Digital Drivers and Challenges in Sustainable Enterprise Strategies: An Analysis of Information Capabilities, Motivations, and Environmental Practices—Insights from France

Abstract

Digitalization is reshaping the landscape of sustainability in enterprises by enhancing information flows within socio-technical systems and enabling more informed decision-making through advanced communication and data capabilities. However, while digitalization creates opportunities to adopt environmental practices and deploying sustainable strategies, it also introduces complexities and challenges. This study examines the information-centered drivers of digitalization that push enterprises toward sustainable practices, such as technological advancements and the increased demand for transparency, while identifying challenges, including integration costs, technological readiness, and managerial hesitation. Using a multidimensional framework that combines capabilities, environmental practices, and motivations, we provide insights into how technology can both support and challenge sustainability efforts in industry. Our aim is to introduce a methodology to guide the development of strategies for facilitating environmental transitions of enterprises. Within the context of informational capabilities, this scoping review identifies two environmental archetypes—spontaneity and planning—that represent common workforce mindsets toward sustainability. It also classifies universal practices and motivations, with associations being validated through a focus group of members from a French industrial consortium, which also facilitates understanding how digitalized capabilities impact environmental actions and behavioral dynamics. The key findings reveal that while digital communication capabilities significantly enhance the return on investment for environmental practices, barriers remain, such as insufficient alignment of digital tools with sustainable outcomes and variable technology access across industries. The results also underscore the role of product-data and sensor-based analytics in reducing environmental impacts, inviting a further exploration of digitalization’s role in sustainability within the frameworks of behavioral and organizational theories.

1. Introduction

Tangible and intangible assets endow companies with significant capabilities, allowing them to operate effectively and achieve their objectives. For instance, a second machine can double production, or market knowledge can guide the design (or redesign) of products or services. Unfortunately, as these resources are limited, companies tend to balance their granted capabilities between postures that one might term “being green” and “being profitable” [1]. Research suggests that the pursuit of embodying “being green” is often driven by the desire to meet specific expectations within enterprises. For example, the return-on-investment of “acquiring environmental technology” may not be appealing to a firm if it only yields market recognition [2], while the return-on-investment of “enforcing communication links with partners” could be more attractive, especially if it consolidates corporate sustainability [3].

“Acquiring environmental technology” or “enforcing communication links with partners” are among the numerous ecological practices a company may adopt. Some authors argue that the process of selecting and successfully implementing ecological practices often depends on companies’ motivations and capabilities related to information. For example, González-Benito and González-Benito [4] claim that the adoption of environmental practices in logistics depends significantly on motivations (of those who implement such practices), and Araya [5] suggests that the absence of adequate information prevents a company from improving production practices and estimating its environmental impact. In addition, recent evidence highlights not only the significance of information within an ecological corporate environment but also the complementarity of information channels, environmental motivations and ecological practices. For instance, information flow in a business-to-business context is crucial not only for ensuring continuity in operations but also for extending firms’ capabilities to increase environmental performance [6], and environmental motivations positively influence the adoption of environmental practices, which in turn refines Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) [2].

On the other hand, data-driven and information technologies (IT) that enhance firms’ informational capabilities are essential for advancing both digital and sustainable transformations in industry. In particular, the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, machine learning (ML) and 5G cellular technologies contribute to the advancement of pervasive data collection and the establishment of advanced information systems (IS), both essential for implementing circular economy (CE) practices [7] and enhancing sustainable business performance and competitiveness [8]. In fact, Lei et al. [9] found that a form of inimitable resource for corporate differentiation can emerge from the convergence of these technologies, business-strategic alignment, and environmental motivations (understood as an organization’s utilitarian motives to adopt environmental practices [10,11]).

In spite of this evidence, the analysis of the convergence of motivations, environmental practices, and information capabilities, which shapes the business strategy necessary to drive the environmental transition of enterprises, has been disregarded. This research aims to address this gap by focusing on the French industry as the subject of analysis. Our objective is to outline a methodology that supports the development of strategies rooted in the informational capabilities of companies, contextualized within their environmental motivations and practices. We proceed as follows. In Section 2, we dissect the concepts of environmental transition and sustainable strategy to construct our theoretical background in relation to environmental motivations, ecological practices and capabilities. In Section 3, we position our research within a central issue of business strategy at the onset of ecological transition, so that in Section 4, we can establish our hypothesis and research question. Section 5 describes our research methodology and Section 6 presents our results. Section 7 presents our contribution, which consists of a methodology for newcomer firms to generate a sustainable strategy in the ecological transition process. Section 8 discusses our results and presents the limits and perspectives of our research. Section 9 concludes this work.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Environmental Transition

The environmental transition of industry is particularly complex to analyze because its main participants have highly diverse reasons for participating. For example, at one end of the spectrum, Moglia et al. [12] argue firms may be less likely to undertake sustainability transitions as they have incentives to maintain the status quo or to delay socio-technical transformations (due to several advantages, such as monopoly power or a privileged market position [13]), or to the potential loss of competitiveness and existing market advantages resulting from the significant effort required for the transformation process. At the other end, firms may engage in sustainability paths simply because they think that doing so is “the right thing”, but only as long as the financial benefits recompense such efforts [14].

In this sense, research on the motivations for environmental transitions is of paramount importance. Motivation is considered to be the driving force behind intentions and behaviors, potentially leading to substantial outcomes [15]. Behaviors, in turn, can be defined in terms of capabilities and opportunities [16,17].

Capability, as defined by Michie et al. [18], refers to an individual’s ability to perform a target behavior, including possessing the requisite knowledge and skills. The target behavior may arise from deliberate plans, driven by self-conscious intentions [17], or through more spontaneous drivers such as wants, needs, desires, impulses, and reflex responses [19]. Plans, in this context, consist of coordinated actions aligned with sustainability transition pathways and are organized within both short- and long-term timeframes [20].

In the context of environmental transition, Capabilities (such as those related to information and information means), environmental practices, and motivations—possibly among other things—contribute to the uniqueness of firms, while also significantly shaping their behaviors toward becoming sustainable [21].

In France alone, for example, the industrial sector has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40% over the last three decades, while the building and agricultural sectors have reduced them by less than only 2% and 7%, respectively (according to official statistics reported by private [22] and public sources [23]).

