Modeling and Analyzing the Carbon Footprint of Business Processes

  • Jan Recker
  • Michael Rosemann
  • Anders Hjalmarsson
  • Mikael Lind
Chapter

Abstract

Many corporations and individuals realize that environmental sustainability is an urgent problem to address. In this chapter, we contribute to the emerging academic discussion by proposing two innovative approaches for engaging in the development of environmentally sustainable business processes. Specifically, we describe an extended process modeling approach for capturing and documenting the dioxide emissions produced during the execution of a business process. For illustration, we apply this approach to the case of a governmental Shared Services provider. Second, we then introduce an analysis method for measuring the carbon dioxide emissions produced during the execution of a business process. To illustrative this approach, we apply it in the real-life case of an European airport and show how this information can be leveraged in the re-design of “green” business processes.

Keywords

Business Process Emission Factor Carbon Footprint Business Process Modeling Notation Taxi Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bromwich, M., & Hong, C. (1999). Activity-based costing systems and incremental costs. Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1991). Profit priorities from activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 130–135.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal, 21(1), 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gulla, J. A., & Brasethvik, T. (2000, June 9–23). On the challenges of business modeling in large-scale reengineering projects. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on requirements engineering, Schaumburg, IL.Google Scholar
  5. Heijungs, R., & Suh, S. (2006). Reformulation of matrix-based LCI: From product balance to process balance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(1), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., Joshi, S., & Lave, L. (1998). Economic input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 32(7), 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Innes, J., & Falconer, M. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the U.K.’s largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaplan, R. S., & Bruns, W. J. (1987). Accounting and management: A field study perspective. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Lauesen, S., & Vinter, O. (2001). Preventing requirement defects: An experiment in process improvement. Requirements Engineering, 6(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mendling, J. (2008). Metrics for process models: Empirical foundations of verification, error prediction and guidelines for correctness (Vol. 6). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., & Recker, J. (2010). Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems, 35(4), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nuseibeh, B., & Easterbrook, S. (2000). Requirements engineering: A roadmap. Paper presented at the 22nd international conference on software engineering, Limerick, Ireland.Google Scholar
  13. Pan, X., & Kraines, S. (2001). Environmental input–output models for life-cycle analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poniatowski, M. (2009). Foundation of Green IT: Consolidation, virtualization, efficiency, and ROI in the data center. Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Ray, M. R., & Gupt, P. P. (1992, December). Activity-based costing. Internal Auditor 91, 45–51.Google Scholar
  16. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Green, P. (2009). Business process modeling: A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(4), 333–363.Google Scholar
  17. Reijers, H. A., & Mansar, S. L. (2005). Best practices in business process redesign: An overview and qualitative evaluation of successful redesign heuristics. Omega, 33(4), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seidel, S., Recker, J., Pimmer, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2010). Enablers and barriers to the organizational adoption of sustainable business practices. Paper presented at the 16th Americas conference on information systems, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, J. S., & Fava, J. A. (2006). Life-cycle assessment practitioner survey: Summary of results. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(4), 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tornberg, K., Jämsen, M., & Paranko, J. (2002). Activity-based costing and process modeling for cost-conscious product design: A case study in a manufacturing company. International Journal of Production Economics, 19(1), 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. vom Brocke, J., & Rosemann, M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook on business process management 1: Introduction, methods, and information systems. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information systems and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and new directions for the IS community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  23. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Recker
    • 1
  • Michael Rosemann
    • 2
  • Anders Hjalmarsson
    • 3
  • Mikael Lind
    • 4
  1. 1.Information Systems DisciplineQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Sustainable Transport Group, Viktoria InstituteGöteborgSweden
  4. 4.Sustainable Transports, Viktoria InstituteGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations