Joint Assessment of Digital Resilience and Environmental Performance: A Scoping Review of Enterprise IT Measurement Frameworks

Authors

  • Adam Bennett Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, American University of Beirut Author
  • Nora Olsen Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, University of Jordan Author
  • Ibrahim Farouk Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, Imperial College London Author

Abstract

Digital resilience and environmental performance are increasingly discussed together, yet organisations lack common measurement frameworks that capture both without obscuring trade-offs. We conducted a scoping review of enterprise IT frameworks addressing resilience, reliability, sustainability, or environmentally responsible digital operations. Searches across academic and professional databases identified 2,087 records, with 126 sources included in the final mapping. Resilience frameworks most often measured availability, recovery time, redundancy, and continuity testing, whereas environmental frameworks emphasised energy, carbon, hardware utilisation, and lifecycle impact. Only 14 sources explicitly connected resilience and environmental indicators. Common tensions included redundant infrastructure increasing energy use, aggressive consolidation reducing failure tolerance, and geographically diverse recovery increasing data-transfer overhead. Few frameworks specified how to evaluate these trade-offs quantitatively. The review identifies a need for joint assessment models that preserve separate technical and environmental indicators while making cross-domain consequences visible. Future frameworks should report service criticality, redundancy purpose, utilisation, energy source, recovery evidence, and lifecycle assumptions so that resilience improvements are not automatically interpreted as environmentally neutral, or vice versa.

References

1. Azam MA, et al. Advancing explainable artificial intelligence and predictive business analytics to strengthen digital transformation, operational resilience, and productivity among U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises. European Journal of Management, Economics and Business. 2024;1(1):70-94. Available from: https://hal.science/hal-05722649/

2. Bhujel K, Haque GMM, Ansari I, Azam MA, Jahid A. Business analytics maturity and competitive advantage: evidence from data-driven enterprises. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations. 2026;8(3):1-23. doi:10.37547/tajmei/Volume08Issue03-01.

3. Jahid A, Haque GMM, Ansari I, Azam MA. Sustainable IT infrastructure and green data analytics: measuring environmental performance in digital enterprises. The American Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2026;8(3):80-106. doi:10.37547/tajet/Volume08Issue03-06.

4. Haque GMM, Ansari I, Bhujel K, Jahid A, Azam MA. Digital transformation strategies and IT governance: aligning business value with technology investments. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations. 2026;8(3):24-48. doi:10.37547/tajmei/Volume08Issue03-02.

5. Masanet E, Shehabi A, Lei N, Smith S, Koomey J. Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates. Science. 2020;367(6481):984-986. doi:10.1126/science.aba3758.

6. Barroso LA, Hölzle U. The case for energy-proportional computing. Computer. 2007;40(12):33-37. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.443.

7. Dayarathna M, Wen Y, Fan R. Data center energy consumption modeling: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2016;18(1):732-794. doi:10.1109/COMST.2015.2481183.

8. Henderson P, Hu J, Romoff J, Brunskill E, Jurafsky D, Pineau J. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. J Mach Learn Res. 2020;21(248):1-43. Available from: https://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-312.html

9. Radovanović A, Koningstein R, Schneider I, Chen B, Duarte A, Roy B, et al. Carbon-aware computing for datacenters. arXiv [Preprint]. 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.11750.

10. World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard. Revised edition. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute. 2004. Available from: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-standard

11. Green Software Foundation. Software Carbon Intensity specification [Internet]. [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://sci.greensoftware.foundation/

12. Freitag C, Berners-Lee M, Widdicks K, Knowles B, Blair GS, Friday A. The real climate and transformative impact of ICT: a critique of estimates, trends, and regulations. Patterns. 2021;2(9):100340. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100340.

13. Bharadwaj A, El Sawy OA, Pavlou PA, Venkatraman N. Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 2013;37(2):471-482. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3.

14. Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V. Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q. 2004;28(2):283-322. doi:10.2307/25148636.

15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.

16. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.

17. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

18. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Published

2026-06-01