Such a disparity in environmental performance could be partly explained by a propensity for sustainable entrepreneurship, determined by a perceived feasibility of actions [24]; or by attitudes and mindsets [25,26]. While the former (actions) relates to the perception of abilities and capabilities [24], the latter (attitudes) may respond to motivations, opportunity and ability-related practices [27].

2.2. Sustainable Strategy

Within sustainability research, backcasting is widely recognized as an approach that begins with the formulation of a strategy, followed by the development of an action plan [28]. It has been interpreted in various ways within the literature on business strategic planning and sustainability transitions [20,29,30,31] and is embedded within transition management (TM) theory, as proposed by Kemp and Loorbach [32].

TM theory emphasizes two critical stages: the formulation and elaboration of a transition vision and the definition of its pathways [33]. Businesses frequently align their operations with broader sustainability-transition pathways either by participating in transition networks and coalitions or by developing tailored strategies [34,35]. As Wensing et al. [36] have highlighted, the effectiveness and impact of such strategies depend on an organization’s capacity to consider the specific context in which it operates [35,37,38].

Achieving this contextual awareness requires a comprehensive evaluation of the current state of the key elements underpinning the co-created transition vision and its strategic objectives [20,30]. This process includes the identification of potential problems and opportunities, and assessing available resources, i.e., capabilities, and determining the necessary changes to achieve specific goals, all of which are essential for advancing sustainability transitions [30,31].

In contrast, when a company identifies a problem, it often adopts general attitudes that trigger cognitive and interpretative behaviors guided by various strategic orientations [39]. These orientations subsequently lead to concrete tactics, often manifested through practices and changes in the business model [40]. In this context, such attitudes may foster a proactive or offensive strategy, which leverages all available resources to improve various processes with a focus on environmental protection [41,42]. This approach typically involves the implementation of technical and technological resources aimed at reducing environmental impact [43]. According to Minna, S. et al. [44], a particularly significant factor in this context is the role of technology in facilitating knowledge creation, which supports long-term sustainable development (in particular, smart technologies provide the necessary infrastructure to generate the knowledge required not only to build sustainability strategies but also to develop comprehensive corporate strategies framed within three fundamental dimensions: social, environmental, and economic).

In relation to environmental transitions, a practice (as understood in its semantic meaning) can be seen as the application or use of an idea, belief, or method (according to Oxford Languages). It entails an anticipated procedure or framework within which specific actions are carried out with a purpose [45] (e.g., a practice oriented to reduce the environmental impact of a firm could be “recycling waste” and a corresponding action may be “separating biotic waste from abiotic waste”). Accordingly, motivations and practices may align with planning, when a sustainable strategy is constructed in a specific context, while actions may align with implementation, when a strategy is materialized. For example, the planning of logistics-centered ecological practices (i.e., “procuring from environmentally and ethically responsible suppliers”), along with available cost-structure data (informational capabilities), allows for the construction of a long-term sustainable strategy, which is further executed through the reengineering of value chains (action) [46].

3. Problematic

As the planning of a sustainable strategy and environmental engagement emerges only when the implementation of actions is well balanced with capabilities [47], enterprises may hesitate or procrastinate when planning their sustainable strategies (composed of actions embedded in practices), precisely because they have no idea how to allocate their available capabilities to initiatives for preserving the environment and profits. On the other hand, incoherent strategies can inhibit organizations from taking the first steps towards sustainability, simply because they do not know what to expect from it and fear wasting resources on senseless and uncoordinated actions [48].

Both absent and incoherent strategies make the environmental transition of industry highly challenging [49], if not unattainable.

4. Hypothesis and Research Question

Bearing in mind the previous problem, and the theoretical background of environmental transition and sustainable strategy of enterprises (formulated in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2), we believe that the design of an effective sustainable strategy (1) arises in a specific motivation–practice context; and (2) comes from actions, which respond to attitudes, which in turn are shaped by specific capabilities (such as those related to information and information means), practices and motivations.

In line with this, we constructed a multidimensional characterization of the ecological transition of firms (Figure 1) and we proposed a threefold research question to guide our investigation in what follows.

Indeed, we wonder what kinds of environmental attitudes emerge from the intersection of informational capabilities and environmental practices within companies (RQ1), on the one hand, and what kinds of environmental attitudes emerge from the intersection of informational capabilities and motivations within companies (RQ2), on the other hand. Additionally, we inquire about the motivation–practice context in which resulting actions emerge, potentially serving as a methodological driver for designing environmental strategy (RQ3).

5. Materials and Methods

To answer our threefold research question, our research methodology is organized in four steps, as shown in Figure 2.

To define attitudes, we search, analyze, and synthesize sustainability motivations and environmental practices, respectively, in the first and second steps, all in the context of informational capabilities. For this, we conducted rapid reviews through the Web of Science (WoS) database (no criteria for exclusion were imposed pertaining to the year of publication, as limited literature works exist at the intersection of environmental motivations, practices, and informational capabilities). Rapid reviews synthesize evidence efficiently in cases where an overview of the research in a particular field is needed [50]. The literature review was based on the two main themes reported in

Table 1. Themes, keywords, and WoS queries of rapid reviews conducted in Steps 1 and 2.

Themes	Keywords	WoS Queries
Motivations for the sustainability transition of industry	Motivation, sustainability, Industry	TI = ((motivation* OR incentive*) (environment* OR sustainab* OR ecolog*) (industry OR business OR enterprise* OR firm* OR manufactur* OR product*))
Environmental practices in industry	Systematic literature review, practices	TS = (“Systematic Literature Review” (“environmental practices” OR “sustainable practices” OR “ecological practices”))

(the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology PRISMA [51], was adopted as the literature review methodology).

To characterize the motivation-practice context in which strategy and actions emerge, we synthesized the implicit or explicit relationship that may arise between motivations and practices in a third step.

Based on the outcomes of steps one, two and three, a focus-group-based experiment was designed and conducted in a fourth phases. The aim was to validate the synthesis of motivations–practices links found in the literature on the one hand, and to construct a design methodology for sustainability strategy, on the other hand. The procedure of our experiment involved the participation of a heterogeneous and varied group of 17 industrial and academic members of the French consortium EcoSD (the EcoSD consortium was selected because it comprises companies from various and representative sectors of the French industry, including telecommunications, environmental consulting, automotive, concessions, energy, construction, aerospace, military, and academia. A complete list of the industrial and academic members that form this consortium can be found in https://www.ecosd.fr/membres/ (accessed on 14 January 2025)) (no preliminary selection criteria were applied to the participants). The detailed design of the activities held in our experiment is presented in the Part 2 of the Supplementary Material.

