The negative effect of technology on the natural environment in both local and global scales has attracted the attention of researchers, politicians, and activists. They have expressed worries about the environmental deterioration which has prompted the needs to understand the implications of technology on human safety, business, technology development, and environmental sustainability (Nishant et al. 2013). Therefore, GIT becomes a significant area of research in the information systems and environmental education (Hernandez 2017) and sustainability through GIT is increasingly considered an important strategic focus for organizations.
Consequently, GIT has sparked an intense debate on its ability to address these issues. Unfortunately, these are not new issues, since IT consumes resources in its production and in energy uses. ITs are generating e-waste once no longer in use (Khorasanizadeh et al. 2016). Recently, a new research field has emerged and aimed to increase the understanding of the relationships between investments in IT and its negative effect on the environment. While extant information systems literature provides important insights into GIT adoption, the motivation behind GIT adoption by small enterprises (SEs) remains unclear.
Gartner (2018) predicted that global IT expenditure in 2018 would reach $3.7 trillion that represents 4.5% growth compared to 2017. Another author illustrated that the projected increase is due to energy consumption, CO2 emissions and e-waste (Murugesan 2008). If these issues are not addressed, IT contribution to global carbon emissions is anticipated to rise from 2% which is equivalent to the amount that has been generated by the aviation industry to as much as 6% by 2020 (Hardin-Ramanan et al. 2018). Accordingly, there is an urgent needed to promote environmentally clean from IT usage (Xia et al. 2014). The growing accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) is claimed to cause changes in global climate with droughts in some areas and floods in others. There are pieces of evidence that Earth’s temperature is steadily rising, generating severe and frequent weather related disasters (Murugesan and Gangadharan 2012).
IT produces a negative impact on the environment if we consider its lifecycle. Undoubted, GIT emerges as one of the organizational solutions that can be started to address this problem at the strategic and operational level. Jenkin et al. (2011) suggested that the objective of GIT is to reduce the overall environmental impact of information technology by using environment-friendly approaches throughout IT lifecycle. In a similar way, Bohas and Poussing in 2016 pointed that GIT practice leads to a reduction of the negative IT impacts on the environment as it is the main goal of GIT. Each year, the developed countries create more e-waste than developing countries. Nevertheless, the negative effect of e-waste is more complicated in developing countries since the cost of recycling e-waste in developed countries is ten times higher than in developing countries. It has known that most of the developed countries export e-waste to developing countries. This is a point of debate and controversy. Opponents of exporting e-waste to developing countries claim that it is a business. Other people feel that it is unfair. Furthermore, local people in the developing countries where they are not having enough experience and appropriate equipment, thus they burn or landfill e-waste which makes the problem aggravate. Over recent decades, IT manufacturers have been experiencing various pressures from a variety of stockholders which required them to make their products environmentally friendly. Therefore, they have been working to use raw materials that are not harmful to environment. In spite of, the fact that they invest huge money in order to reach their goal, the problem is getting worse. Until now, many countries in the Middle East have not taken any steps toward facing environmental issues. For this reason, we need to think carefully about e-waste.
However, some people feel that there are more urgent issues, our society is still facing a serious challenge resulting from e-waste. It may be true that governments have deferred plans to deal with this problem. When the computer stops working, owners either throws them out as wastes or keeps them at home. In both cases, there are serious dangers to public health. SEs are under pressures from customers, competitors, regulators, and society to implement GIT practices (Coffey et al. 2013). Hence, as a result, managers start thinking to evaluate the conditions for successful adoption and continued usage of GIT. GIT is an efficient resource consumption that utilizes IT infrastructure as well as deployment managerial, human practices, and organizational policies towards reducing the negative effect of IT (Molla et al. 2014). Numerous organizations have been recommended to have GIT on their agenda (Ardito and Morisio 2014), and fastened to their strategies (Hernandez and Ona 2016) to reach the full benefits of GIT.
There is still no mutual agreement on the precise of GIT definition (Jenkin et al. 2011). Many observers have pointed out that GIT is still in the early stages in the third world. Also, a large part of the ambiguity is attributed to the overlap between GIT and green information systems (GIS). Generally speaking, GIS indicates to improve and use of information systems (IS), such as groupware, teleconferencing, environment auditing systems, and automation systems that support and encourage environment-friendly operations and sustainable development (Cai et al. 2013; Sarkis et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2010). It supports and increases organizational activities for sustainable development and green innovation (Chen et al. 2008). Compared with (GIT) that essentially emphases on energy conservation related to computer use, GIS deals with wider-scope managerial concerns (Yang et al. 2018). Additionally, according to study was carried out by (Bohas and Poussing 2016) in 2016 which suggested that GIT attempt to have a direct effect by reducing the negative effect on the environment in the first place; then, it tends to have an indirect effect by using IS to encourage other business initiatives in reducing the negative environmental effect of IT. The present study will use the general term of GIT to include the two perspectives above since GIT is a new practice for the enterprises in Iraq and green information systems that are less developed yet. Recently, GIT is used to avoid the possibility of confusing the definition and to maintain congruence with practitioners who use this term (Thomson and van Belle 2015).
A number of definitions of GIT has emerged in literature. Greatest of these definitions are seeing IT environmental sustainability across the IT lifecycle. However, the most commonly cited definitions of GIT is provided by Murugesan and Gangadharan in 2012 who incorporates a wide variety of components of the ICT life cycle, such as design and manufacture with use and the disposal of ICT equipment: “the study and practice of designing, manufacturing, using, and disposing of computers, servers, and associated subsystems—such as monitors, printers, storage devices, and networking and communication systems—efficiently and effectively with minimal or no impact on the environment” . Along similar lines (Moola et al. 2008) define Green IT “A systematic application of ecological-sustainability criteria (such as pollution prevention, product stewardship, use of clean technologies) to the design, production, sourcing, use and disposal of IT products and services in order to reduce IT, business process and supply chain related emissions, waste and water use, improve energy efficiency and generate tangible and intangible green economic rent”. GIT refers to the design and implementation of information systems that support sustainable business processes (Chen et al. 2011). There is a more holistic definition which covers each of the areas within GIT and as a result of this, we decided to adopt it for this research. Decomposition of the aforementioned definitions revealed that it is a comprehensive approach to improve environmental sustainability which involves mitigating the negative effects of information technology on the environment throughout their life cycle and making environment-friendly practices as a routine activity in the entire organization. Other researchers had described GIT as its products (e.g., software that manages an organization’s overall emissions) and practices (e.g., disposal of IT equipment in an environmentally friendly way) which aimed to achieve pollution prevention, product stewardship, or sustainable development (Coffey et al. 2013). Correspondingly, this view was supported by (Molla et al. 2009) who stated that as an organization’s ability to systematically apply sustainability criteria to design, produce, source, use and dispose of IT technical infrastructure as well as within the human and managerial components of IT. Based on the last definition, GIT can include technology aspects, as well as managerial practices spanning on IT lifecycle.
In sum, these definitions are intended to emphases that GIT is a lively initiative to encourage environmental consciousness to reduce the negative effects of information technology. A neuromas researchers are mostly agreed on basic definition to GIT that represent by which GIT is important of environmental damage reduction that mainly left behind by information technology used to the greatest extent possible.
The researchers stress the difficulty of defeating negative effect of IT in a decisive battle. Hence, the seed of coordination has blossomed to defeat a damage that caused by IT from the cradle to the grave. Consequently, the adoption motivation, as well as intentions to continue using green information technology which represents reasons for initiating a GIT that becomes the point of debate. Institutional perspective which is widely used in recent years to exam the justifications for the adoption of GIT that has traditionally focused on how organizations acquire institutional acceptance by complying to social expectations and dominant practices within the organizational field (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Based on this view, values, and practices of GIT penetrates into organizations in the process of institutionalization which results in the convergence of organizational practices and responses (Oliver 1991; Tingling and Parent 2002). Accordingly, Institutional perspective proposed that organizations are seeking a balanced approach to economic growth which avoids them the devastation from the business that will be accepted by institutions in the firm’s environment (Krell et al. 2016).
In this part of the research, we develop a research model derived from the institutional perspective(classical) that focuses on coercive pressures, normative influence and mimicry as institutional pressures affect continuing use of GIT practices. Our research model and constructs are shown in Fig. 1. In another way, we draw the pressures as motivations of organizations in adopting a GIT.
