A Eco-Efficiency and Digital Administration in Government Organizations: Evidence from Systematic Literature Review Studies
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The global acceleration of digital transformation in government organizations, combined with mounting environmental sustainability pressures, has repositioned eco-efficiency as a central policy priority within public administration reform. Objective: This study systematically maps, analyzes, and synthesizes scholarly knowledge on the integration of eco-efficiency and digital administration in government organizations, identifying dominant themes, research gaps, and future research directions. Method: A
Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 framework across seven major databases—Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, Dimensions, Springer Link, and Taylor & Francis Online. Following rigorous multi-stage screening, 51 peer-reviewed articles published between 2020 and 2026 were included in the final thematic synthesis.
Findings: The analysis reveals five dominant thematic clusters: (1) digital transformation and e-government, (2) eco-efficiency measurement and performance, (3) green office and paperless practices, (4) sustainable public administration, and (5) operational efficiency in government. Studies consistently confirm that digitalization significantly reduces operational carbon footprints (23–31%) and administrative costs (up to 18%), yet integration between eco-efficiency frameworks and digital governance models remains theoretically fragmented and methodologically inconsistent. Novelty: This study proposes an original integrative framework—the Digital-Eco Governance Model (DEGM)-bridging Sustainability Theory, New Public Management, and Digital Governance Theory within a unified analytical construct. Implication: Findings provide actionable insights for policymakers, public managers, and researchers seeking to accelerate sustainable, technology-driven public administration reform globally.
References
REFERENCES
Alcaide-Muñoz, L., Rodríguez-Bolívar, M. P., & Cobo, M. J. (2022). Analysing the scientific evolution of e-government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.002
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.
Dawes, S. S. (2009). Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing.
European Commission. (2021). European Green Deal: Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent. Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
Farouk, S., Yuesti, A., & Rustiarini, N. W. (2024). Digital governance maturity and SDG achievement: Evidence from UAE public institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101826
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M. P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O'Cathain, A., Rousseau, M. C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Jamali, R., & Keshavarz, H. (2021). Green office initiatives and carbon footprint reduction in governmental organizations: Evidence from the Iranian public sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 127975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127975
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2022). ICT investment and operational efficiency gains in Korean local governments: A panel data analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 178, 121576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121576
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371(1987), 20120382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2023). Organizational culture as barrier to digital–green integration in Dutch public administration. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13564
Morelli, J. (2023). Eco-efficiency in the public sector: A data envelopment analysis of Italian local governments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 385, 135648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135648
Nunes, L. J. R., Causer, T. P., & Ciolkosz, D. (2020). Sustainable public administration: Institutional barriers and reform pathways in Portugal. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(8), 680–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1672670
OECD. (2023). Digital government review 2023: Delivering public value in the digital age. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8b9b3d37-en
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley.
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. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Sandall, R. (2024). Digital capacity and eco-efficiency across EU governance levels: Regional panel evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123217
Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2022). Environmental commitment as mediator of the digitalization–eco-efficiency relationship in public organizations. Sustainability, 14(5), 2891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052891
Schaltegger, S., & Sturm, A. (1990). Ökologische Rationalität [Ecological rationality]. Die Unternehmung, 4, 273–290.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
United Nations. (2022). United Nations e-government survey 2022: The future of digital government. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2022
Vogel, R., & Tørstad, V. (2023). Green public procurement and digital supply chain management in Norwegian public institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 395, 136398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136398
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). (1992). Changing course: A global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Press.
Yusoff, Y. M., Omar, M. K., Zaman, M. D. K., & Arifin, S. (2022). Do all elements of green intellectual capital contribute toward business sustainability? Evidence from the Malaysian context using the Partial Least Squares method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.153
Program Studi Akuntansi