Beware of bullshit: A qualitative study on young adults' sustainability awareness of online services

Roskosch, Robin Article Beware of bullshit: A qualitative study on young adults' sustainability awareness of online services Junior Management Science (JUMS) Provided in Cooperation with: Junior Management Science e. V. Suggested Citation: Roskosch, Robin (2025) : Beware of bullshit: A qualitative study on young adults' sustainability awareness of online services, Junior Management Science (JUMS), ISSN 2942-1861, Junior Management Science e. V., Planegg, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 582-608, https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v10i3pp582-608 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326966 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 Junior Management Science www.jums.academy ISSN: 2942-1861 Editor: DOMINIK VAN AAKEN Advisory Editorial Board: FREDERIK AHLEMANN JAN-PHILIPP AHRENS THOMAS BAHLINGER MARKUS BECKMANN SULEIKA BORT ROLF BRÜHL KATRIN BURMEISTER-LAMP CATHERINE CLEOPHAS NILS CRASSELT BENEDIKT DOWNAR KERSTIN FEHRE MATTHIAS FINK DAVID FLORYSIAK GUNTHER FRIEDL MARTIN FRIESL FRANZ FUERST WOLFGANG GÜTTEL NINA KATRIN HANSEN ANNE KATARINA HEIDER CHRISTIAN HOFMANN SVEN HÖRNER STEPHAN KAISER NADINE KAMMERLANDER ALFRED KIESER ALEKSANDRA KLEIN NATALIA KLIEWER DODO ZU KNYPHAUSEN-AUFSESS SABINE T. KÖSZEGI ARJAN KOZICA CHRISTIAN KOZIOL MARTIN KREEB WERNER KUNZ HANS-ULRICH KÜPPER MICHAEL MEYER JÜRGEN MÜHLBACHER GORDON MÜLLER-SEITZ J. PETER MURMANN ANDREAS OSTERMAIER BURKHARD PEDELL ARTHUR POSCH MARCEL PROKOPCZUK TANJA RABL SASCHA RAITHEL NICOLE RATZINGER-SAKEL ASTRID REICHEL KATJA ROST THOMAS RUSSACK FLORIAN SAHLING MARKO SARSTEDT ANDREAS G. SCHERER STEFAN SCHMID UTE SCHMIEL CHRISTIAN SCHMITZ MARTIN SCHNEIDER MARKUS SCHOLZ LARS SCHWEIZER DAVID SEIDL THORSTEN SELLHORN STEFAN SEURING VIOLETTA SPLITTER ANDREAS SUCHANEK TILL TALAULICAR ANN TANK ANJA TUSCHKE MATTHIAS UHL CHRISTINE VALLASTER PATRICK VELTE CHRISTIAN VÖGTLIN BARBARA E. WEISSENBERGER ISABELL M. WELPE HANNES WINNER THOMAS WRONA THOMAS ZWICK Volume 10, Issue 3, September 2025 JUNIOR MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Johannes Witter,Predicting Stock Returns With Machine Learning: Global Versus Sector Models Robin Roskosch, Beware of Bullshit –A Qualitative Study on Young Adults’ Sustainability Awareness of Online Services Nadhilla Mazaya,Board Gender Diversity: Evidence From Indonesia Alexander Sake, Value Creation Opportunities of Generative AI –A Case Study Justus Olbrich, The Effect of Changes in Internal Control Systems on Audit Risk Jan Oliver Horstmann, Mandatory ESG Disclosure and Firm Value –A Quantitative Analysis of the Effect of Directive 2014/95/EU on Firm Value Meret Anna Gläser, Government Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Culture, and Corporate Cost Behaviour Zewei Shi, Modeling the Impact of Emission Credit Systems on Automotive Product Portfolios: A Mathematical Analysis of Policy Effects in Europe, China, and the U.S. Under Different Demand Scenarios Hagen Alexander Hönerloh, Numerical Studies for the Scheduling of Continuous Annealing Lines Lea Wedel, KPIs for Sustainability: Defining the Strategy for a Sustainable Future in the Insurance Industry 561 582 609 631 657 677 715 748 781 810 Published by Junior Management Science e.V. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-4.0 (Attribution 4.0 International). Open Access funding provided by ZBW. ISSN: 2942-1861 Beware of Bullshit – A Qualitative Study on Young Adults’ Sustainability Awareness of Online Services Robin Roskosch University of Duisburg-Essen Abstract Since the surge of working in the ‘home office’ during the COVID-19 pandemic, information and communication technology has been seen as a problem solver for the global climate disruption, because it promises savings in emissions through digitalization. However, this is criticized for being a ‘double-edged sword’, as more use of ICT also means an increase in electricity consumption. This thesis poses the question if consumers using services fostering said digitalization are aware of this implication and can contribute to sustainable development by choosing wisely. Thus, this paper leads exploratory research on sustainability awareness of online services, from the perspective of both sustainably aware and technologically skilled individuals. This will be achieved by collecting qualitative data from interviews with two groups of university students from biology and computer science or information systems. The data will be evaluated using the approach of qualitative content analysis and will be investigated further with the help of the concept of bullshitting, to understand how consumers assess ambiguous and misleading sustainability claims about online services. One implication from the interviews is that both companies and consumers should strive to promote reliable knowledge on this topic, as there is a deficit in sustainability awareness of online services. Keywords: bullshit; green IT; greenwashing; online services; sustainability 1. Introduction Advances in information and communication technologies (ICT), as well as sustainable development, are two topics that are being actively discussed in today’s society, politics, and economy. Through digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation, ICT is regularly presented as