Governing CO2 Information: An Organisational and Data-Governance Model for Sustainable Procurement

Decarbonization and Sustainable Supply Chains: A Systematic Review of Supplier Engagement, Digital Traceability, and Carbon Governance

Decarbonizing supply chains is becoming a coordinated effort for managing emissions beyond organisations' boundaries. This systematic literature review is aimed at analysing the role supplier engagement, digital traceability and carbon governance play in sustainable supply-chain decarbonization. The 25 peer-reviewed journal articles included in this study were selected and analysed based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines as used in Scopus and Web of Science from 2015 to 2026 using descriptive analysis and thematic synthesis. The results suggested that supplier collaboration, supplier development, carbon targets, incentives and knowledge sharing increased supplier involvement in emissions reduction. Digital traceability and technologies, such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, IoT, big data analytics and digital twins, improved carbon measurement, transparency and data sharing. Carbon governance enhanced accountability via reporting, standards, monitoring, disclosure and compliance mechanisms. However, financial costs, data-quality limitations, interoperability, supplier resistance, digital capability gaps, and regulatory differences constrained implementation. The review suggests a comprehensive solution that brings together supplier relations, electronic traceability and carbon management with emissions reductions and sustainable supply-chain decarbonization. References Ahmed, S., Zaidi, S. S. Z., & Zohaib, S. (2026). Maritime transport transformation and supply chain disruptions: A systematic literature review of challenges and carbon emission reduction strategies. Journal of Business and Management Research, 5(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18618204 Ahmed, S., Zaidi, S. S. Z., Zohaib, S., & Imran, M. (2026). Developing and validating a measurement scale for maritime transport changes, supply chain disruptions, challenges, and carbon emission reduction efforts. Scientific Journals Maritime University of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Morskiej w Szczecinie, 86(158). https://doi.org/10.17402/687 Alotaibi, E. M., Khallaf, A., Abdallah, A. A., Zoubi, T., & Alnesafi, A. (2024). Blockchain-driven carbon accountability in supply chains. Sustainability, 16(24), 10872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410872 Bager, S. L., Singh, C., & Persson, U. M. (2022). Blockchain is not a silver bullet for agro-food supply chain sustainability: Insights from a coffee case study. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100163 Borchardt, M., Pereira, G., Milan, G., Pereira, E., Lima, L., Bianchi, R., & Carmo, A. S. D. (2025). Are sustainable supply chains managing Scope 3 emissions? A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 17(13), 6066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136066 Butt, A. S., Alghababsheh, M., Sindhwani, R., & Gwalani, H. (2024). Role of supplier engagement to reduce Scope 3 emissions in circular supply chains. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(1), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3994 Bux, C., Lombardi, M., Rana, R. L., & Tricase, C. (2026). Decarbonization strategies in the wine supply chain: From environmental mitigation towards integrated sustainability management. Environments, 13(4), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13040195 Cloutier, C., Oktaei, P., & Lehoux, N. (2019). Collaborative mechanisms for sustainability-oriented supply chain initiatives: State of the art, role assessment and research opportunities. International Journal of Production Research, 58(19), 5836–5850. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1660821 Dahlmann, F., & Roehrich, J. K. (2019). Sustainable supply chain management and partner engagement to manage climate change information. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(8), 1632–1647. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2392 Eckerman, J., Clémençon-Charles, E., & Brinton, S. (2023). Decarbonizing utility supply chains. Climate and Energy, 39(10), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/gas.22343 Ghosh, P., Jha, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). Managing carbon footprint for a sustainable supply chain: A systematic literature review. Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications, 2(3), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSCRA-06-2020-0016 Govindan, K., Shaw, M., & Majumdar, A. (2020). Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123075 Guo, L., Miller, S., Zhou, W., Wei, Z., Ren, J., Huang, X., Xing, X., White, H., & Yang, K. (2025). Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 21(1), e70014. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70014 Hettler, M., & Graf-Vlachy, L. (2023). Corporate Scope 3 carbon emission reporting as an enabler of supply chain decarbonization: A systematic review and comprehensive research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3486 Iannizzi, C., Akl, E. A., Anslinger, E., Weibel, S., Kahale, L. A., Aminat, A. M., Piechotta, V., & Skoetz, N. (2023). Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02396-x Jia, F., Zuluaga-Cardona, L., Bailey, A., & Rueda, X. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management in developing countries: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189, 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.248 Karlsson, I., Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2019). Reaching net-zero carbon emissions in construction supply chains: Analysis of a Swedish road construction project. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 120, 109651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109651 Lee, C., Miller, D., Jefferies, M., Xu, Y., Chong, H., Tsang, W. C., Rowlinson, S., & Skitmore, M. (2026). Governance and digital technologies for carbon data quality: A systematic review of procurement-driven decarbonization in construction supply chains. Sustainability, 18(10), 4921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18104921 Liew, M., & Cao, J. (2024). Green supply chain management for carbon accountability. Energy Economics, 138, 107840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107840 Lindsay, C., Blancquaert, I., & Rousseau, F. (2025). Tools used to appraise the quality of studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in human genetics: A systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 33(11), 1392–1401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-025-01861-6 Lintukangas, K., Arminen, H., Kähkönen, A., & Karttunen, E. (2022). Determinants of supply chain engagement in carbon management. Journal of Business Ethics, 186(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05199-7 Liu, J., Yeoh, W., Qu, Y., & Gao, L. (2022). Blockchain-based digital twin for supply chain management: State-of-the-art review and future research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03966. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4113933 Mathur, U., & Bansal, S. (2024). Quantifying Scope 3 supply chain emissions using IoT devices. International Journal of Science and Research, 13(6), 1221–1228. https://doi.org/10.21275/SR24619063500 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001 Palaniappan, U., Jain, N., & Subramanian, N. (2026). Supply chain climate policies and focal firms' effort in reducing Scope 3 emissions: A longitudinal analysis of Indian firms. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.71150 Raynor, M. E., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2025). Scope 3 decarbonization through environmental attribute certificates. Carbon Management, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2025.2486624 Shaheen, N., Shaheen, A., Ramadan, A., Hefnawy, M. T., Ramadan, A., Ibrahim, I. A., Hassanein, M. E., Ashour, M. E., & Flouty, O. (2023). Appraising systematic reviews: A comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1268045. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1268045 Shi, Y., Tang, C. S., & Wu, J. (2025). Are firms voluntarily disclosing emissions greener? Production and Operations Management, 34(8), 2363–2377. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478251318917 Stenzel, A., & Waichman, I. (2023). Supply-chain data sharing for Scope 3 emissions. npj Climate Action, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00032-x Ströher, T., Körner, M., Paetzold, F., & Strüker, J. (2025). Bridging carbon data's organizational boundaries: Toward automated data sharing in sustainable supply chains. Electronic Markets, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-025-00779-7 Tidy, M., Wang, X., & Hall, M. (2015). The role of supplier relationship management in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from food supply chains: Supplier engagement in the UK supermarket sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3294–3305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.065 Villena, V. H., & Dhanorkar, S. (2020). How institutional pressures and managerial incentives elicit carbon transparency in global supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 66(6), 697–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1088 Zhang, C., Xu, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2024). Blockchain traceability adoption in low-carbon supply chains: An evolutionary game analysis. Sustainability, 16(5), 1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051817

