Sustainable Digital Infrastructure and ESG Transformation: A Multi-Stakeholder Theoretical and Empirical Re-examination of Cloud-Centric Enterprise Architecture
Keywords:
cloud computing, ESG strategy, digital infrastructureAbstract
The acceleration of digital transformation has reconfigured not only organizational operations but also the ethical, environmental, and governance responsibilities of modern enterprises. As firms increasingly rely on digital infrastructure to manage data, supply chains, customer relationships, and financial operations, the material consequences of technological choices for sustainability have become unavoidable. In this context, cloud computing has emerged as a dominant infrastructural paradigm, displacing traditional on-premise and colocation-based hosting architectures. While the technological superiority of cloud platforms is widely acknowledged, their implications for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance remain insufficiently theorized and empirically interpreted. This article develops a comprehensive theoretical and interpretive framework for understanding cloud-centric infrastructure as a strategic ESG instrument, integrating perspectives from stakeholder theory, corporate governance, circular economy scholarship, organizational behavior, and sustainable finance.
Grounded in a systematic and hermeneutic synthesis of interdisciplinary ESG and technology literature, this study situates cloud computing within broader transformations of corporate accountability, resource efficiency, and social legitimacy. Particular attention is devoted to the conceptualization of infrastructure as an ESG-active organizational asset rather than a neutral technical input. Building on the foundational argument advanced by Goel and Bhatiya (2025), which demonstrates that cloud infrastructure structurally outperforms traditional hosting across environmental, operational, and governance dimensions, this article expands the analytical lens by embedding cloud adoption into the dynamics of multi-stakeholder governance, regulatory alignment, investor risk perception, and workforce transformation.
The findings of this study indicate that cloud-centric architectures systematically reduce energy intensity, enhance transparency and auditability, improve compliance with climate-related financial disclosure standards, and support more inclusive and flexible labor models. These effects are not incidental but derive from the architectural logics of hyperscale data centers, software-defined infrastructure, and platform-based governance. From an ESG standpoint, cloud computing functions as a form of infrastructural decarbonization, governance automation, and social capability expansion. The article also reveals that firms persisting with traditional hosting face escalating ESG liabilities, including higher carbon footprints, regulatory exposure, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and reputational risk.
By integrating ESG theory with digital infrastructure economics, this study contributes a novel conceptual synthesis that reframes cloud migration as a form of sustainability strategy rather than merely an IT decision. The implications extend to corporate boards, institutional investors, regulators, and sustainability professionals, all of whom increasingly evaluate firms through ESG-based lenses. The article concludes by arguing that cloud infrastructure is becoming a core determinant of corporate legitimacy and long-term value creation in the era of stakeholder capitalism.
References
Goel, V., &Bhatiya, A. (2025). Redefining Infrastructure: The Strategic ESG Case for Cloud over Traditional Hosting. The American Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(8), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajas/Volume07Issue08-10
Carbon Disclosure Project. (2021). CDP Annual Report. Retrieved from CDP.
Martiny, A., Taglialatela, J., Testa, F., et al. (2024). Determinants of environmental social and governance (ESG) performance: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 456, 142213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142213
Baker, M. J., et al. (2020). Corporate social responsibility: A strategy for the 21st century. Business Horizons, 63(1), 123-134.
World Bank. (2021). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in the multi-stakeholder context: A study of the impact of CSR on the relationship between companies and their stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(1), 43-58.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change.
Gibson, C. B., Kearney, E., & O'Leary, M. B. (2017). The role of transparency in organizational communication: The influence of leadership on trust. Journal of Business Communication, 54(1), 49-72.
European Commission. (2020). The Role of Resource Efficiency in Circular Economy.
Carbon Trust. (2017). Energy Efficiency: A Guide for Businesses.
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters.
International Labour Organization. (2019). Work for a Brighter Future.
Saxena, A., Singh, R., Gehlot, A., et al. (2022). Technologies Empowered Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG): An Industry 4.0 Landscape. Sustainability, 15, 309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010309
Leong, W. Y., Leong, Y. Z., & Leong, W. S. (2023). Smart Manufacturing Technology for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Sustainability. 2023 IEEE 5th Eurasia Conference on IoT, Communication and Engineering (ECICE 2023), 965–970. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECICE59523.2023.10383150
Wolniak, R., &Grebski, W. (2023). Environmental sustainability – the business analytics usage in Industry 4.0 conditions. Sci Pap Silesian University of Technology, Organization and Management Series, 2023, 573. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.180.36
CFA Institute. (2021). The Role of Corporate Governance in Investment Decisions.
Nielsen. (2019). The Sustainability Imperative: New Insights on Consumer Expectations.
World Economic Forum. (2020). The Global Risks Report 2020.
Bebchuk, L. A., & Fried, J. M. (2004). Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation. Harvard University Press.
Kim, H., Quan, Y-J., Jung, G., et al. (2023). Smart Factory Transformation Using Industry 4.0 toward ESG Perspective: A Critical Review and Future Direction. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Smart Technology, 1, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.57062/ijpem-st.2022.0073
Dorofeev, M., & Tamashiro, K. (2023). Evolution of Pension System Financial Models for Sustainable Economic Growth. 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26596-9_14
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2021). Risk Management Framework.
Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., et al. (2023). Summary of ChatGPT-Related Research and Perspective Towards the Future of Large Language Models. Meta-Radiology, 1, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metrad.2023.100017
Society for Human Resource Management. (2020). 2020 Employee Benefits Survey.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113-1155.
Harrison, J. S., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
Unilever. (2021). Sustainable Living Plan.