one of I would like to thank my tutor, Dr. Helge Alsdorf, for encouraging me to explore the topic of Bullshitting and Green IT in my bachelor thesis, building on the foundation of my seminar paper. His suggestions and support were greatly appreciated throughout this process. A special thanks goes to Felicitas Comfai for her ongoing motivation, valuable feedback, and careful proofreading, all of which were a great help during the writing of this thesis. I would also like to thank Ole Gulz for his proofreading and feedback, which was a great help in refining my work. I also wish to thank all the interview partners who generously shared their time and perspectives, contributing meaningful insights to this work. Lastly, I am grateful to the SITM chair for providing a platform to investigate unique and unconventional topics such as the concept of bullshitting. the possible solutions to the challenges of sustainable development. For instance, moving from analog to digital data formats with the help of digitization and supporting or automating processes through digitalization, omits filling out a transfer slip and driving to the next bank, leading to paper savings and reduced travel (Vrana & Singh, 2021, p. 4). Furthermore, Internet of Things (IoT) as an example for digital transformation technologies, can be used to change whole business models to optimize energy consumption (Ericsson, 2020, p. 9). Therefore ICT can be seen as an enabler, but its role as part of the problem should not be neglected (Ericsson, 2020, p. 9; Hofmann et al., 2021, p. 7). ICT can hurt environmental sustainability due to massive energy consumption as a result of increased use, toxic e-waste as a result of poor recycling, or general high demand for rare resources used in manufacturing. A major example of how ICT can be a ‘double-edged sword’ is the recent rise in the implementation of homeDOI: https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v10i3pp582-608 © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Junior Management Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-4.0 (Attribution 4.0 International). Open Access funding provided by ZBW. R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 583 based telework, better known as ‘home office’. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has pushed companies to allow their employees to work from the safety of their homes, for example by hosting meetings online rather than in person, which has virtually established a further digital transformation by force. Working from home decreased the need for commuting and business travel and started the trend of a “considerable substitution of physical (professional) traffic by data traffic (digitalization)” (Kutani et al., 2021, pp. 21–22). A study commissioned by Greenpeace estimates that 5.4 million tons of CO2emissions from transport could be cut per year if 40% of the employees had two home office days per week. This would be equivalent to 4% of total passenger transport emissions (Büttner & Breitkreuz, 2020, p. 14). However, as more and more people actually start to work from home and use their devices to communicate with colleagues and customers more frequently, data traffic is also increasing, which in turn requires more energy. This rebound effect is included in the estimate, but it is crucial to point out that it needs to be taken into account in the discussion of the potential for emission savings of ICT in general (Büttner & Breitkreuz, 2020, p. 5). Home office was by far not the only reason global internet traffic increased by about 40% in 2020 (Sandvine, 2020, p. 5). An increase in “video streaming, video conferencing, online gaming, and social networking” (Kamiya, 2021), as well as many other services contributed to that jump in numbers. The growth normalized to 29% in 2021 after the surge caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is still almost a threefold increase in bandwidth since 2017 (TeleGeography, 2021, p. 1). Since not everyone is an IT expert, many people seem to take it for granted that their preferred IT device (e.g. smartphone, tablet), as well as their favorite app, just work, without realizing how massive the IT infrastructure is that powers the services. They are unconsciously oblivious to the fact that one push of a button sets off ‘lots of moving parts’ on servers in the backend of an online service, requiring a lot more energy than their personal device does. The immense growth in usage and transmission rates accumulates to an energy demand of 1% and 1.1 – 1.4% of the total global electricity use in 2020 for data centers and data transmission networks respectively, which are magnitudes not comprehensible by the average consumer (Coroam˘ a, 2021; ITU, 2020; Kamiya, 2021; Malmodin & Lundén, 2018; Masanet et al., 2020). This barrier to understanding could pose a threat to sustainable development driven and supported by consumers because the time for change is long overdue to mitigate the consequences of the climate disruption (Harvey, 2020). Consumer practices, considered pro-environmental or Green-IT, that have been recommended so far include: double-sided printing, avoiding printing by using digital formats, turning off devices or features when not in use, and recycling or reusing old devices (Leung et al., 2018, p. 5; Molla et al., 2014, p. 133; Nash and Wakefield, 2021, p. 1). However, they