The role of the interest in technology use in blurring the lines between accountability for sustainability performance and for
financial performance Open Access

The interactions between accounting, accountability, sustainability and technology have only relatively recently attracted the attention of accounting research. The impacts of technology use on accountability for sustainability performance are ambivalent. For example, de Villiers et al. (2021) show how the technologies of internet-of-things and blockchain could improve reporting through data reliability and enhanced measurement capabilities. Accountability may thus be improved. On the other hand, the technology of social media has been shown to be used for symbolic and legitimacy-seeking purposes in sustainability disclosure instead of substantial changes in sustainability practices (Lodhia et al., 2020). This may result in, or fail to diminish, problems in accountability. In the literature, purely financial performance has been presented as a traditional opponent to social or environmental performance (Gray et al., 2014, p. 4; Narayanan et al., 2021). Research has shown that in organizations accountability for the purely financial performance has often prevailed over accountability for sustainability performance as a holistic perspective on the economic, the social and the environmental performance (Cooper and Owen, 2007; Aras and Crowther, 2009) [¹]. As technology has been shown to affect accountability (Lodhia et al., 2020; de Villiers et al., 2021), it could also be perceived to affect the relation of these forms of accountability. This may shed light on the ambivalence of the impact of technology use on accountability for sustainability performance. Earlier research has scrutinized the direct effects of reporting technology usage on this accountability (Burritt and Christ, 2016; de Villiers et al., 2021; Klymenko et al., 2021; Tiwari and Khan, 2020). However, it has paid less attention to how interest in using technologies may be socially constructed to impact accountabilities through the accountability practices of measurement and reporting. We address this issue.

Technology is here empirically conceptualized as concrete technical and technological solutions. In this paper, technology thus does not refer, for example, to an abstract governance technology. We look at technological change (Abera et al., 2024; Alsharari, 2024; Mansour et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2015), an extremely relevant and significant phenomenon, in today’s organizations. Similarly to Abera et al. (2024), we scrutinize the potential measurement of technological change. However, in contrast to Alsharari (2024), the present paper examines technological change as inherent in the essence of certain accounting measures, and less as a mere context in which accounting is used. Studies have looked at specific technologies, such as smartphones and tablets in accounting profession (Mansour et al., 2022) and the consequences of entrepreneurial applications for firm valuations (Silva et al., 2015) and thus the changes brought about. We aim to contribute to the accounting literature and thus focus here on accounting and associated reporting technologies, such as accounting measurements, based on reporting and analysis software as well as remote monitoring and measurement. However, we also refer to management accounting measurements regarding the consequences of the use of non-accounting technologies such as those for saving energy. This means we make occasional brief mention of such non-accounting technologies. The energy efficiency accounting measure (energy used divided by output produced) is an example here (Virtanen et al., 2013). In this paper, accountability is defined as formal accountability for the transparency of reporting, performance and target achievement (Koppell, 2005; Rached, 2016), and thus as related to measurements and reporting in accounting. The research question can be formulated as:

Our case, a state-owned company, affords opportunities to observe an interest in technology use. This company considers itself responsible for finding and disseminating novel technologies that are demonstrably useful to the entire industry to improve accountability for sustainability performance, particularly in terms of reporting and measurement. A for-profit company may have much less interest in such responsibilities. The company operates in the construction industry. This industry is relevant from a sustainability perspective as it is responsible for large quantities of emissions and other adverse impacts on the environment (Ebolor et al., 2022; Lima et al., 2021). In this industry, issues such as the sustainability of construction materials, stakeholder relations management, environmental impacts, life cycle considerations and technology adoption are often in focus (Lima et al., 2021). However, in this industry, advanced technology use has been claimed to have been overemphasized while frugal, locally based innovations have been presented as one preferred solution for reducing anthropogenic and harmful emissions (Ebolor et al., 2022).

According to the findings, the interest in technology use appears to construct the dividing line between accountability for sustainability performance and accountability for financial performance as blurred. Stakeholders reported that a single-minded interest in technology may overly influence the organizational members’ perceptions of stakeholder needs, thereby deflecting attention from reporting and measurement that would serve these needs, regarding, for example, some of the original features and history of old buildings. The interest in technology use was sometimes constructed to turn accountability for sustainability performance into accountability for financial performance, as seen in the measure of energy efficiency. It was intended to be used as a measure to reach sustainability. However, as constructed by many interviewees, it ended up promoting the importance of cost savings, favoring a more simplistic accountability for financial performance. With the assistance of this measure, accountability for sustainability performance was constructed to take on qualities of accountability for financial performance, reporting on sustainability investments as a way of achieving cost savings. By contrast, a measure of building conservation, for example, as suggested by a stakeholder, would have promoted decreases in investment or degrowth. Moreover, accountability for financial performance was sometimes constructed to encourage accountability for sustainability performance by reporting on cost savings as opposed to technology consumption. This reporting was perceived to allow old buildings to be left as they were, retaining their perceived value. The cost measure was thus constructed as an important measure to encourage accountability for sustainability performance. Accountability for financial performance was here constructed to counterbalance the interest in technology use by preventing technology use that may not serve stakeholder needs concerning measurement and reporting.

