The use of technology in sustainability is not only about digitalization, but also about a company’s ability to manage data in an integrated, accurate, and accountable manner. Sustainability data scattered across different organizational functions often makes data collection and reporting inefficient. An ESG Data Management System can help integrate data, assign responsibilities, store supporting evidence, and monitor changes. Well-managed data can also help companies identify material waste, inefficient energy use, and opportunities to implement circular economy practices. However, technology does not automatically make a company more sustainable. Its use must align with business needs while considering the environmental impacts of digital infrastructure. Data reliability is also an important aspect of corporate governance to improve transparency, prevent errors, and reduce the risk of greenwashing. Therefore, technology serves as a tool to support decision-making, address problems early, and ensure that sustainability claims are supported by reliable and accountable data.
Whenever I start working with a company on sustainability, I usually ask to see its data. That is often when the room becomes quiet.
The company may already have the basic information. The difficulty is finding and compiling everything in one consolidated bookkeeping. Finance keeps some of it, Operations keeps another portion, and other records may still be sitting in emails or spreadsheets that only one person understands.
Eventually, somebody has to piece it all together. By then, a few months may have passed, employees may have changed and nobody is completely sure which spreadsheet is the latest one. This is more common than many businesses would like to admit.
Technology can solve part of this problem, but I do not believe that buying a system automatically makes a company sustainable. I have seen businesses invest in new software and continue using their old spreadsheets because the new system did not fit the way they worked. In the end, employees had to enter the same information twice. More technology but with more work. Clearly, something went wrong.
The system has to be useful to the people operating the business. It should help them to see where their data lays than before. If the information does not lead to a discussion or decision, collecting it becomes another administrative exercise. This matters when we talk about the circular economy.
In day to day business, companies buy materials, produce something and sell it. What remains after production is usually treated as waste. Much of this feels normal because businesses have operated this way for years.
But once the numbers are properly recorded, management may start noticing things that were previously overlooked. Perhaps one production line consistently creates more rejected material. Maybe some packaging can be used again instead of being discarded. A machine may still be working, but using far more energy than it should because it has not been maintained properly. These are ordinary operational issues. They are also sustainability issues.
Circular economy practices often begin with this type of small discovery. The business understands where its materials are going, finds out what is being lost and looks for a better use. Not every piece of waste can become a new product, of course. Sometimes the best outcome is simply to use less material in the first place.
For instance, a company may be pleased that it recycled 100 tonnes of material during the year. I would still want to know how much total waste it generated. If waste increased by 150 tonnes during the same period, the recycling achievement needs to be reviewed as to ensure “real” green practice has been carried out. The number is incomplete rather than we claimed it is a total mistake.
This is one reason why ESG data should not be collected only when the sustainability report is being prepared. Management needs the information throughout the year. Otherwise, the company is reporting what happened long after the opportunity to correct it has passed.
We also need to remember that technology has an environmental footprint of its own. Data centres use electricity and water. Electronic devices require minerals and energy to produce, and they eventually become electronic waste. Artificial intelligence can save time, but it can also use considerable computing power.
I am not suggesting that businesses should stop digitalising. That would make little sense. We simply need to use technology with some discipline. Storing information that nobody needs, replacing devices unnecessarily or operating several systems that perform the same job creates a different kind of waste.
An ESG data management system should make the work simpler. It should bring the information together, show who is responsible for it and keep the supporting documents close to the figures being reported. There is another area that deserves more attention: the reliability of internal data.
A company may publish an incorrect figure without deliberately trying to mislead anyone. Someone may have entered the wrong unit. One month’s bill may be missing. Two departments may have used different calculation methods without knowing it. There may also be pressure to show a better result. This is where companies need stronger controls.
If an electricity figure suddenly falls by 40 percent, the company should be able to check who entered it, what document supports it and who approved it. Perhaps the reduction is real. Perhaps the factory had a shutdown. Or perhaps one electricity bill was simply left out. Go to the ground and making sure a proper guideline being developed if we want to be ready for what will be coming next, the tax wave on green services.
Technology can keep this record and make unusual changes easier to spot. It can also limit who is allowed to change information after it has been reviewed.
I see this as part of governance. It is not about assuming that employees are dishonest. It gives the company a way to catch mistakes, reduce the opportunity for internal manipulation and protect the people responsible for reporting the figures. This becomes especially important when internal information is later used in a sustainability report, customer proposal or public statement. Once it leaves the company, an inaccurate claim may be seen as greenwashing. Saying that the mistake was unintentional may not repair the damage to trust.
Our ESG Data Management System was developed with these practical problems in mind. It allows businesses to organise their sustainability information, assign responsibility, keep evidence and monitor changes over time. It can support carbon accounting and reporting, but I believe its more useful role happens before the report is written. It gives management the chance to notice that something does not look right and ask about it.
No system can replace human judgement. Someone still has to understand the business, check the information and decide what action to take. Technology simply makes that work less dependent on memory, scattered files and last minute searching.
For me, that is the sensible place to start. Use technology to understand what is happening inside the business, correct problems earlier and make sure that whatever is communicated outside can be supported. A good sustainability report may tell people what the company has achieved. Good data helps the company know whether it has truly achieved it, and lead to heal