all share a limitation, which becomes very apparent in a time when online services are omnipresent. All of these practices only allow users to take effect in their immediate sphere of influence, basically on or with their own devices. This means, that services that one does not maintain themself are out of reach. The ICT provider (Ericsson, 2020, p. 15) recommends that consumers make it clear to companies that they care about their carbon footprint and try to use online services that comply with science-based targets (SBTs) rather than net-zero claims. They state that SBTs are to be preferred as they are in line with the Paris Agreement’s goals and do not allow to count carbon offsets toward SBTs (SBTi, 2020, p. 7; SBTi, 2021, p. 8). Net-zero targets however allow carbon offsetting to achieve ‘zero’ emissions. Buying carbon offsets or credits sparks a lot of controversy, especially because of its reputation as a “get out of jail free card” (Gilks & Watson, 2019). Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are not the same as carbon offsets but have a similar shady reputation amongst environmental activists. Especially unbundled RECs are criticized, because with those a company does not need to source the energy from the same grid as the origin specified in the certificate (Cook & Jardim, 2019; U.S. EPA, 2021). Which, with a bit of common sense, do not sound like directly contributing to sustainability. Without knowing the difference between the aforementioned terms, sounding somewhat ambiguous, it can probably be difficult to follow the recommendations proposed by Ericsson. Not even “half of executives (43%) [...]are aware of their organization’s IT [carbon]footprint” (Capgemini (Ed.), 2021, p. 10). This is likely attributable to the circumstance that greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment of the resources needed to run an online service are rather scarce, because the “IT-Services and underlying ICT infrastructures are complex constructs” (Grimm et al., 2013, p. 10). Knowing that, it might be even more difficult for consumers to make an educated environmentally aware decision before using online services. The point could be made that they run the risk of falling for the ‘bullshit’ produced by companies in the ICT industry. The term bullshit is commonly known as a swear word and vulgar language but was introduced into the scientific discussion by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt, who defined a concept behind the term and thus established the research on bullshit. The act of bullshitting can be described as a communication practice in which information is made up to hide one’s ignorance. To Frankfurt (2005, pp. 33–34), the most salient feature of bullshitting is the “lack of connection to a concern with truth” (pp. 33 – 34). Frankfurt’s idea of bullshit, however, is not the only one. The fellow philosopher Gerald A. Cohen (2002), describes bullshitting from a different point of view, concluding its essence to be ‘the unclarifiable unclarity’ – meaning utterances that are vague and unclear, so that in practice their truthfulness cannot be made out immediately. To Cohen (2002, p. 8), people that are exposed to bullshit are “mere victims”, not being able to spot the truth. In a similar way, as people cannot verify the actual resource consumption and emissions of online services, regardless of whether the operators are transparent about it or not. R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608584 There is crucial evidence in the scientific literature that the concept of bullshitting is useful and demonstrates its legitimacy. It has been proven to be a “legitimate psychological phenomenon” (Pennycook et al., 2015, p. 566), a “managerial communication genre” (Christensen et al., 2019, p. 1594), and a helpful method to uncover deceptive and inconsistent claims (Stevenson, 2021, p. 90). Therefore, the concept of bullshitting promises to be a fruitful method to break down the issues surrounding the sustainability awareness of online services. Research on sustainability awareness in ICT has so far only dealt with hardware and software in the users’ sphere of influence (Molla et al., 2014; Nash & Wakefield, 2021) or has not specifically defined what is understood as an IT product for end-users (Kurkoon et al., 2016). In addition, other papers only looked at products and services where a sustainability effect is advertised as a key feature, such as time-switched smart home sockets (Koo et al., 2015), which obviates the question of awareness of ‘hidden’ sustainability concerns. In general, most of the aforementioned papers have collected their data quantitatively among several types of groups but failed by having a one-sided approach. Most of the people surveyed in the studies are professionally or educationally involved in the field of ICT, which does not represent the average consumer who has no knowledge about the technical details of ICT (Hernandez, 2019, p. 8; Molla et al., 2014; Nash and Wakefield, 2021, p. 2). Unfortunately, studies that asked consumers did not focus on the online service part of ICT (Kern et al., 2011; Kurkoon et al., 2016) or only focused on a specific type of service (Grimm et al., 2013). Thus, this thesis aims to address the knowledge gap regarding awareness of ‘invisible’ sustainability concerns of online service use, from the perspective of