We contribute to the research on the effect of technologies on accountability for sustainability performance (Lodhia et al., 2020; Lodhia and Stone, 2017; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016; de Villiers et al., 2021) by showing some of the potential negative effects. These studies have scrutinized the potential of certain technologies to affect accountability as measurement or reporting, while here we look at a setting in which interest in technology use itself, more generally, is socially constructed to impact relations of accountability forms through measurement and reporting. This interest in technology use may blur the lines between different accountabilities, thus making judgment on any eventual accountability discharge demanding.

We also contribute to the literature on accounting and accountability, sustainability and technology (Burritt and Christ, 2016; Golubeva, 2022; Klymenko et al., 2021; Tiwari and Khan, 2020) by showing that the problem in accountability performance may not always be inferior implementation of technology. Rather, what appears to members of the organization as a perfectly well-functioning technology may be perceived by selected stakeholders as problematic for accountability performance, for example, when considering certain performance measures relating to the use of this technology.

The study is structured as follows. The theoretical section is concerned with accountability, sustainability, the financial and technology use. This is followed by a presentation of the methodology, the empirical study and finally discussion and conclusions.

Accountability is not a monolithic phenomenon but could be perceived to contain multiple dimensions (Koppell, 2005; Rached, 2016). Accountability is treated here as transparency, i.e. the provision of measured constructs or “facts” about organizational performance (Koppell, 2005). Performance measures fit this aspect of accountability well. An alternative aspect could have been, for example, that of liability (facing the consequences of nonperformance) (Koppell, 2005).

Various forms or styles of accountability have been presented. Ahrens (1996) studies two styles of accountability, British risk-and-return accountability and German accountability that may be seen to be based on functional expertise. Sinclair (1995) sees accountability in its various forms as political (being related to political and rather formal institutions), public (e.g., the accountability of politicians to the general public), managerial (responsibility in and for organizations), professional (general professional conduct or accountability to a certain profession) and personal (related to personal values and experiences). Roberts (2018) compares intelligent (focused on interdependencies) and transparent (focused on visibilities) accountabilities. In the present paper a dichotomy between accountabilities is described in terms of accountability for sustainability performance and accountability for financial performance. Ethics can be acknowledged as relevant in terms of accountabilities and choosing between them: the (potentially) reciprocal relationship between organizations and (the rest of) society has been called by Dillard (2007) the “ethic of accountability.”

Sustainable development has been defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987, p. 43). Sustainability could be seen as the best-case end state of a sustainable development process (Gray, 2010, p. 53). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) promotes the idea that organizations should acknowledge stakeholder needs widely, stakeholders being seen not merely as shareholders, but also as creditors, consumers or the general public (Freeman et al., 2010). Sustainability and CSR are often presented as consisting of three pillars: economic, social and environmental (GRI, 2013), promoting the importance of all these, not only of the economic (Alawattage et al., 2023; Peda and Vinnari, 2020; Vinnari and Laine, 2017).

An ethical dichotomy between accountabilities for profits and for wider sustainability performance has been acknowledged (Alawattage et al., 2023; Messner, 2009, p. 931; Milne et al., 2009). Milne et al. (2009) show how organizations in their reporting struggle between purely financial and wider sustainability concerns and often choose a middle ground between these, which results in a relatively narrow accountability. Accountability for financial performance has thus been seen to take precedence over accountability for sustainability performance (Cooper and Owen, 2007; Aras and Crowther, 2009).

The relations between accountabilities for financial performance and for sustainability performance in today’s world are complex and multifaceted. Alawattage et al. (2023) showed how a Sri Lankan bank redefined profit as being necessary for providing funds and thus for achieving wider sustainability – with capital accumulation presented as the absolute basis for enhanced sustainability. Moreover, Peda and Vinnari (2020) demonstrated how a public–private water company justified its pursuit of profit by its performance in reaching nonfinancial water standards. However, the public contested this by proclaiming water a basic human right, also considering the more marginalized stakeholders and asking for a more effective balance between the financial and the nonfinancial (Peda and Vinnari, 2020). There is also literature on counter accounts complementing traditional, more financially oriented accounts by treating sustainability as a wider phenomenon and by showing the suffering of abused constituents, such as animals (Vinnari and Laine, 2017). Accountabilities for sustainability performance and for financial performance could also be combined. For example, Himick and Ruff (2020) illustrated how activists might frame “profits” in different ways to promote a more just and sustainable world.

We rely on Golubeva (2022), who studied how technology may serve or undermine sustainability, and guidelines about how to promote the positive impacts of technology and reduce its negative impacts with the assistance of accounting and accountability. Golubeva (2022) promoted the consideration and implementation of appropriate forms of governance, analysis, evaluation and disclosure to combat the potentially unfavorable influence of technology. Clune and Zehnder (2018) also emphasized the importance of well-functioning regulatory and governance guidelines in improving the impact of technology on sustainability.