6. Results

As observed in Figure 3 below, the rapid reviews around motivations and environmental practices were conducted in four parts. For motivations, the keywords “motivation”, “sustainability” and “industry” (and synonyms) were searched by title in Web of Science. Initially, 173 articles were identified. In the second part, the results were screened by title, keeping only instances that suggest a focus on motivations around sustainability industry. The abstracts of remaining peer-reviewed papers were read in the third part (eligibility). Only works presenting concrete motivations (reviewed or collected empirically) or those in an informational context were preserved in the final step.

6.1. Summary of Motivations

Five papers were retained for full analysis and data extraction (motivations). In this body of literature, Cheng et al. [2] studied the connection of business-oriented motivations (marketing advertising opportunity, production costs reduction, growth in shareholder value and access to capital) and sustainability-oriented motivations (leadership, environmental impact reduction, solving customer and interested parties’ requirements, law and regulations, social responsibility, and ethical concerns) with environmental practices (advanced environmental accounting and environmentally friendly production). They found that sustainability-motivated firms tend to optimize the production process in the long-term, while business-oriented firms prefer to change their accounting behavior in the short-term.

On the other hand, Lei et al. [9] used 16 environmental management practices (such as “setting environmental performance objectives as part of annual business plans”) as control variables in a structural equation model of organizations’ perceived relative environmental performance. They concluded that the intersection of environmental motivations, green information technologies/systems (IT/IS), and IT–business strategic alignment creates an inimitable resource that brings value to enterprises.

For their part, Hu et al. [52] studied the effects of eco-sustainability motivations on the adoption of green innovation practices. They concluded that eco-efficiency (i.e., employment of practices and technology to improve eco-sustainability), eco-effectiveness (i.e., employment of practices that improve the eco-sustainability of technology by focusing on external locus of control [53]), and eco-legitimacy (i.e., regulatory and social pressures) motivations have a significant relevance to the adoption of the Green Industrial Internet of Things (GIIoT) [54] (a technology composed basically of “connected sensors and actuators to improve manufacturing processes; and to produce reliable information for better decision-making and implementing green innovation mechanisms” [28]).

On the other hand, a survey conducted by Cassells and Lewis [6] showed that less than 50% of small enterprises engage to some extent in environmental practices (operational, design, and management practices), while the most engagement (more than 70%) happens with waste management practices (like “disposing of hazardous waste appropriately”); all driven by cost reductions and profit motivations. Interestingly, the participants of this survey (firms’ owners or managers) pointed out information deficits (such as that one flowing between supply partners) as the biggest barrier to firms making environmental improvements.

Finally, Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. [55] corroborate the importance of internal motivations (“improvement in environmental efficiency” and “minimizing environmental problems”) for the adoption of EMS and for the potential outcomes of these systems. Specifically, they conclude that companies with strong internal motivation are more likely to obtain high benefits (i.e., improvement of environmental management practices, reduction in waste and pollution; and easier implementation of environmental policies) from the adoption of EMS because internal motivations may be reinforced by the higher requirements of these information systems (i.e., higher requirements for Environmental Management Accounting Systems (EMASs)). This stance around the importance of technological means was later developed by Ferrero, G. et al. [56], who found that technological capabilities are fundamental for eco-innovation practices.

Table 2. Summary of motivations.

Authors	Motivations	Synthesized Motivations	Related Environmental Practices
Cheng et al. [2]	Marketing/advertising opportunity	Profit	Advanced environmental accounting
	Increasing shareholder value
	Greater access to capital
	Reducing production costs	Cost reduction
	Reducing environmental impact and pollution	Impact reduction	Advanced environmentally friendly production
	Customers and other interested parties’ requirements	External pressures
	Requirements of laws and regulations
	Top managers’ social responsibility and ethical concerns	Image
	Demonstrating environmental leadership in industry
Hu et al. [57]	Environmental performance	Impact reduction	Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI)-based capabilities
Hu et al. [52]	Eco-responsiveness	Profit	Green innovation (adoption of GIIoT)
	Eco-effectiveness	Cost reduction
	Eco-efficiency	Impact reduction
	Eco-legitimacy	External pressures
Cassells and Lewis [6] Bonilla-Priego, M.J. et al. [58]	Ecological responsiveness will lead to long-term profitability	Profit	Operational, design, and management tactics
	Environmental activities will differentiate us from our competitors
	Ecological regulation is the primary driver for all our green activities	External pressures	n.a. *
	Engagement in eco-friendly activities is the right thing to do	Internal pressures
Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. [55]	Competitive advantage	Profit	n.a.
	Internal efficiency (improve in environmental efficiency)	Impact reduction	Adoption of EMSs
	Environmental proactivity (minimizing environmental problems)
	Customer demands	External pressures	n.a.
	Image improvement	Image
	Administration	Organizational culture

* Not available.

presents a list of the motivations found in our rapid review. They can be synthesized in seven universal categories: external pressures, internal pressures, impact reduction, image, cost reduction and profit. The rightmost column shows the related practices seen so far.

Globally, a planning attitude can be characterized at the intersection of reviewed motivations and informational capabilities. Indeed, while actively participating in environmental practices, motivated firms plan strategically their actions and envisage their future gains (in the short- or long-term, for example) supported by (or constrained by) information systems’ deployment and alignment, advanced accounting and production, information flow, and information technology (e.g., EMSs, EMAS, or GIIoT).

6.2. Summary of Environmental Practices

For environmental practices, the keywords “systematic literature review” and “practices” (including synonyms) were searched in the title, abstract and keywords fields in Web of Science. Initially, 74 works were identified initially. In a second step, the results were screened by title, keeping only instances that suggested inventories of environmental practices within industry and the literature. In the third step (eligibility), works presenting practices in informational contexts were preserved, and the abstracts of the remaining peer-reviewed works were read. Only those validated empirically were included for full review and data extraction (environmental practices).

Table 3. Summary of environmental practices reviewed ¹.

