55] A. Hankel, G. Heimeriks, P. Lago, Green ICT Adoption Using a Maturity Model, Sustainability 11 (2019). doi:1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / s u 1 1 2 4 7 1 6 3 . [56] R. Harmon, H. Demirkan, N. Auseklis, M. Reinoso, From Green Computing to Sustainable IT: Developing a Sustainable Service Orientation, in: 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2010, pp. 1–10. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / H I C S S . 2 0 1 0 . 2 1 4 . [57] C. Bai, P. Dallasega, G. Orzes, J. Sarkis, Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective, International Journal of Production Economics 229 (2020). doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . i j p e . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 7 7 7 6 . [58] M. Chavosh Nejad, S. Mansour, A. Karamipour, An AHP-based multi-criteria model for assessment of the social sustainability of technology management process: A case study in banking industry, Technology in Society 65 (2021). doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . t e c h s o c . 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 1 6 0 2 . [59] T. J. Stewart, I. Durbach, Dealing with Uncertainties in MCDA, in: S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, J. R.
Figueira (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Springer, New York, NY, 2016, pp. 467–496. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / 9 7 8 - 1 - 4 9 3 9 - 3 0 9 4 - 4 _ 1 2 . [60] EFRAG, First Set of draft ESRS - EFRAG, https://www.efrag.org/lab6, 2022.