According to Boyle (2004, p. 150), life cycle related considerations have typically not been major issues on the technological agenda; this could be seen in the lack of accountability for any future-related considerations of a product or a process. This could result in products (e.g., computers and construction materials) not being designed so as to be easily recycled, reused or upgraded (rather than totally replaced), thus contributing to waste (Boyle, 2004, p. 150). In product design, emphasis of accountability may be put on energy consumption but not on the overall consumption of materials during the product’s entire lifespan (Boyle, 2004, p. 150). Increasing energy efficiency (Brown et al., 2020; Virtanen et al., 2013) may, according to the so-called Jevons’ paradox, also result in increases in the use of energy in such a way that the original accountability for decreasing energy use is distorted (Sorrell, 2009).

This literature section has so far looked at technologies amenable to reporting using sustainability reporting. Here we review the impacts particularly of measurement and reporting technologies on accountability for sustainability performance. The links between accountability, sustainability and technology may be scrutinized more directly in a reporting framework (Lombardi and Secundo, 2021; Roszkowska, 2021). Lodhia et al. (2020) show how social media technology could be used for symbolic purposes to build legitimacy among stakeholders (i.e. greenwashing, see also Valentinetti and Rea, 2025) rather than for substantially improving the sustainability of the organization or its accountability to its stakeholders. Herzig and Godemann (2010) show how Internet features may be used to reduce information dissemination costs but not for increasing value through the creation of more intensive or credible dialogue and thus accountability. Trade-offs between the economic, social and environmental impacts of companies may likewise not be extensively shown in internet-based sustainability reporting (Herzig and Godemann, 2010). In the field of social accounting, Manetti and Bellucci (2016) found that only a small number of studied organizations used social media to engage their stakeholders in a genuine dialogue about the content of social, environmental or sustainability reporting, and that the amount of overall interaction was low. Hogarth et al. (2025) showed that social media platforms potentially afford high media richness, but many companies fail to exploit this capability in reporting sustainability information via social media. Technology use could thus result in, or fail to alleviate, problems in accountability for sustainability performance.

On the positive side, Lodhia and Stone (2017) suggest how Internet-based communications technologies, including social media, could enhance integrated reporting and the associated accountability. This could be achieved by using webcasts and multimedia presentations, increased interactivity associated with the use of new media, and the analysis of social media data (Lodhia and Stone, 2017). However, there are also risks: one needs to balance ongoing reporting with confidentiality and legal issues, and it may be costly to commit to continuous monitoring and updating of Web-based offerings (Lodhia and Stone, 2017). Tingey-Holyoak et al. (2021) report positive effects of technology on accountability in the field of water sustainability accounting and monitoring. E-taxonomies may assist in standardizing sustainability reporting while also potentially preventing this reporting from developing in unexpected but innovative and valuable ways (Lodhia et al., 2025, p. 425). 3D technologies may engage viewers with visualizations of accountability for sustainability performance but may serve mainly novice audiences (Muhammad and Hazelton, 2025).

Tiwari and Khan (2020), Burritt and Christ (2016) and Klymenko et al. (2021) have presented evidence of how advanced digital technologies may potentially enhance sustainability accounting and accountability for sustainability performance. Klymenko et al. (2021) show a disconnect between digitalization and accounting: while digitalization enables the gathering of large amounts of data, these data are not effectively used in accounting and monitoring systems. For example, sensors or quick response (QR) codes could enable considerable data collection and use but accounting systems do not yet utilize these (Klymenko et al., 2021). Tiwari and Khan (2020) show how industry 4.0 digitalized solutions may be effective for environmental accounting and quite effective for economic reports; for social accounting, these solutions may currently be the least effective due to the potential need to use artificial intelligence. However, the use of artificial intelligence is also necessary (Khan and Gupta, 2025; Naveed et al., 2025) to reap the greatest benefits from economic reporting (Tiwari and Khan, 2020). Predictions of machine failures and maintenance timings are estimated to be valuable; however, overall, the use of these solutions actually needs to mature for decades so that maximal benefits can be gained (Tiwari and Khan, 2020).

Performance measurement is an important concern and a source of potential tensions in sustainability data and reporting on the effects of digital technologies (Anarbaeva and Garst, 2025). The use of Sustainable Development Goals as performance measures could also be enhanced with the technologies of internet-of-things and blockchain (de Villiers et al., 2021). Internet-of-things assists in collecting data with sensors and blockchain helps in the recording and verification of these data; these technologies have been shown to improve the reliability of data, measuring capabilities and thus accountability (de Villiers et al., 2021). Performance metrics can be designed based on the data provided by these technologies (Hang and Kim, 2019; Lodhia et al., 2025). For example, internet-of-things may produce big data that may provide novel views on performance via Radio Frequency Identification or QR codes (Lodhia et al., 2025, p. 426). Interestingly, the construction industry is considered to be a setting in which such influences are prevalent due to its complex processes, chains of influence and data flow (Heiskanen, 2017; de Villiers et al., 2021). Technology could thus contribute to accountability for sustainability performance in these ways.

“Techno-optimism” (Milne et al., 2006, p. 804) refers to an attitude in which technology is perceived as necessary for progress, both in scientific and economic terms, and as the solution to any risk management of sustainability-related risks, particularly environmental risks (Milne et al., 2006, p. 804) and associated accountabilities for sustainability performance. This techno-optimism favoring the development of new products can contribute to an accountability for consumption ideology that could support neoliberalism. This takes place as neoliberalism contains a focus on economic growth (Li, 2010; Andrew and Cortese, 2013) and thus on the consumption (Alawattage et al., 2019; Cooper et al., 2016; Mennicken, 2010) of (also technological) commodities and the associated financial gains to be had. Relatedly, consumption has been hailed as a way to reach “new and better worlds” (a critical view on this is presented by Gray et al., 2014, p. 2), promoting neoliberalism. Technology could therefore promote accountability for financial performance in this way.