Authors	Review Type	No. of Studies or Respondents	Env. Practices Reviewed	Findings or Contributions in the Informational Context
Varriale et al. [59]	SR *	5011 studies	67	Explores digital technologies in sustainable Supply Chain Management
				Explores digital technology use for operational efficiency and sustainability
Dantas et al. [60]	SR	50 studies	42	CE practices and I4.0 technologies directly support SDGs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, and indirectly SDGs 14 and 15
Garza-Reyes et al. [61]	SR	8 studies	36	The case study shows a company may collect valuable information but fail to use it for decision-making
Neri, A. et al. [62]	NR **	11 firms	33	Provides three categories of digital-enabled capabilities (sensing, sizing, and transforming) for facilitating CE practices
Uvarova et al. [63]	SR	148 studies	60	Data analysis is crucial for system change and CE transition in enterprises
Sarkis et al. [64]	NR **	5 studies	19	Provides a questionnaire to assess an enterprise’s capabilities and stakeholder pressures, organized into four sections: company information, training details, implemented environmental practices, and stakeholder information
Quayson, M. et al. [65]	NR	8 respondents	3	Describes blockchain-enabled capabilities from sensing, sizing and transforming capabilities
Gimenez et al. [66]	NR	4 studies	n.a. ***	IT-enabled coordination strengthens and moderates the relationship between environmental practices and performance
				Suggests the role of IT (e.g., ERP systems) in implementing environmental practices
Sehnem et al. [67]	NR	300 respondents	19	Analyzes the adoption of sustainable practices and eco-innovations in industrial processes
Muñoz-Villamizar et al. [68]	NR	15 studies	18	Environmental data lacks consensus on presentation and indicators. A standardized methodology can clarify performance evaluation and provide valuable metrics
				The Industry 4.0 paradigm will advance environmental measurement in future factories through technological implementation. Any proposal for monitoring, measurement, and analysis should align with this paradigm
				A unified estimation methodology is needed, with performance measures aligned to environmental management. Key factors like location, culture, value chain, raw materials, and processes should address the informational needs of decision-makers, government, and investors
Del Río-Rama et al. [69]	NR	62 respondents	71	Internal and external motivations have the most influence on the implementation of sustainable practices

¹ Part 1 of the Supplementary Material provides a quality appraisal of systematic and narrative reviews. * Systematic review. ** Narrative review. *** Not available.

summarizes the key findings or contributions of the retained articles in the context of environmental practices and the informational domain.

From the studied articles, only Uvarova et al. [63] indirectly suggest a spontaneity attitude, which can be distinguished at the intersection of found practices and informational capabilities. For example, spontaneous actions aimed at adopting circular economy practices can result from the accumulation of data and the analysis of information within a company. From the environmental practices reviewed in Table 3, in the end, 20 universal categories of global practices were summarized (see

Table A1. Global environmental practices.

Practice	Description
1	Practice LCA and eco-innovation of processes, services, and products
2	Establish adequate maintenance of equipment and infrastructures to avoid overconsumption and embrace energy conservation
3	Modify facilities and equipment to use renewable resources; and to save materials, water, energy, and electricity
4	Reduce materials, water, energy and electricity consumption in facilities or manufacturing, logistic, or administrative processes
5	Acknowledge, monitor, and systematically control your material, water, energy, and electricity consumption, and your emissions, solid, toxic, and water waste by types, areas, sections, processes, machines, etc.
6	Promote collaboration and an appropriate work environmental for ecological transition
7	Reduce or substitute the use of harmful, critical or scarce materials and fossil fuels
8	Ensure the use of renewable resources and the low consumption of material, water, energy, and electricity during use phase
9	Set measurable targets to reduce materials, water, energy, and electricity inputs; and to reduce emissions, solid, toxic, and water waste outputs
10	Establish and manage your environmental strategy
11	Internal communication of resources consumption, emissions, solid and water waste
12	Participate actively to preserve natural ecosystems
13	Acknowledge the resource consumption, emissions, and waste generation of stakeholders and resource raw materials, water, energy, and electricity from environmental and ethical providers
14	Establish and govern your environmental policy and inform society and suppliers about your commitment to ecology and your advancements in resource consumption; and emissions, solid, and water waste
15	Promote special training to manage and use resources efficiently; and to manage and treat or reduce waste efficiently
16	Achieve environmental rewards and certifications
17	Adopt circular strategies for materials, water, energy, and waste
18	Establish adequate abatement treatment for emissions, solid, and water waste
19	Reduce or avoid emissions, solid, and water waste
20	Establish sustainable business models

in Appendix A).

6.3. Proposition of Motivation–Practice Links

Table 2 in Section 6.1 reveals a many-to-many relationship between motivations and practices. That is, a motivation can be the origin for implementing one or several environmental practices (as in the case of “profit”, which can be a motivation for “conducting advanced environmental accounting” and “green innovation”), and one environmental practice can be adopted to address one or many motivations (as in the case of “advanced green-friendly production”, which can be an environmental practice implemented for covering “impact reduction” and “image” motivations). Based on this many-to-many logic, and by considering the motivations and practices reviewed in previous sections, in

Table 4. Proposed motivations-practices links (here denoted by an “x”). We included two additional motivations (environmental awareness and risk management) and supplementary links ¹.

	Motivation 1	Motivation 2	Motivation 3	Motivation 4	Motivation 5	Motivation 6	Motivation 7	Motivation 8	Motivation 9
Practice 1	x			x	x	x	x		x
Practice 2	x					x
Practice 3	x			x	x	x
Practice 4	x			x		x			x
Practice 5	x		x	x		x		x	x
Practice 6		x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Practice 7	x	x			x	x
Practice 8	x		x
Practice 9	x								x
Practice 10	x			x	x	x	x	x	x
Practice 11		x	x					x
Practice 12					x				x
Practice 13	x				x			x	x
Practice 14			x		x			x	x
Practice 15			x					x
Practice 16	x				x				x
Practice 17	x			x	x	x	x
Practice 18	x				x				x
Practice 19	x				x	x		x	x
Practice 20							x

¹ Table A2 in Appendix A provides a full description of each of these motivations.

we propose the following motivations–practices links.

