Exploring digital sustainability of/through Estonia’s e-residency: Africa’s case and the importance of culture for sustainability

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to take the lead from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9 and 10 – foster “resilient infrastructures and inclusive innovation” and “reduce disparities of opportunities, income and power” – as key for digital sustainability. Moving beyond existing research, here this paper conceptualise “digital sustainability” as a framework for analysing the sustainability of digital services. Design/methodology/approach Combining different works, this paper identifies five dimensions: social, economic, institutional, environmental and technical. The framework is then tested on Estonia’s e-residency program, of which, in this way, this paper explores the potential digital sustainability. By allowing anyone to run location-independent businesses as if virtually in Estonia, the e-residency program aligns to what SDGs 9 and 10 prescribe in terms of socio-economic inclusiveness and inclusive innovation. As such, the program is particularly valuable for citizens from developing countries in that it gives them access to European markets. Hence, to explore e-residency’s digital sustainability, this paper focuses on the experiences of African e-residents. Findings In-depth interviews highlight a series of criticalities involving one or more dimensions of the framework. This is because of the program having a global outreach by default but not accommodating contextual diversity by design. Originality/value Suggestions for improving the program are provided, alongside the recommendation to also include the cultural dimension into the conceptualisation of digital sustainability.

Mechanisms fostering the sustainability of actualized value propositions of implemented e‐Government projects in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A realist evaluation case of Nigeria and Rwanda

“…Studies have attributed the nonachievement of sustainability to cultural, political, and financial constraints (Abaku et al, 2021; Klischewski & Lessa, 2013; Thomas et al, 2009; Yadav et al, 2019). Other factors include widespread corruption, poor infrastructures, high inequalities, fragile democracies, and information poverty within which the innovations are embedded (Aladwani, 2016; Heeks, 2003).…”