Technology may thus contribute to accountability for sustainability performance but it does not necessarily have to do so. The way technology interacts with accountability for sustainability performance and for financial performance may also affect such an outcome. The empirics look at such issues in more detail.

The purpose of the research, to achieve an in-depth understanding of the actions and mindsets in a given empirical setting necessitated the use of a case methodology. Connecting empirics with theory enables a thick description and explanation (Lukka and Modell, 2010). The case was positioned to contribute to theory and specific theoretically interesting implications were drawn (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006). The data that the paper relies on were gathered through interviews and from archives. The interviews provided access to the constructs of accountability, sustainability, the financial and technology, while archival data were used as a context. These data have been treated here as socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Searle, 1995), focusing on actor perceptions on the effect of interest in technology use on the accountabilities. Here the meanings of constructs such as “interest in technology use” and “accountability” emerge due to varied circumstances such as previous events and social situations; they are not taken here as fixed or inevitable (Hacking, 2000). The case company, termed BuildingCo, is well-suited for this research because it exhibits two accountabilities that the interviewees construct as being affected by an interest in technology use.

Altogether 62 interviews were carried out with company (former) personnel and with company stakeholders. The employees interviewed were selected very widely, including people from many different layers of the organization, the board and executive layers, the operative layer (property managers of individual buildings) and other management layers in between. People in both the line organization and in support functions were interviewed, likewise people whose direct responsibilities included CSR reporting and other employees having less direct contact with CSR. Former employees with experience of multiple organizational levels and of diverse tasks at BuildingCo were also interviewed. These proved particularly helpful because they provided access to well-thought-out commentaries when people had taken a certain distance from the organization and were able to reflect on their experiences from that distance. It is also noteworthy that all the former employees had left the organization so recently that we judged we could trust their accounts; they were typically able to provide very specific examples of the issues discussed. We also interviewed representatives of many of the stakeholders of the case organization to put the case into context; many stakeholders expressed relevant views on the accountabilities studied and the interest in technology use in the company. The stakeholders interviewed were representatives of service and materials providers, the owner (the state), competitors, customers, a city, a building-related education provider, a construction consultancy and an environmental organization.

When interviewing BuildingCo employees (past and present), we focused on what sustainability concretely meant for them in their own work and why, as well as for the organization in general and why, and as a part of this, relations with and accountabilities to stakeholder representatives. In stakeholder interviews the interview outline focused on how the stakeholder representative in question viewed BuildingCo in terms of accountabilities. It was fairly common for a previous employee of BuildingCo also to be a stakeholder in the organization, for example a competitor or a customer representative. When this happened, interview questions were asked from both internal and stakeholder perspectives. These people were particularly valuable for the study as they had experiences of BuildingCo from (at least) two different angles. An interest in technology use emerged spontaneously in the interviews and was thus not included in the planned interview themes.

We used semi-structured interviews to encourage interviewees to talk freely (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). We used probing questions to further our understanding of the issues the interviewees raised. All interviews were conducted as face-to-face meetings and in Finnish as this was the language with which both interviewees and interviewers were most familiar. Both researchers were present at all interviews except one. The translations of the interview transcripts from Finnish to English were made by the researchers, who were judged to be proficient enough in these languages.

As an integral part of the interview protocol, we explained to the interviewees at the beginning of each interview about the confidentiality of the issues to be addressed and that we were conducting a scholarly study, not a commercial study commissioned by the case company. As a part of the protocol, we also requested permission to record each interview, and this permission was denied by one interviewee. This interview was transcribed on the spot. The final written version of this interview was then prepared immediately after the interview as a document that both of the researchers present in the interview agreed on. As an important part of the protocol, we also asked the interviewees to suggest additional interviewees according to the so-called snowball sampling method. This resulted in relevant interviewees with varying points of view.

As a process issue, the authors conducted a reflective discussion after each interview, consisting of a critical evaluation of the interview and of the novelty and importance for any theoretical development of the issues discussed. These reflective discussions became shorter as data saturation advanced and there was less novelty. However, due to the processual nature of the interviews, being temporally located within three years (2013, 2014 and 2015), there were always new developments in the organization and therefore some novelty was always present in each interview. The interviews reveal phenomena that persist to this day, given the continuing discussions in the popular press about sustainability and technology. Many of the technologies mentioned are still much in use, among them remote monitoring and measurement of electricity or energy in real time, the system for the management of space in the public administration and energy efficiency measurement.

Archival data were also used, mostly to increase the researchers’ understanding of the context under study and less to triangulate the findings from the interviews. These data were varied and included CSR reports and other material on the company web site, internal BuildingCo documents, histories, other publications by BuildingCo, publications by the stakeholders (including building infrastructure information in relevant areas), National Audit Office publications on BuildingCo, the Government Premises Strategy and the State Real Estate Strategy as the most important documents related to BuildingCo business and designed by the Ministry of Finance, and finally, articles on BuildingCo in magazines and newspapers.