6.4. Results from Focus Groups

In the first phase of our focus-group-based experiment, an excerpt from an online news article in the ecological domain (UN Treaty on Plastic Pollution—EU Submitted Its Stance on Unnecessary Plastic Products. European Union Sustainability Outlook, March 2023) was presented to all participants. Later, the participants were asked to imagine themselves as plastic producers and adopt a strategic posture after reading the content based on the attitudes observed in Section 6.1 and Section 6.2: either mobilizing their available resources and informational capabilities (spontaneity attitude) or either planning their resources and informational capabilities first (planning attitude). Participants who felt identified with option one formed the group A (7 participants) and participant who felt identified with option two formed the group B (10 participants). Both groups were separated in this phase).

In the second phase, the environmental practices and motivations categories presented in Table 4 were presented to the participants. Participants in group A were asked to compile a list of actions (finished or ongoing actions) within their firms (or within the firms on which they conduct their research activities). They were then required to match each of their actions with one or several of our categories of practices. Subsequently, for each practice category utilized, participants were asked to assign one or several categories of motivations.

Globally, participants in group A reported 59 actions and 130 motivations–practice links within their enterprises).

Similarly, participants in group B were asked to compile a list of actions (planned practices or actions in planning) within their firms, and they were required to match each of their actions with one or several of our motivation categories. Later, for each motivation category used, participants were asked to assign one or several categories of practices.

Globally, participants in group B reported 74 actions and 195 motivation–practice links on their enterprises.

For both groups, participants used our practice and motivation categories, but they could also propose new ones if they wished to.

In the third phase of our experiment, participants from both groups worked on their own motivation–practice links in mixed-pairs (mixed-pairs in which participants belonged to different enterprises). Based on shared motivations, participants with a spontaneity attitude were asked to discuss how their partners (participants with a planning attitude) had planned (or were planning) specific actions based on informational capabilities. Similarly, from shared motivations, participants with a planning attitude were asked to discuss how their partners (participants with a spontaneous attitude) had implemented (or were implementing) specific actions based on informational capabilities.

Globally, the implementation and the planning of 26 actions were discussed on the basis of 24 practice categories and 10 motivation categories.

In the fourth phase of our experiment, participants in both groups were required to validate or refuse our motivation-practice links (proposed in Table 4), on the basis of their own experience and insights resulting from previous discussions.

Overall, the results from this last phase clearly show three types of feedback: answers that agreed or disagreed with our proposed links, answers that suggested additional links, and finally, key aspects signaled by participants.

The complete experiment provided quantitative validation of the proposed motivation-practice links by capturing participants’ agreement levels for each link. The validation proportions, presented in Table 5 of Section 6.4.1, highlight the extent of consensus among participants, demonstrating the empirical robustness of the proposed framework. Moreover, the focus group allowed for the identification of additional links, as detailed in Table 6 of Section 6.4.2, further enhancing the comprehensiveness of the motivation–practice relationships”.

6.4.1. Participants That Agreed or Disagreed with Proposed Motivation–Practice Links

In a broad sense, most of the proposed motivation–practice relations were validated by the all members of the two focus groups (according to Table 5).

Table 5. Proportions of participants that agreed with the proposed motivation–practice links (expressed as decimal).

	Motivation 1	Motivation 2	Motivation 3	Motivation 4	Motivation 5	Motivation 6	Motivation 7	Motivation 8	Motivation 9
Practice 1	1.00			1.00	0.94	0.76	0.88		0.94
Practice 2	1.00					1.00
Practice 3	1.00			1.00	0.88	0.94
Practice 4	1.00			1.00		1.00			1.00
Practice 5	1.00		0.82	1.00		0.94		0.94	0.94
Practice 6	-	0.76	1.00	0.88	0.94	0.65		1.00	0.76
Practice 7	1.00	0.65			0.88	0.88
Practice 8	1.00		0.88
Practice 9	1.00								0.94
Practice 10	1.00			0.88	0.88	0.82	0.88	1.00	1.00
Practice 11	-	0.88	0.94					0.94
Practice 12	-				0.94				0.76
Practice 13	0.82				0.88			0.94	1.00
Practice 14			1.00		1.00			1.00	0.88
Practice 15			1.00					1.00
Practice 16	0.82				0.94				0.71
Practice 17	1.00			1.00	0.88	0.88	0.82
Practice 18	1.00				0.88				1.00
Practice 19	1.00				0.88	0.82		0.82	0.94
Practice 20							0.94

Table 5. Proportions of participants that agreed with the proposed motivation–practice links (expressed as decimal).

	Motivation 1	Motivation 2	Motivation 3	Motivation 4	Motivation 5	Motivation 6	Motivation 7	Motivation 8	Motivation 9
Practice 1	1.00			1.00	0.94	0.76	0.88		0.94
Practice 2	1.00					1.00
Practice 3	1.00			1.00	0.88	0.94
Practice 4	1.00			1.00		1.00			1.00
Practice 5	1.00		0.82	1.00		0.94		0.94	0.94
Practice 6	-	0.76	1.00	0.88	0.94	0.65		1.00	0.76
Practice 7	1.00	0.65			0.88	0.88
Practice 8	1.00		0.88
Practice 9	1.00								0.94
Practice 10	1.00			0.88	0.88	0.82	0.88	1.00	1.00
Practice 11	-	0.88	0.94					0.94
Practice 12	-				0.94				0.76
Practice 13	0.82				0.88			0.94	1.00
Practice 14			1.00		1.00			1.00	0.88
Practice 15			1.00					1.00
Practice 16	0.82				0.94				0.71
Practice 17	1.00			1.00	0.88	0.88	0.82
Practice 18	1.00				0.88				1.00
Practice 19	1.00				0.88	0.82		0.82	0.94
Practice 20							0.94

Further, 94% of participants believed that promoting collaboration and an appropriate work environment for ecological transition (practice 6), modifying facilities and equipment to use renewable resources; and to save resources (practice 3), and reducing or substituting the use of harmful, critical, or scarce materials and fossil fuels (practice 7) are to do with image (motivation 5), as long as external communication capabilities are stablished. In this line, 15 out of the 17 participants believe that adopting circular strategies for resources and waste (practice 17), establishing adequate abatement treatment for emissions (practice 18), and reducing or avoiding emissions, solid, and water waste (practice 19) makes sense for the image motivation (motivation 5), provided that communication capabilities are engaged.

