Measuring Up? The Illusion of Sustainability and the Limits of Big Tech Self-Regulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssustainability-3262429
Deceptive Data Narratives: Big Tech’s Evasive Measuring Infrastructures for Sustainability
This paper examines the role of Big Tech in addressing climate change, focusing on how tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft report and measure their sustainability efforts. It challenges the idea that Big Tech’s reliance on data can effectively reconcile their sustainability pledges. Through an analysis of the 2023 sustainability reports from these companies, the study finds that they prioritize metrics and accounting practices that selectively frame sustainability as an economic issue, promoting market-based solutions rather than systemic approaches to addressing climate change.
This study presents intriguing findings and constitutes a valuable contribution to the literature. However, before publication, several concerns need to be addressed:
While the introduction provides a concise overview, expanding it to offer a more detailed discussion on the research topic’s significance is essential. The current paper's critical focus on Big Tech’s role in addressing climate change through selective sustainability metrics would benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the broader context. This would set the stage for understanding why examining Big Tech's data narratives is crucial for evaluating their climate pledges and how these align with real-world climate goals.
The conclusion would benefit from a more detailed summary of the findings, especially regarding the implications of framing sustainability as an economic issue. By offering a more comprehensive discussion on the limitations of market-based solutions to climate change, the conclusion could also propose pathways for future research that could explore alternative models for corporate sustainability beyond selective data reporting.
In reviewing your manuscript, I noticed that while the hypotheses are relevant, they lack a strong theoretical foundation. To strengthen your study, you might consider explicitly formulating research questions and developing hypotheses based on well-established theories. For example, your critical approach to Big Tech's selective use of data could be bolstered by integrating theoretical frameworks from environmental economics, corporate accountability, and greenwashing practices. Additionally, broadening the literature review to include studies on corporate sustainability and ESG initiatives would provide a more solid foundation for your critique of market-based climate solutions. These adjustments would not only enhance the coherence of the manuscript but also provide a clearer direction for your research objectives.
To enhance the credibility of the findings, robustness tests are necessary. Given the analysis of Big Tech's sustainability reports, tests could include cross-referencing the data with third-party environmental assessments to ensure that the conclusions about selective metrics are resilient to bias and manipulation. This would increase the reliability of the results and counter potential confounding factors.
It is crucial to adhere strictly to the referencing guidelines, particularly in works published in Sustainability and other high-impact journals. A careful review of references will ensure that all citations are complete and formatted correctly, which will uphold the manuscript’s academic integrity and credibility.
Finally, thorough proofreading is vital to eliminate any grammatical or structural inconsistencies. A polished manuscript not only improves readability but also reflects the professionalism of the research.
By addressing these areas, the manuscript will present a more compelling and academically rigorous critique of Big Tech’s sustainability practices.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe proofreading is vital to eliminate any grammatical or structural inconsistencies. A polished manuscript not only improves readability but also reflects the professionalism of the research.
Author Response
Thank you for the review, comments, and feedback. They all helped to do some minor restructuring of the article and clarify the argument. Please find my responses to your very helpful comments below:
Comment1: While the introduction provides a concise overview, expanding it to offer a more detailed discussion on the research topic’s significance is essential. The current paper's critical focus on Big Tech’s role in addressing climate change through selective sustainability metrics would benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the broader context. This would set the stage for understanding why examining Big Tech's data narratives is crucial for evaluating their climate pledges and how these align with real-world climate goals.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have altered the introduction by deleting some too specific to climate change data information to provide more in-depth explanation of the broader context. I have changed the focus of the paper based on the comments and feedback to move from data to the deception of the sustainability narratives and the illusion of sustainability.
Comment 2: The conclusion would benefit from a more detailed summary of the findings, especially regarding the implications of framing sustainability as an economic issue. By offering a more comprehensive discussion on the limitations of market-based solutions to climate change, the conclusion could also propose pathways for future research that could explore alternative models for corporate sustainability beyond selective data reporting.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have expanded the conclusion to make more direct links with the findings and elaborate on sustainability as an economic issue. I have also added pathways for future research to introduce alternative models for corporate sustainability (see lines 693-704).