The analysis was implemented as follows. We followed an approach of emphasizing the richness in the data by finding tensions with less formal coding (Ahrens and Dent, 1998). When reading theoretical material, we noted that in the sustainability literature, accountability for sustainability performance was often juxtaposed with accountability for financial performance. We then separately coded these two views, making notes on them and comparing them. An interest in technology use at first emerged quite subtly in the interviews but became very clear by the time we had completed our interviewing. We also coded the interest in technology use separately, made notes on it and analyzed and grouped such talk. We noted a contradiction in terms of technology being treated as an integral means of being accountable for sustainability performance and simultaneously as a threat to accountability for sustainability performance. We then focused on this interesting contradiction both theoretically and empirically and noticed how interest in technology use was blurring the lines between the two accountabilities. We also looked at the roles of performance measures of energy efficiency and costs in this blurring of the lines.

This section is structured as follows. Background information is first given about BuildingCo. Then the two accountabilities are presented, for sustainability performance and for financial performance. Next interest in technology use is presented, first by company employees and then by stakeholders. After this, the relations constructed between this interest and the accountabilities in the company are described.

The case company is 100% owned by the State of Finland. Its sales in 2014 were €660m and it employed just under 300 people during the period of the study. It relies on subcontractors to accomplish most of the operational work, doing more of the high-profile design and planning work itself.

The formal and stated primary goal of BuildingCo was to meet any premises-related needs of the state. This was done by providing physical facilities and services meant to support the use of the premises so that the other state organizations could focus on achieving their own goals in a cost-effective manner. This thus represented the strategy of BuildingCo. The company owned and maintained multiple premises, historical and more novel. The premises included, for example, castles dating from the Middle Ages, buildings dating from the 19th century and modern office buildings. Some of the real estate, such as museums, research facilities, the National Opera and listed buildings had special development and maintenance needs.

The company’s roots extend to the year 1811, when state building works were first put under national control. Historic buildings were transferred to its jurisdiction in 2014. It initiated sustainability efforts beginning from the 1980s, not because of outside pressure (e.g., from the state or consultants), which was at the time hardly perceptible, but due to its own interest in focusing on something novel. The initial focus had been on environmental concerns, and social concerns had been raised later. The company has produced a sustainability report since 2002, first on paper, and at the time of the study on the internet. During its history, the company has also become increasingly interested in technology use and associated university or research institute cooperation, as it has aimed to be considered a front-runner in its field. For example, it promoted innovations in energy and electricity consumption reporting and monitoring. The company maintained historic buildings but did not appear to focus much on their history, emphasizing contemporary technology. A quote from a stakeholder follows:

In the interviews, multiple stakeholders (although not all, on which more below) claimed they appreciated this company for its sustainability efforts particularly regarding its sustainability measurement and reporting. Stakeholders often said that they perceived BuildingCo as the flagship company in the field of construction in terms of sustainability measurement. One interviewee described his views on BuildingCo and about how it had developed environmental reporting practices:

In the company, accountability for sustainability performance quite simply meant that one should be accountable first and foremost for achieving sustainability. This form of accountability for sustainability performance entailed a certain conceptualization of the essence of accountability as such: accountability was here constructed very broadly as an encompassing entity that ideally subsumed everything that the organization was and did. People perceiving accountability in this way usually constructed accountability to be to fairly wide entities, such as the globe or the whole of (Finnish) society including all (Finnish) people.

The company implemented extensive energy, electricity and water consumption measurement and reporting both within the organization and for its customers. For investments, it measured the associated energy efficiency (Virtanen et al., 2013) achieved. It also measured efficiency in the use of space, i.e. the space in square meters per employee, costs by square meters and the savings for the customers in terms of space and rental expenses. Moreover, well-being at work and the job satisfaction of the building users were measured through surveys. In addition, it had implemented a reward-sanction model for its service providers in which it measured user feedback, energy savings and points in quality checkups for those service providers and paid them extra if they reached the targets for these measures and decreased payments if they failed to reach those targets. The organization moreover measured the taxation footprint in terms of energy-related taxes and of the CO2 emissions behind those taxes. The following quote describes some of the measures used:

The company had also adjusted its system of accounts to measure and account for sustainability-related issues such as waste management and energy costs. The quote below describes this adjustment:

Within accountability for financial performance there were degrees to which this “financial performance” was seen in the company as pure money or more general ideas about profitable and otherwise successful customer-oriented business. However, in this form of accountability for financial performance, the idea of to whom one is accountable was often constructed relatively narrowly in financial terms. Here the importance of accountability to owners and to Finnish taxpayers was constructed as vital. This accountability was also sometimes constructed quite simply in terms of maintaining law and order.

The financial was extensively measured in the organization outside normal financial statements. The following quote shows examples of financial measurement:

Regarding accountability for financial performance, the attitude toward money was appreciative; money was not something to be wasted but something to be saved and respected. It was sometimes said that not paying enough attention to the financial resulted in inefficiency and ineffectiveness. BuildingCo was also sometimes perceived to lack the necessary organizational cost controls:

Here we focus first on employees’ and then stakeholders’ constructs regarding the interest in technology use and its impact on the accountabilities.