In addition, 94% of participants also believed that reducing or substituting the use of harmful, critical, or scarce materials and fossil fuels (practice 7) had not relation with cost reduction (motivation 6), since substitution may be expensive, and 88% of respondents think that acknowledging the resource consumption, emissions and waste generation of stakeholders (practice 13) is not related to external pressures (motivation 1), mainly because managers and enterprises are not responsible for their partners (from a legal point of view). In the same proportion, some participants believed that adopting circular strategies (practice 17) may not be related to profit (motivation 7), as circular-centered business models (for example those based on expensive recycling) may not be profitable in the long-term.

Also, approximately 24% of the participants did not find associations between promoting collaboration and an appropriate work environmental for ecological transition (practice 6), participating actively to preserve natural ecosystems (practice 12), and achieving environmental rewards and certifications (practice 16) with internal pressures (motivation 2), and environmental risk management (motivation 9). Also, they believed that practicing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and eco-innovation (practice 1) do not have to do with cost reduction (motivation 6). This is explained by the high-cost perception of eco-design procedures and impact assessment technology, knowledge, and tools (for example, one participant believed that green innovation including all these aspects can generate cost overruns and financial risks).

On the other hand, more than 60% of the participants indicated that promoting collaboration and an appropriate work environment for ecological transition (practice 6) is not related to cost reduction (motivation 6). One participant said that this is because of the need to deploy extra financial resources for recruiting environmental experts (for example). In the same proportion, some participants did not find an evident relationship between the practice “reduce or substitute the use of harmful, critical or scarce materials and fossil fuels” (practice 7) and the motivation “internal pressures” (motivation 2).

6.4.2. Participants That Suggested New Links

Table 6 presents the proportions of participants that suggested new links between practice and motivation categories. In the table, it is observed that 65% of participants suggested a strong link between the practice category “Ensure the use of renewable resources and the low consumption of material, water, energy and electricity during use phase” (practice 8) and the motivation “impact reduction” (motivation 4). Participants said that this is explained by the fact that indirect environmental benefit can be gained for an enterprise from the impact reduction in its products in the use phase.

Table 6. Proportions of participants that added new links (expressed as decimals).

	Motivation 1	Motivation 2	Motivation 3	Motivation 4	Motivation 5	Motivation 6	Motivation 7	Motivation 8	Motivation 9
Practice 1		0.18	0.41					0.18
Practice 2		0.24	0.06	0.59	0.18		0.24	0.12	0.12
Practice 3		0.18	0.12				0.12	0.06	0.06
Practice 4		0.29	0.12		0.29		0.29
Practice 5		0.24			0.18		0.12
Practice 6	0.24						0.06
Practice 7			0.06	0.59			0.18		0.35
Practice 8		0.06		0.65	0.47	0.24	0.18		0.06
Practice 9		0.12	0.18	0.47	0.18	0.41	0.06	0.24
Practice 10		0.24	0.35
Practice 11	0.12			0.18	0.29	0.06	0.06
Practice 12	0.29	0.29	0.29	0.24		0.06		0.12
Practice 13		0.12	0.29	0.59		0.24	0.06
Practice 14	0.18	0.12		0.12		0.12	0.12
Practice 15	0.18	0.18		0.18	0.24	0.12			0.18
Practice 16			0.12	0.06			0.12	0.24
Practice 17		0.12	0.12	0.00				0.24	0.12
Practice 18		0.12	0.06	0.53		0.06	0.06	0.12
Practice 19		0.12	0.18	0.59			0.06
Practice 20	0.12	0.06	0.06	0.24	0.06	0.18		0.18

Table 6. Proportions of participants that added new links (expressed as decimals).

	Motivation 1	Motivation 2	Motivation 3	Motivation 4	Motivation 5	Motivation 6	Motivation 7	Motivation 8	Motivation 9
Practice 1		0.18	0.41					0.18
Practice 2		0.24	0.06	0.59	0.18		0.24	0.12	0.12
Practice 3		0.18	0.12				0.12	0.06	0.06
Practice 4		0.29	0.12		0.29		0.29
Practice 5		0.24			0.18		0.12
Practice 6	0.24						0.06
Practice 7			0.06	0.59			0.18		0.35
Practice 8		0.06		0.65	0.47	0.24	0.18		0.06
Practice 9		0.12	0.18	0.47	0.18	0.41	0.06	0.24
Practice 10		0.24	0.35
Practice 11	0.12			0.18	0.29	0.06	0.06
Practice 12	0.29	0.29	0.29	0.24		0.06		0.12
Practice 13		0.12	0.29	0.59		0.24	0.06
Practice 14	0.18	0.12		0.12		0.12	0.12
Practice 15	0.18	0.18		0.18	0.24	0.12			0.18
Practice 16			0.12	0.06			0.12	0.24
Practice 17		0.12	0.12	0.00				0.24	0.12
Practice 18		0.12	0.06	0.53		0.06	0.06	0.12
Practice 19		0.12	0.18	0.59			0.06
Practice 20	0.12	0.06	0.06	0.24	0.06	0.18		0.18

More than the half of the participants (59%) thought that establishing adequate maintenance of equipment and infrastructures to avoid overconsumption and embrace energy conservation (practice 2) and acknowledging the resource consumption, emissions, and waste generation of stakeholders (practice 13) should be related to an impact reduction motivation (motivation 4). They explained that this was due, respectively, to the potential reduction in impact from the adequate maintenance of the equipment (provided that overconsumption is avoided in the process) and throughout the entire supply chain. Additionally, the latter relationship (practice 13 with motivation 4) is effective if energy-efficiency certifications are envisaged (through the use of Environmental Management Systems (EMSs)).

Further, 59% of the participants believed also that the practice “reduce or substitute the use of harmful, critical or scarce materials and fossil fuels” (practice 7) should be linked with the motivation 4, “impact reduction”, only if the environmental gains from it are real and relevant (that is, only if the impact reduction from reducing or substituting is significant).