Comment 3: In reviewing your manuscript, I noticed that while the hypotheses are relevant, they lack a strong theoretical foundation. To strengthen your study, you might consider explicitly formulating research questions and developing hypotheses based on well-established theories. For example, your critical approach to Big Tech's selective use of data could be bolstered by integrating theoretical frameworks from environmental economics, corporate accountability, and greenwashing practices.
Response 3: Thank you for this comment. I have added a discussion on greenwashing and a paragraph on corporate accountability, expanding the literature review that existed before. I believe the paper would be stronger with a theoretical framework if it did not include as much data. As it stands now, I am afraid the analysis and discussion of the data takes most of the space. However, I have incorporated the two concepts of greenwashing and corporate responsibility throughout for consistency and made overall changes to make the argument tighter around them.
Comment 4: Additionally, broadening the literature review to include studies on corporate sustainability and ESG initiatives would provide a more solid foundation for your critique of market-based climate solutions. These adjustments would not only enhance the coherence of the manuscript but also provide a clearer direction for your research objectives.
Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. I have broadened the literature review to include studies on corporate sustainability and ESG initiatives, see p. 2-3, ln. 80-136.
Comment 4: To enhance the credibility of the findings, robustness tests are necessary. Given the analysis of Big Tech's sustainability reports, tests could include cross-referencing the data with third-party environmental assessments to ensure that the conclusions about selective metrics are resilient to bias and manipulation. This would increase the reliability of the results and counter potential confounding factors.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. I have added further insights from third-party assessments and workers’ reports to support the selective metrics argument (see p. 13, ln 511-537). There is no way we can verify the data presented in the reports since the process is not transparent, but I have added as much third party data I could identify. For I have referred to and cited other sources that counter these companies’ statements across the paper.
Comment 5: It is crucial to adhere strictly to the referencing guidelines, particularly in works published in Sustainability and other high-impact journals. A careful review of references will ensure that all citations are complete and formatted correctly, which will uphold the manuscript’s academic integrity and credibility.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I have double checked my referencing and corrected mistakes I have identified.
Comment 6: Finally, thorough proofreading is vital to eliminate any grammatical or structural inconsistencies. A polished manuscript not only improves readability but also reflects the professionalism of the research.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. I have had a second native speaker look over my writing and incorporated suggestions to improve readability and professionalism.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to evaluate your manuscript. I found the manucript’s idea interesting. Below, you can find a few questions and suggestions for improvement:
CLARITY, RELEVANCE, AND STRUCTURE: Your paper is well-organized and tackles a very relevant topic about how big tech companies present their sustainability efforts. It’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into this issue. I found the introduction to be too long, having a shorter intro would help the reader focus better on what you’re trying to achieve. For instance, you may think about shortening the long explanation of climate change statistics (p. 2). With regards to transitions, when you move from discussing the idea of deceptive data to the real-world impact of the practice, I’d like to see you doing it in a smoother way. This would make it easier for readers to follow your main points. It would also help the reader find your article easier to read.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: I wonder why you’re not using the term “green washing.” It is consecrated in the sustainability literature. I’m not asking you to use it. If you choose not to, you have to explain the reader why (maybe in a footnote). If you choose to use it, it might make your paper more easily accepted by your audience. Just food for thought : )
REFERENCES: I like that you included recent references (from the last five years). I suggest you to check the following papers:
Ylönen, M., Raudla, R., & Babic, M. (2024). From tax havens to cryptocurrencies: secrecy-seeking capital in the global economy. Review of International Political Economy, 31(2), 563-588.
Zhang, A. H. (2024). High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs Its Economy. Oxford University Press.
Azzam, M. E. A. Y., Alsayed, M. S. H., Alsultan, A., & Hassanein, A. (2024). How big data features drive financial accounting and firm sustainability in the energy industry. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(1), 29-51.
Zechiel, F., Blaurock, M., Weber, E., Büttgen, M., & Coussement, K. (2024). How tech companies advance sustainability through artificial intelligence: Developing and evaluating an AI x Sustainability strategy framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 119, 75-89.