Many Building Co representatives perceived technological solutions as the way to achieve accountability for sustainability performance. The company employed numerous engineers and architects and not so many business experts and historians, for example. An engineering mindset, including a focus on technological issues and details and on solving technological problems, was said to predominate.

In the organization, technology was claimed to be inherent in the reporting on and measurement of sustainability. The sustainability report had been in electronic format for several years and real-time reporting on sustainability was increasingly aimed at. The electricity consumption of the buildings was also claimed to be comprehensively measured with remote measurement technologies. Moreover, the organization used a reporting system with data warehouse for reporting on sustainability issues. An interviewee also talked about a novel information technology system that was meant to fight the gray economy and thus improve accountability for sustainability performance, as follows:

The organization was moreover implementing a system called Hallinnon TilaHallinta for the management of space in the administration. It was claimed to include all possible information on the use, efficiency of use, energy consumption, energy costs and energy efficiency of public spaces. In addition, it was at least planned to provide information on energy consumed commuting between home and office for those working in public administration.

To emphasize energy efficiency, the organization had also installed information screens in its own lobby and in its customers’ lobbies. These screens displayed measurements such as temperatures as well as energy, electricity and water consumption and, for example, compared these levels to those of the previous year for the building in question. A feature of the screens was a digital cartoon character called “Iceman,” who presented the meters. The following quote describes this reporting system:

Next, the use and implications of the measure of energy efficiency (Virtanen et al., 2013) are analyzed. Employees sometimes noted that old buildings were somewhat problematic because novel technology might not suit them and such buildings might not be efficient to use in spite of the investment. The (energy) efficiency of use was thus taken as a vital measure of sustainability. For example, an interviewee described how the replacement of existing lights with more energy-saving lights with a motion sensor in a garage could have a payback period of only two years even if the investment was 20,000–30,000 euros, and thus this interviewee considered such an investment to be worthwhile in terms of the measure of energy efficiency. Moreover, one property manager felt that the organization should consider replacing fully functioning parts within its customers’ automation technology if such replacement could be proven to produce savings measured in terms of energy efficiency in the future. No costs of developing a new technology and disposing of the old one appeared to be included in these measurement calculations.

In this organization, the energy efficiency measure was frequently regarded on the assumption that a new building had already been built and when comparing the energy efficiencies of old and new buildings. The extra energy needed to construct new buildings seemed not to be emphasized in measurement. It was thus unclear if the energy efficiency measure used was multidimensional enough to take account of all relevant issues. In the next quote, one employee acknowledges that old buildings could in some ways be relatively energy efficient in the long term, at least stable in their energy consumption, compared to newer buildings with advanced technology that potentially consumes a lot of energy. The interviewee implies here that the technology and materials in the newer buildings have needed and will continue to need resources to produce and service them, while old buildings do not require such resources. Here it is claimed that measurement is at the core of the problem: not all energy use is measured in the same way and to the same extent and measurement seemed to favor new buildings:

Energy efficiency was emphasized as an important measure in promoting novelty. A former employee of BuildingCo acknowledged that not building was very environmentally friendly, but after saying this embarked on calculating at length how investment in new buildings was beneficial. This interviewee gave an example of an investment of €100m in a specialty facility, such as a hospital, that might cost €50m to renovate plus a further €50m to construct additional buildings. When the annual operating costs could be cut from €100m to €90m due to improvement in the value of the energy efficiency measure, the payback period of the investment would be “only ten years.” (However, this does not appear to be a very short payback period). The interviewee then concluded that construction work was highly ethical as it produced such clear monetary savings – “by investing one can save.”

In principle, demolishing an old building or older technology could also have been considered unsustainable, as the old materials would have to be disposed of and a lot of new materials would be needed to construct a new building. However, this was not predominantly considered in the company partly because such considerations were not taken into account in the energy efficiency measure. An example of how novelty was connected to the (energy) efficiency measure follows:

A few stakeholder representatives criticized the energy efficiency measure. Several felt that the company employees were sometimes excessively eager to demolish old buildings, being potentially motivated by the energy efficiency measure, but thus losing the societal and sometimes indoor air [²] value of such buildings. It was also acknowledged that this measure encouraged the company to use technology in old buildings even when it was not a good fit. For example, one stakeholder representative said that technical equipment was easily used to momentarily maximize the value of the energy efficiency measure, while a more sustainable approach would have been in the first place to build buildings of such quality that they did not need to be demolished at all. A quote on this follows:

Stakeholders pointed out that one cause of indoor air problems was construction practices that favored complicated and technologically advanced building solutions difficult to maintain and repair. The use of these solutions was said to have been motivated by the measure of energy efficiency. A stakeholder representative said that the installation of advanced technology could cause indoor air problems in old buildings, as follows. This representative did not feel that such effects were in any way reported on or disclosed to stakeholders and thus accountability regarding them may have been compromised. Here the measure of energy efficiency is also criticized:

One stakeholder representative recommended reconsidering building use and maintenance to avoid drifting into excessively radical and demolishing actions that would cause the pointless or futile loss of temporal layers and temporal depth. This interviewee recommended using a performance measure of the extent and performance of so-called continuous building maintenance and repair practices, avoiding large renovations. He claimed that the use of such a measure might discourage adopting practices and technology meant for new buildings even in old buildings where they might not fit. Yet another interviewee suggested introducing specific performance measures to decrease the use of technology and thus improve the reliability of the systems in buildings. This interviewee suggested measures such as the extent of demolition, the degree of repairability, the degree of conservation and the number of technological systems requiring continuous attention. The last two of these are referred to below:

Interviewees sometimes criticized the company for not providing measures and reports of interest and relevance for customers. The company was said to be engineering-driven, often focused on the technological features of buildings more than the customers. Below, an interviewee criticizes technologically advanced, perhaps “glossy,” graphics that were felt to serve neither customers nor the public at large:

Moreover, a stakeholder noted the organization’s engineering-related focus on different measures and measurement and would have wished to see a more philosophical or general approach from this organization. The following quote shows this:

Technology was constructed in the case to assist in sustainability reporting by providing information systems as reporting platforms. It was also constructed to help in measurement, for example, when the electricity consumption of buildings could be measured with remote measurement technologies. However, the interest in technology use was sometimes constructed to turn accountability for sustainability performance into accountability for financial performance. This was seen in the case of the measure of energy efficiency. It was often openly treated as a measure of sustainability and meant to stimulate thinking about innovative technology options aiming to save energy. However, it also seemed to turn into a way to promote the importance of cost savings, ultimately favoring accountability for financial performance.

Accountability for financial performance aims to reduce costs (which may not always benefit sustainability). However, in the technological accountability for sustainability performance prevalent in the company, savings were also perceived to be achieved by constructing novel types of work environments or even new buildings and by then capturing the resulting efficiency gains. Here accountability for sustainability performance was thus constructed to be tied to an interest in cost savings. This accountability for sustainability performance therefore took on qualities of accountability for financial performance, focusing on savings. The measure of energy efficiency seemed to encourage investment while the measure of conservation, for example, would have motivated toward decreased investment. The interest in technology use, with energy efficiency as its tool, was constructed to favor investment in technological solutions over other options. Other performance measures could have encouraged less investment and thus more focus on sustainability ideas such as degrowth.

Interestingly, the accountability for financial performance was sometimes constructed to promote sustainability. In particular, certain interviewees constructed the way in which cost savings opposed technology use as a source of sustainability. This accountability for financial performance was constructed as cost control and opposed to buying expensive technology. For example, it was said that cost saving was in line with protecting listed buildings, as then those buildings could remain as they were and not be filled with modern technology. A quote follows:

When the benefits of cost control for accountability for sustainability performance are emphasized, the (dis)interest in technology use might thus turn accountability for financial performance into accountability for sustainability performance. Here the cost measure was thereby constructed as a pivotal measure to promote accountability for sustainability performance. It is worth noting that those actors who were interested in technology use were different from those who opposed this interest by constructing cost savings as its opposition. The interest in technology use functioned as an inspiration for this construction and for the disinterest in technology use.

Due to the interest in technology use, the borders between accountability for sustainability performance and accountability for financial performance were therefore constructed as blurred. Figure 1 shows this.

Here we have looked at technological change as a relevant and interesting phenomenon (Abera et al., 2024; Alsharari, 2024; Mansour et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2015). Following Abera et al. (2024), we introduced potential measures related to technological change. We also noted measurement concerns in this regard.

Company employees claimed that they were to a certain extent accountable and measured for using, developing and disseminating technology. The measured use of technology was conceived of as a part of the path aiming at accountability for sustainability performance. The literature on accounting, accountability, sustainability and technology has also acknowledged this connection (Burritt and Christ, 2016; Golubeva, 2022; Klymenko et al., 2021; Lodhia et al., 2025; Tiwari and Khan, 2020). However, the way from technology use toward accountability for sustainability performance is not always straightforward; technology use may also encourage accountability for sustainability performance to turn into accountability for financial performance. Interestingly, accountability for financial performance may also sometimes be constructed to help in aiming at accountability for sustainability performance when an interest in technology use is being opposed. Technology use may therefore make actors construct more fully the connections between the two accountabilities.

New technologies are often constructed as the panacea for accountability for sustainability performance (“techno-optimism,” Milne et al., 2006, p. 804; see also Fan et al., 2021; Mahmoudian et al., 2021). However, an interest in technology use was here surprisingly claimed to sometimes hinder sustainability reporting efforts. The consequences of new technologies would benefit from careful scrutiny; not all new technologies were constructed to have only beneficial impacts on accountability for sustainability performance, and hardly any negative impacts seemed to have been considered and therefore remained unreported. The cycle of technology development and consumption does not appear truly sustainable if practices such as recycling, reuse and conservation are not sufficiently considered (Boyle, 2004, p. 150) and thus measured. The focus on consumption then supports neoliberalism with its emphasis on economic growth (Li, 2010; Andrew and Cortese, 2013) and the associated consumption (Alawattage et al., 2019; Cooper et al., 2016; Mennicken, 2010) of commodities, resulting in accountability for financial performance. Paradoxically, “sustainability” could thus be used rhetorically to make profit and increase consumption, not to enhance accountability for degrowth. While an interest in technology use appears to support accountability for sustainability performance, this interest may also end up supporting accountability for financial performance.