In addition, a little more than half of the participants (53%) considered that a link between the practice “establish adequate abatement treatment for emissions, solid and water waste” (practice 18) and the motivation “impact reduction” (motivation 4) should be established, as long as such treatments are environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, no additional practices were suggested by participants. Only 2 out of 17 participants suggested “raising environmental awareness and promoting environmental training” as an additional practice, but we considered it as an instance of practices 5 and 15 separately (“acknowledge, monitor and control systematically your material, water, energy and electricity consumption; and your emissions, solid, toxic and water waste by types, areas, sections, processes, machines, etc.” and “promote special training to manage and use resources efficiently; and to manage and treat or reduce waste efficiently”). This confirms that the level of abstraction of our practice categories in Part 2 of the Supplementary Material is appropriate.

To assess the discrepancies between participants, differences between the answers of members in groups A and B were analyzed at the end. Specifically, the Mann–Whitney U two-tailed test was conducted on the basis of the number of validated links, obtaining a U statistical value of 15.5. Then, with a U critical value of 14 (with a 0.05 level of significance), the null hypothesis of the Mann–Whitney test (“there is no difference between the two groups”) was accepted.

6.4.3. Key Aspects That Participants Pointed Out

The participants of the group A (participants with a spontaneity attitude), including an eco-designer responsible for a mobility consulting group and a project manager of an environmental consulting group, believe that practices 1 and 17 (“practicing LCA and eco-innovation” and “adopting circular strategies for resources and waste”) are both vital to dealing with external pressures (motivation 1).

A scientist in the field of sustainability suggested that the practice “promote collaboration and an appropriate work environment for ecological transition” (practice 6) must be linked to the motivation “internal pressures” (motivation 2) and “organizational culture” (motivation 8). She also thought that reducing or avoiding emissions, solid, and water waste (practice 19) must be connected to the motivation “image” (motivation 5).

Also, this scientist, together with a young researcher, believed, respectively, that adopting circular strategies for resources and waste (practice 17) and reducing materials, water, energy, and electricity consumption in facilities or manufacturing, logistic, or administrative processes (practice 4) relate strongly to the motivation “impact reduction” (motivation 4). The young researcher also pointed out that systematically acknowledging, monitoring, and controlling resource consumption and emissions (practice 5) is firmly related to manage environmental risks (motivation 9).

On the other hand, the mixed pairs pointed out the pivotal role of impact assessment for implementing/planning practices. It was also mentioned Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) software, product and production data (such as Bill of Materials, or electronic invoices), and environmental databases were also mentioned as key resources for allowing impact estimation capabilities (practice 1), and sensor technology as a key resource for the adequate maintenance of equipment and buildings (practice 2).

Furthermore, the majority of participants did not 100% validate the proposed connections for motivations 2 and 7. (“internal pressures” and “profit”). This could be explained by the perception that internal communication and environmental awareness are viewed more as specific actions rather than motivations (as one participant said) and that the motivations 7 and 6 (profit and cost reduction) are almost similar or linked (as another participant indicated).

Table 7. Resulting motivation-practice links. (ok = validated link, R = refused link, A = added link, K = key link).

	Motivation 1	Motivation 2	Motivation 3	Motivation 4	Motivation 5	Motivation 6	Motivation 7	Motivation 8	Motivation 9
Practice 1	K			ok	ok	R	R		ok
Practice 2	ok			A		ok
Practice 3	ok			ok	R	ok
Practice 4	ok			K		ok			ok
Practice 5	ok		R	ok		ok		ok	K
Practice 6		K	ok	R	ok	R		K	R
Practice 7	ok	R		A	R	R
Practice 8	ok		R	A
Practice 9	ok								ok
Practice 10	ok			R	R	R	R	ok	ok
Practice 11		R	ok					ok
Practice 12					ok				R
Practice 13	R			A	R			ok	ok
Practice 14			ok		ok			ok	R
Practice 15			ok					ok
Practice 16	R				x				R
Practice 17	K			K	R	R	R
Practice 18	ok			A	R				ok
Practice 19	ok			A	K	R		R	ok
Practice 20							ok

shows the motivation–practice links resulting from our focus group-based experiment. It shows the relations with strong validation (relations validated by 94% to 100% of participants) and added relations (by 59% to 65% of participants). It also shows the relations with weak validation as “refused” (relations validated by less than 94% of participants) and the key relations reported by the participants of both groups.

7. Design Methodology for Environmental Transition Strategy

Based on the validated motivation–practices links, along with the discussions among the mixed-pairs in the phases 3 and 4 of our experiment, the foundation of a motivation–practice-based methodology for a sustainable strategy based on informational capabilities was established, as depicted in Figure 4.

The proposed methodology is composed of spontaneity and planning attitudes, and it includes all the practice and motivation categories (represented here by practices and motivations categories “A” and “B” for simplicity) along with their interconnections. The fundamental concept underlying the methodology is as follows. From a common motivation (for example motivation A), an employee with a spontaneity attitude looks to implement an action by a practice category A, while another employee with a planning attitude plans another action by practice category B. Later, the informational capabilities involved in both practice categories (A and B) may reciprocally complement each other in a unified strategy.

For example, to reduce cost production (a common motivation reported by a mixed pair), a participant with a spontaneity attitude in our experiment installed sensors in equipment and infrastructure in his enterprise (spontaneous action), to implement predictive maintenance (an instance of practice category 2). His counterpart (a participant with a planning attitude) organized the collection of production data in his enterprise (planned action) with the aim of conducting Life Cycle Assessment and green innovation in production later on (an instance of practice category 1).

Later, both participants realized and concluded that the informational capabilities involved in practice categories 1 and 2 would reciprocally complement each other in a unified strategy. For example, the information type “production data” allows for Life Cycle Assessment (practice category 1) but would also allow for constructing a “predictive maintenance algorithm” (practice category 2). Similarly, the information type “sensor data” allows for constructing a “predictive maintenance algorithm” (practice category 2) but would also allow for a “green innovation project of production processes” (practice category 1).

8. Discussion, Limitations, and Perspectives

Building on the fundamental theory of firm behavior [70], we interpreted the previous literature on informational capabilities, motivations, and environmental practices to characterize the ecological transition of enterprises (Figure 1). From this, we aimed to investigate environmental attitudes as a phenomenon that connects informational capabilities with motivations on the one hand and with environmental practices on the other hand.

We recognized a planning attitude that emerged at the intersection of motivations (e.g., future gains) and capabilities that enhance the flow of information, such as information systems and technology. This finding aligns with the ‘proactive stance’ described by Aibar-Guzmán, C. et al. [71], which attributes this behavior to businesses that aspire to stay ahead of environmental pressures and achieve a competitive position. Additionally, this concurs with the ‘mindset of strategic capabilities’ discussed in the work of Marsh, R.J. et al. [19], which emphasizes developing underlying capabilities for knowledge transfer to increase transparency and facilitate opportunities.

We also recognized a spontaneity attitude emerging at the intersection of practices and informational capabilities, primarily focused on leveraging data accumulation and analytical skills within a company. This suggests a form of ‘adaptability for sustainability’, which may align with the need to develop dynamic capabilities to implement sustainability strategies [72,73]. Further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Also, we were interested in identifying and studying the motivation–practice context in which actions arise (from environmental attitudes) to understand how a sustainable strategy can be designed. Both interests align with the tradition on behavioral research design. The former aligns because it focuses on the fundamental resources-based economic decisions taken by enterprises today (i.e., “being green” or “being profitable”) and the later aligns because it develops a process-oriented sequence based on motivation–practice links (i.e., “I want to…” (motivation) and “for that I adopt…” (environmental practice)).

Specifically, we inferred 76 motivation–practice links from the literature. The participants in our focus-group experiment validated almost all of these links, and both groups (planners and spontaneous individuals) exhibited almost identical postures.

When validating certain relationships, the majority of participants (94%) expressed the important role of communication capabilities in capitalizing on the implementation of environmental practices (especially for image-related intentions). This finding reinforces the conclusions drawn by some authors [74,75,76], emphasizing the relevance of communication practices when developing environmental strategies.

Also, participants were concerned about the return-on-investment of the implementation of certain practices, not only from a financial standpoint but also from an ecological one. These observations align with the conclusions of Küttim, M. et al. [77], particularly regarding barriers such as a “long return-on-investment periods” and “environmental uncertainties”, which hinder engagement in green initiatives with financial intentions, as well as “value-driven mindsets”, which shape companies whose development and core values are profoundly influenced by sustainability.

On the other hand, we also noted that the planning and implementation of certain practices depended significantly on impact assessment and monitoring capabilities, which in turn depend, respectively, on LCA instruments and information, as well as specific IT technology (which may be considered expensive). These findings are consistent with those reported by Mehrabian and Russell [78], who observed that once a company estimates and acknowledges its environmental impact, it articulates solutions—potentially based on new technologies [79]—to enhance its capabilities for detailed mapping and impact reduction [80]. This process is likely driven by technical factors, such as digitalization [81].

Based on our insights, we developed a co-design methodology for sustainability transition strategies, incorporating information capabilities, motivations, practices, and established attitudes. This approach complements existing backcasting-based frameworks, such as the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) [30,82,83,84] and the Organisational Sustainability Transitions (OST) procedure [85], which focus on guiding the development of proactive strategies in industry, grounded in sustainability principles, the analysis of current states and assets, and actionable planning.

Although interesting, our results have many limitations that must be taken into consideration. Firstly, while some of the discussions with the participants and mixed-pairs align with the importance of informational capabilities evidenced in the literature (i.e., environmental systems, data and technology), further focus-group-based experiments with additional participants are necessary to investigate this matter in the context of sustainable strategy. Secondly, additional focus-group-based experiments with a larger sample size are also necessary to validate and generalize our motivation–practice links and our proposed methodology. Thirdly, an exhaustive literature review on motivations and practices may allow the revealing of more archetypes of attitudes and the construction of additional motivation–practices links.

In addition, while the study provides robust validation of the framework through the focus group insights, the lack of industry-specific case studies represents a limitation. The focus group participants, drawn from diverse industrial and academic contexts, provided real-world perspectives that enriched the analysis. However, future work could further enhance the framework by incorporating in-depth case studies to illustrate its practical application within specific industries.

Yet, our work can be seen as a transition guide for managers and employees in enterprises (potentially with spontaneity or planning attitudes) or as a preliminary model for researchers (a model on which research intersecting evolutionary economics [86] and sustainability transition may be inspired). Indeed, our motivation–practice links and focus-group-based experiments can be used as instruments to study industrial evolution processes, in which actors (firms) change incrementally as a result of searching for ecological/financial optimization through the development or acquisition of informational capabilities (especially in the present-day 4.0, and further 5.0 industrial revolutions).

Also, interesting research topics could emerge at the intersection of the fundamental theories of ecological transition and organizational learning, surrounding all our practice categories that involve organizational culture-related motivation and the specific informational capabilities of enterprises (especially those related to the assimilation of interorganizational information [87]).

Finally, as aspirations may differ among members within a company and, as decision-making may be performed by groups rather than individuals, this work could be enriched by team theory, such as that one proposed by Marschak and Radner [88].

9. Conclusions

The literature reveals the capital role of capabilities, motivations, and practices in understanding the heterogeneity of enterprises, to some extent, and their predisposition to engage in ecological actions. On the basis of this evidence, we constructed a characterization of ecological strategy and sustainability transition, from which the following research questions emerged: one question was around the environmental attitudes that emerge at the intersection of motivations and informational capabilities (RQ1), and another was around the environmental attitudes that emerge at the intersection of informational capabilities and environmental practices (RQ2). Then, we inquired about the motivation–practice context in which a sustainable strategy and actions emanate from such attitudes (RQ3), in order to construct a motivation–practice-based design methodology for a sustainable strategy based on informational capabilities.

To answer RQ1 and RQ2, we conducted a rapid review of the literature to extract the motivations and environmental practices related to informational capabilities.

In this part, it was also observed that motivations and practices tend to interconnect in many-to-many relationships. The motivations and practices that were found were later synthetized into 9 and 20 universal categories, respectively. Both helped to later to construct motivation–practice links.

To answer RQ3, we conducted a focus-group experiment in which members of two expert groups (one comprising spontaneous participants and the other comprising methodic participants) were required to validate or refuse our motivation–practice links on the basis of their own experience in dealing with informational capabilities.

At the end, a methodology based on our insights was proposed to facilitate in the design of sustainable strategies. This methodology must be adopted with caution by enterprises, as it is the result of a simplified literature review and reduced focus-groups. Nevertheless, the research design of this work aligns to a great extend with the commitments of behavioral theory, and promising research can be inspired by our procedure presented here, especially in potential areas such as evolutionary economics or organizational learning theory.