SCIENTIFIC SOUNDNESS AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: I like the paper’s argument about how tech companies use “deceptive data narratives.” Could add more details about how you analyzed the sustainability reports? You mention that you did a qualitative content analysis (p. 6), but it’s not clear what steps you took in this process. Also, you argue that these companies use data in tricky ways. Do you have more data collected from previous years (not just 2023 reports)?
REPRODUCIBILITY: You need to provide more details in the Methods section to ensure that others can replicate your study. For example, how did you identify themes in the reports (p. 7)? Explain this step-by-step.
SPECIFICS: On p. 8, you say that “Apple and Meta argue that they maintain carbon-neutral operations.” It’s widely known that both companies rely heavily on carbon offsets. Adding a sentence that questions whether these offsets are truly effective would add a critical edge to your analysis. On p. 9, when you discuss Amazon’s claim that 90% of its electricity in 2022 came from renewable sources, can you explain what Amazon counts as “renewable” energy? Does this include biofuels? Clarify this.
FIGURES/TABLES: Table 1 on p. 9 summarizes company goals. This table is clear and helpful. Can you connect these goals directly to your argument? You present a lot of data but it is not clear how it directly connects to supports your claim of "deceptive narratives." Also, have you verified the data in the reports at all? Did you compare it to independent audits or other sources?
CONCLUSION: I liked the conclusion. It matched the evidence you present. You claim that big tech companies use data “selectively” to frame their sustainability efforts. Can you acknowledge some of the positive actions that these firms are taking? Acknowledging some of the positives would make your study more balanced and less one-sided or dark-sided focused.
CONTRIBUTION: I believe that your paper offers a valuable perspective on how these tech companies manage their public image around sustainability. Can you suggest some future work? What could be done to ensure that firms (especially big tech) are held accountable for their sustainability claims?
CITATIONS: Your citations are generally relevant and up to date. I believe it would help if you could add a few references from independent organizations or environmental watchdogs to support your claims. This would back your conclusions by more than just corporate reports. Also, adding more perspectives from outside the tech industry (like from environmental groups) might help make your manuscript stronger and more relevant.
Great job. Good luck with your work!
Author Response
My many thanks to the reviewer for their very helpful comments, feedback and suggestions. I've made some minor and some more extensive revisions to the paper according to the comments--for example I've decided to change the title and refocus the argument by including greenwashing. I appreciate the time it took the reviewer to read and provide comments.
Comment 1: […] having a shorter intro would help the reader focus better on what you’re trying to achieve. For instance, you may think about shortening the long explanation of climate change statistics (p. 2).
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. In this light, I have edited the introduction and cut out the paragraph of statistics the reviewer has suggested. See lines 27-62.
Comment 2: [...] when you move from discussing the idea of deceptive data to the real-world impact of the practice, I’d like to see you doing it in a smoother way.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment; I agree. I have changed lines 63-83 to reflect on this and smooth the transition between the idea and the content. I have also added content on greenwashing ang CSR that helps unpack these notions better and provides more contextual understanding.
Comment 3: I wonder why you’re not using the term “green washing.” It is consecrated in the sustainability literature. I’m not asking you to use it. If you choose not to, you have to explain the reader why (maybe in a footnote). If you choose to use it, it might make your paper more easily accepted by your audience. Just food for thought : )
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. At first, I wanted to avoid enveloping this within greenwashing but I agree that it will make my paper more easily accepted by the audience. As you can see from lines 54 – 100 I’ve incorporated a discussion on Greenwashing and have also made it a core concept of the paper as a restructure measure.
Comments 4: References provided:
- Ylönen, M., Raudla, R., & Babic, M. (2024). From tax havens to cryptocurrencies: secrecy-seeking capital in the global economy. Review of International Political Economy, 31(2), 563-588.
- Zhang, A. H. (2024). High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs Its Economy. Oxford University Press.
- Azzam, M. E. A. Y., Alsayed, M. S. H., Alsultan, A., & Hassanein, A. (2024). How big data features drive financial accounting and firm sustainability in the energy industry. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(1), 29-51.