Accountability for, reporting on and measuring sustainability performance were constructed through the lens of technology. The company appeared to favor accountability achieved through technological means. The form of accountability was thus restricted and defined by the means specified. Those aspects of technology not in line with accountability for sustainability performance, such as the potential of technology to increase material use and waste (resulting from the disposal of older technology and also eventually of the newer technology) received relatively little consideration in reporting. In addition, those aspects of accountability for sustainability performance that could not be improved by technology appeared to be paid less attention in reporting than those aspects in which technology was important. Relatedly, the historical value of listed buildings and certain other customers’ needs were claimed not to have been fully considered in reporting and measurement. For example, according to stakeholder representatives, the use of measures for building conservation could have been improved. Conversely, the measure of energy efficiency seemed to be relied on so heavily that it had begun to favor and motivate the construction of new buildings with novel technology. The interest in technology use was considered ethical, perhaps tied to an ethic of accountability (Dillard, 2007) and as an ethical way to achieve accountability for sustainability performance. However, the ethic of accountability between organizations and society does not specify the technologies used (Dillard, 2007); such technologies are only the means by which such an ethic could perhaps be achieved. Restricting accountability and reporting to concern only matters that can be achieved by technological means may not be necessary or productive.

Technology may also affect the ethical dichotomy between accountabilities for sustainability performance and for financial performance that earlier literature (Alawattage et al., 2023; Milne et al., 2009; Peda and Vinnari, 2020; Vinnari and Laine, 2017) has described, for example, how basic human rights (Peda and Vinnari, 2020) could be technologically enabled/disabled. Such effects need to be reported on. While the data of Alawattage et al. (2023) presented capital accumulation as the basis for sustainability, in our case, accountability for sustainability performance and for financial performance may be bases for each other. In the empirics, a certain balance between the financial and the nonfinancial (Peda and Vinnari, 2020) could thus be found. In our case, accountability for sustainability performance and for financial performance could also be combined by framing costs so as to construct them as promoting accountability for sustainability performance (see Himick and Ruff, 2020).

We contribute to the literature on the effects of technology on accountability for sustainability performance (Lodhia et al., 2020, 2025; Lodhia and Stone, 2017; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016; de Villiers et al., 2021) by showing some of the effects of technology as potentially negative while not being reported as such. The negative effects thus need not only be about greenwashing, shallow dialogue or pure legitimacy building (Herzig and Godemann, 2010; Lodhia et al., 2020; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016) for the direct benefit of the reporting organization, but could result from promoting the use of certain novel (measurement) technologies that may excite the organizational members but not meet the reporting needs of stakeholders. Surprisingly, accountability for financial performance may be constructed to result in steps toward accountability for sustainability performance due to the limits imposed by the financial on the importance of technology. Such limits may be upheld by reporting on the measure of the costs of technologies, for example. Overall, an interest in technology use may blur the distinctions between different accountabilities. This could cloud the judgment of eventual accountability discharge.

Moreover, we contribute to the work of Golubeva (2022), Tiwari and Khan (2020) and Klymenko et al. (2021), who have emphasized the important problem of how technological solutions may not be used most effectively for sustainability accounting, due, for example, to a disconnect between digitalization and sustainability accounting (Klymenko et al., 2021) or the lack of artificial intelligence use (Khan and Gupta, 2025; Naveed et al., 2025; Tiwari and Khan, 2020). In the sphere of accountability, we note a different problem: technological solutions may appear to function as intended, and this may, in fact, cause problems of accountability particularly from the point of view of certain stakeholders. Such problems may not be reported on and measured due to the perceived optimality of these technological solutions. The measure of energy efficiency (Virtanen et al., 2013) was constructed to be at the heart of this issue here, being claimed to favor novel buildings.

Future research could focus on the use of different technology-related accountabilities and associated measures. The relations of the measures of energy efficiency and costs to an interest in technology use could be studied in more detail. Moreover, possible avenues for future study are how technologies may be used to either enhance or impede accountabilities and how the effects of technologies may be reported.

The authors wish to thank the Editor, the Associate Editor and the anonymous Reviewers for their valuable comments that have clearly helped to improve the quality of the paper. The authors also wish to thank the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the Foundation for Economic Education, the Helsinki School of Economics Foundation and the Finnish Cultural Foundation for funding the research upon which this paper is based. The authors would also like to thank the participants of the Annual Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change Symposium, 2023, of the Interdisciplinary Accounting Discussion Group at Turku School of Economics, 2016, of the Workshop on Management Accounting as Social and Organizational Practice in London, 2015, of the 9th Conference on New Directions in Management Accounting in Brussels, 2014, of the 37th Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association in Tallinn, 2014, of the EGOS Colloquium in Rotterdam, 2014, and of the research seminars at the Turku School of Economics, 2013–2014, for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. Special thanks are due to the case company representatives and other interviewees, who kindly agreed to contribute their valuable time to this research project and have been extremely helpful to us in every way.

Role of the funding sources: None of the funding sources had any role in study design, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.