Institutional perspective explains drives which are molded as the independent variables in the research model would swift organizational behavior, which in turn may influence the success of that behavior (Krell et al. 2016). Drawing on our literature review, we have developed a research model to explicate the key determinants of GIT adoption. To avoid the potential confounding of normative pressures with mimetic and coercive pressures, some researchers address only mimetic and coercive pressures in the study of GIT adoption (Chen et al. 2009). In this study, we examine three types of institutional pressures to draw a holistic view. In our model, the Institutional pressures are considered independent variables that influence the manager’s decision to adopt GIT. The independent and mediating variables in turn influence intentions to continue using GIT. The predicted model is depicted conceptually in Fig. 1. We present the details of five pressures in the following section.
Coercive pressures
SEs are Surrounded by institutions that impose on them, directly or indirectly, engaging in GIT practices. Otherwise, they would be Subjected to sanctions. Classical Institutional Theory that defined coercive pressures as the pressures which stem from institutions in a firm’s environment which directly formulate rules that a firm need to comply with one of them. Based on the previous definition, institutions should be powerful enough to directly reward compliance or sanction noncompliance (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). In our case, these institutions that include likely resource dominant traders, customers, federal, and local agencies use their power to force SEs to involve in GIT practices, which, in turn, can directly impose constraints on them. According to Oliver 1991 coercive pressures mainly stems from the resource dependence perspective. Moreover, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) also supported this view by stating that principal actors, who have control over certain rare resources, may demand other organizations that are dependent on the adoption of certain structures which serve their own interests. These dependent organizations often comply with such demands in order to secure their own survival. These pressures also stem from political influence and need for legitimacy (Coffey et al. 2013). Recently, the governments either, federal or local, have started making policies and regulations that play a significant role in forcing SEs to comply with the demands of environmental protection. These enterprises, in turn, could be getting benefits and avoid sanctions by responding to these requirements. When a resource-dominant organization, government agencies, and others perceive that SEs practices aren’t going along with the societal goods adopting so GIT may be imposed on them. Consequently, the stronger SEs depend on organizations in the environment, and the fewer possibilities the firm that has to avoid negative sanctions, the stronger the coercive pressure, and the more will a firm be motivated to continue usage of GIT. Institutional theory researchers have shown that coercive pressures such as regulations are vital to create an environmental permit to adoption behavior (Lin and Ho 2016). Many studies have recommended that coercive pressures are an important predictor of GIT adoption (Kou, 2010; Lei and Ngai 2013; Gholami et al. 2013; Guo et al. 2016) Thus we hypothesize.
H1: Coercive pressures will be positively related to the adoption of GIT.
H2: Coercive pressures will be positively related to the intentions to continue GIT usage.
Mimetic pressures
Organizations are enthused to adopt a given practice either because of the favorable results achieved by other adopters in the same context or by popularity of a practice. Organizations also mimic the behaviors of other organizations with whom they share important features. Mimetic isomorphism suggests that organizations will follow leading organizations, which have gained benefits from being the first movers in the industry (Deng and Ji 2015). This description applies to the adoption of GIT. After recognizing that other organizations in the environment have begun the practice of GIT and reap certain benefits. New organizations attempt to undertake similar steps of movement that of organizations. It becomes increasingly taken-for-granted so that many organizations may adopt such a practice without thinking (March 1981). It is defined as pressures that stem from behavioral uncertainty on how to solve a specific problem, perform a specific activity, or reach a specific goal (Krell et al. 2016). These kinds of pressures that are likely to arise when conditions are uncertain, making organization imitate the actions of other organizations. Coffey et al. (2013) claimed that organizations tend to imitate structure equivalent organizations which are perceived to be successful. Moreover, in order to avoid appearing different from many other organizations, they tried to join the institutional bandwagon (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). It does not preclude the need for the organization to obtain legitimacy in the social structure to keep up with other organizations. Krell et al. (2016) indicated that when the organizations have insufficient information to solve a problem, they observe other organizations in the environment due to successfully solved similar problems. Pieces of evidence of important mimetic pressures have shown in (Chen et al., 2012) study and were shown in (Coffey et al. 2013) study. Therefore, we suggest.
H3: Mimetic pressures will be positively related to the adoption of GIT.
H4: Mimetic pressures will be positively related to the intentions to continue GIT usage.