- Zechiel, F., Blaurock, M., Weber, E., Büttgen, M., & Coussement, K. (2024). How tech companies advance sustainability through artificial intelligence: Developing and evaluating an AI x Sustainability strategy framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 119, 75-89.
Response 4: Thank you for the references, I’ve incorporated three of them in the paper.
Comments 5: Could add more details about how you analyzed the sustainability reports? You mention that you did a qualitative content analysis (p. 6), but it’s not clear what steps you took in this process. Also, you argue that these companies use data in tricky ways. Do you have more data collected from previous years (not just 2023 reports)?
Response 5: Thank you for requesting a more detailed methodology discussion. I was not sure if it was needed but I have now developed the section more to reflect the steps taken (please see lines 181-241). I chose not to incorporate more data from previous reports since it would have extended the paper too much – however, most reports from previous years are similar to the 2023 so we can assume that there are not too many discrepancies between my argument the ways in which data is handled by big tech.
Comment 6: You need to provide more details in the Methods section to ensure that others can replicate your study. For example, how did you identify themes in the reports (p. 7)? Explain this step-by-step.
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. I have taken on this comment and made extensive changes to the methods section. Please see more details in lines 181-241.
Comment 7: On p. 8, you say that “Apple and Meta argue that they maintain carbon-neutral operations.” It’s widely known that both companies rely heavily on carbon offsets. Adding a sentence that questions whether these offsets are truly effective would add a critical edge to your analysis
Response 7: Thanks for this, I have added the subsequent sentence on p.9, lines 371-374: “However, as it will be discussed later, this argument raises the question of whether the carbon offsets and renewable energy they rely on are truly effective in mitigating emissions, or if they merely serve as a symbolic gesture without delivering genuine environmental impact.”
Comment 8: On p. 9, when you discuss Amazon’s claim that 90% of its electricity in 2022 came from renewable sources, can you explain what Amazon counts as “renewable” energy? Does this include biofuels? Clarify this.
Response 8: Thank you for this comment. I’ve elaborated more here, please see lines 360-374 on p.9.
Comment 9: Table 1 on p. 9 summarizes company goals. This table is clear and helpful. Can you connect these goals directly to your argument?
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made more direct links of the goals with my argument across the paper, made this section smaller and linked it in the conclusion too.
Comment 10: You present a lot of data but it is not clear how it directly connects to supports your claim of "deceptive narratives." Also, have you verified the data in the reports at all? Did you compare it to independent audits or other sources?
Response 8: Thank you for this comment; it helped clarify the connection between the data and the argument (as it links back to comment 8). I did more signposting and elaborated on the connection of the data with ‘deceptive narratives’, changes several elements of the paper and the title to make it cleaner and more relevant to the argument. There is no way we can verify the data presented in the reports since the process is not transparent. For this reason, I cannot compare it to independent audits but have referred to and cited other sources that counter these companies’ statements (see p. 13-14, ln. 495-583).
Comment 9: I liked the conclusion. It matched the evidence you present. You claim that big tech companies use data “selectively” to frame their sustainability efforts. Can you acknowledge some of the positive actions that these firms are taking? Acknowledging some of the positives would make your study more balanced and less one-sided or dark-sided focused.
Response 9: Thank you for suggesting this addition. I have made these changes in lines 660-675 and 687-692.
Comment 10: I believe that your paper offers a valuable perspective on how these tech companies manage their public image around sustainability. Can you suggest some future work? What could be done to ensure that firms (especially big tech) are held accountable for their sustainability claims?
Response 10: Thank you for making this point. I’ve added an extra paragraph at the end of the paper. Please see lines 693-704.
Comment 11: Your citations are generally relevant and up to date. I believe it would help if you could add a few references from independent organizations or environmental watchdogs to support your claims. This would back your conclusions by more than just corporate reports. Also, adding more perspectives from outside the tech industry (like from environmental groups) might help make your manuscript stronger and more relevant.
Response 11: Thank you for this. I have added three references from independent organisations.