IT Governance and Corporate Sustainability: Decision Frameworks for Digital Transformation Aligned with GRI Standards

 Digital transformation represents a fundamental opportunity for organizations to incorporate sustainability criteria into their strategic decisions. In this context, IT governance and management frameworks—such as COBIT, ITIL, CMMI, and Six Sigma—provide structures to guide technology projects aligned with economic, environmental, and social objectives. This article presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that analyzed 61 primary studies selected from 126 initial records. The research work was based on the Kitchenham methodology and the PRISMA 2020 statement; to identify how these technological governance and management frameworks act as facilitators in the adoption of sustainability indicators under GRI Standards. The results reveal a clear association between cost reduction and increased productivity within the economic dimension; waste reduction reflects progress in the environmental dimension; and the improvement of quality and value delivered to stakeholders aligns with the social dimension. In conclusion, sustainability is not an abstract concept, but a measurable result of mature process management; which allows organizations to make informed strategic decisions and communicate their performance in a comprehensive manner.

From ESG Disclosure to Digital-Driven Governance: Evidence From Indonesian Corporations and Infrastructure Ecosystems

Data Governance Transformation: Now is the time to revisit Data Governance Policy

This paper presents MDI’s Data Governance Transformation (DGT) project, an already-in-use data governance policy & infrastructure framework developed to support robust implementation of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs), govern rapid AI development, and confront precedent shattering data use in the United States. As government agencies increasingly rely on complex and distributed data ecosystems, traditional data management approaches have proven insufficient to ensure data quality, accessibility, privacy, and interoperability. This framework establishes a cross-functional data governance structure that includes clearly defined roles, a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) matrix, a standardized change control process, and an architecture rooted in medallion-style data layering. It also includes practical guidance on the following: conducting a data inventory, aligning with cloud and privacy requirements, and coordinating with contractors to ensure data portability and reproducibility. By embedding PETs and clear accountability mechanisms, this framework not only supports compliance with regulatory mandates but also enables data-driven decision-making and responsible use of AI. The framework serves as a replicable model for other government and non-government entities seeking to implement or refresh their data governance strategies to meet the demands of modern public service delivery.

Data Governance for Compliance with the European Digital Product Passport: a Systematic Literature Review

The findings provide a conceptual basis and strategic guidelines for future DPP deployment, highlighting the importance of appropriate governance mechanisms to strengthen the DPP’s role as a catalyst for the circular economy.

Mapping IT Reference Frameworks for Governance, Service Management, and Quality Assurance: A Scoping Review

The increasing complexity of information technology (IT) systems requires reference frameworks that connect governance, service management, and quality assurance. This scoping review maps 109 core sources published between 1996 and June 2026 to characterize evidence on IT reference frameworks across organizational and sectoral contexts; records from 2026 are treated as partial-year data and are not interpreted as a complete annual trend. The review was structured using the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework and reported in alignment with PRISMA-ScR guidance. Peer-reviewed studies and selected grey literature sources were charted to identify research trends, framework families, implementation patterns, integration interfaces, evaluation practices, and evidence gaps. Dominant families included ISO/TQM-oriented quality systems, COBIT and ITIL/IT service management (ITSM), enterprise architecture, sectoral quality assurance, cybersecurity, and emerging AI/data-governance approaches. The findings indicate that integration is concentrated around recurring interfaces among strategic governance, service operation, quality and assurance controls, enterprise architecture, and evidence feedback. However, the mapped evidence remains methodologically uneven: conceptual frameworks, case studies, and reviews dominate, while longitudinal validation and comparable implementation metrics are limited. Emerging AI-related work is treated as an early research direction rather than as mature evidence of effectiveness.