Normative pressures
Normative pressures are associated with professionalization, and it shapes organizational response (Deng and Ji 2015). This is clearly seen when worldwide decision makers are talking about the negative impact of IT and making a greater effort to reduce it. The normative pressures are manifested through dyadic inter-organizational channels of firm supplier and firm-customer relationship which enables organizations to learn about innovations along with their association benefits and cost (Burt, 1987). Much of these types of pressures are a result of increasing professionalization. This stems from concern about the level of education and the professional training that organizations received (Coffey et al. 2013). When environmental operation becomes the norm, green IT, as one big environmental step. Organizations would be adopted by facing great normative pressures which resulted from frequent contact with other suppliers, customers, or trade organizations (Deng and Ji 2015). Normative pressures are defined as the pressures that stem from norms which specified by institutions such as professional or industry associations (Krell et al. 2016). As such, more and more normative signals are emerging. Essentially, this types of pressures are different from coercive pressures in so far as institutions that exert normative pressures have no authority to directly enforce compliance and do not penalize noncompliance (Chen et al. 2011). Thus, normative pressures do not affect firms through coercion; rather, firms comply with the norms because decision makers identify themselves with particular industrial and professional institutions (Deng and Ji 2015). As a result, the decision makers believe that compliance with norms specified by the professional and industry institutions may be beneficial for their firm. SEs complies with GIT norms because key decision makers believed that compliance would help their firms to attract additional customers and showed their interested in protecting environment. Several previous studies have identified normative pressures as a predictor of GIT adoption (Kuo 2010; Lei and Ngai 2013). Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H5: Normative pressures will be positively related to the adoption of GIT.
H6: Normative pressures will be positively related to the intentions to continue GIT usage.
GIT adoption
Presumably, GIT adoption is a realistic way for organizations to tackle the current environmental problem. An important competitive advantage can be created by making the company distinguish itself from other SEs by means of GIT. At the same time, it also can be regarded as a means to improve the organizational image and economic performance (Gou et al., 2016). The adoption of GIT can be an example of organizational behavior that requested by institutions if the motive for adoption is to get accepted rather than to maximize organizations’ efficiency. It is currently a nascent field and there is a lack of both theoretical and empirical research on the topic in Iraq. Since SEs under increasing institutional pressures to reduce the negative impact of IT on their environment, GIT adoption is a focus of managers of these firms. They follow GIT solutions such as lower carbon emissions and disposal of e-waste. However, given that an increasing number of SEs are experimenting with using GIT practices, there is an emerging need to understand GIT adoption as key factors for these practices flourishing.
The adoption of GIT is reported to have additional motivational factors beyond those of standard IT adoption (Molla and Abareshi 2012). As such, these motivational factors may include economic benefits, regulation requirements, stakeholder obligations and ethical reasons which all need to be taken into account when exploring and analyzing factors that may influence the adoption of GIT (Khorasanizadeh et al. 2016). Even though, studies about organizations GIT adoption has recently proliferated in IT discipline, there seems to be considerable overlap between these factors, and there is difficulty in separating those. Furthermore, SEs managers may choose to adopt GIT either because of pressures or reap benefits. Seemingly, they are right because it is a confusing situation, and they definitely don’t need to stay away. Many theoretical frameworks have been developed to study GIT adoption. From the perspective of Asadi and his colleagues in 2015, IT researchers have been emphasizing the effects of institutional pressures on organizations to GIT adoption.
As long as GIT is at early stages in the SEs, we would employ GIT adoption as mediate variable between institutional pressures and intentions to continuing usage of GIT. Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis is formed.
H7: GIT adoption will be positively related to the intentions to continue GIT usage.
Intentions to continue GIT usage
IT continuance has emerged as a prominent area of IS/IT research. IT continuance refers to long-term or sustained use of IT by individual users over a period of time (Bhattacherjee and Lin 2015). A given IT cannot be considered successes if its usage is not sustained by users who are expected to have benefited from its usage (Bhattacharjee 2001). Adopting GIT a key question is what factors drive managers of SEs to continue GIT usage? In this context, several scientists highlighted the role of institutional pressures on GIT in influencing the acceptance and use of GIT practice (Chen et al. 2011; Akman and Mishra 2015). In line with earlier studies, we conceptualize GIT intention to continuing usage GIT as a dependent variable. While it was totally understandable to organizations working on the economic performance, then the managers start to realize that ignoring environmental performance something is strange. Diffusion and penetration of GIT practices throughout the organization give benefits such as reducing power consumption and carbon emissions, improving operation system performance and increasing interaction and collaboration (Deng and Ji 2015). However, in lieu of the emerging role of GIT and it benefits, it is imperative to understand SEs manager’s intentions to continue GIT usage and clarify the development and flourish of GIT practices.