both a sustainably aware and a technologically skilled individual. The aim is then to investigate said awareness with the help of the concept of bullshitting and lay the groundwork to understand how consumers assess offerings convoluted by bullshit claims. In order to achieve this research goal, the following leading research question and its sub-aspects need to be answered and discussed: RQ: How do sustainably awareness and IT knowledge affect young adults’ ability to spot bullshit claims made about the carbon footprint caused by online service usage? Since there is no sufficiently extensive body of research available yet on this particular topic, this work needs to build a foundation and “generate [...]initial ideas” (Bhattacherjee, 2012, p. 5), as is the case with exploratory research. The basis for answering the research question consists of qualitative data provided by interviews conducted with people from two specific groups. The groups consist of German university students, where one part of the interviewees has a background in computer science or information systems, representing individuals with IT knowledge, whereas the other part comes from the field of biology. Biology students have been chosen as the ‘opposite’ group because they are usually expected to have more knowledge about environmental awareness and sustainability than the average student (Arshad et al., 2020; Robinson & Crowther, 2001). In the context of the interviews, IT knowledge refers specifically to the basic understanding of the infrastructure needed to provide and use an online service. In order to limit the scope, this thesis only explores sustainability awareness in relation to so-called digital or online services for consumers. Services that fall under this umbrella term offer one or more of the following features: music and video streaming, messaging, social media, video conferencing, search engines, cloud storage and online games. The important point is that, for those services to function, most of the computation needs to be done by the service provider and not by the consumer locally. This is unavoidable, especially when content is provided to the consumer. Since services targeted at consumers are of the main interest for this thesis, IT services within a business context or hardware in general will not be considered. To include the business context, it would require interviewing people who use such services at work and add another set of questions, which would not necessarily help answering the specific research question but could be part of future research. Personal hardware does not have the problem that its operation is not controlled by the consumer. With hardware, production and recycling play a greater role, but the examination of this problem is also not within the scope of the research question. Still, its energy consumption should be kept in mind, because those devices are needed to access the online services in question. 2. Conceptual Foundation 2.1. Green IT and Green IS When discussing the contributions and negative effects of ICT on the environment, one always stumbles across the terms Sustainable or Green IT and IS. Which can be either understood as the research field of sustainability in ICT, or its outcome of practices developed to minimize the environmental impact of ICT. However, sustainability can be achieved in many ways and is not only limited to ICT. Therefore, it is necessary to specify how the term sustainability is defined. In research, the concept of sustainability is frequently divided into three distinct main areas or ‘pillars’: social, economic and environmental sustainability (Purvis et al., 2019). Social sustainability is mainly concerned with human well-being and equality, whereas the focus of environmental sustainability is on the conservation and protection of the ecosystem (Garren & Brinkmann, 2018, p. 4). The goal of economic sustainability is to facilitate economic growth and development in accordance to the other pillars (Purvis et al., 2019, pp. 686–689). Despite the focus on different problem areas, all pillars share the core idea of sustainability, which dates back to the 17th and 18th centuries (Purvis et al., 2019, p. 682; Warde, 2011). Most notably the term was coined by the forestry pioneer Carlowitz from around that time (Warde, 2011). He described R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 585 the approach of cutting and planting enough wood to allow it to grow back in time as sustainable (Warde, 2011, p. 162). In theory sustainability then means: not taking more than is feasible, reaching a state in a system where consumption, regeneration and disposal are at an equilibrium (Ben-Eli, 2018, p. 1339). The word ‘green’ in Green IT/IS aims at environmentally friendly technologies and practices, so it is primarily in line with the idea of environmental sustainability (Loeser, 2013, p. 5). Overall ‘green’ has been the more popular prefix than ‘sustainable’ in the past, but generelly they refer to the same idea. Therefore the Green IT/IS terminology will be adapted for this thesis (Loeser, 2013, p. 3). In its infancy Green IT/IS was not a precisely defined concept (Molla et al., 2009), but with a steadily growing body of research many endeavors have been undertaken to determine the important parts of the concept. As a means to summarize all this knowledge, Loeser (2013) has made it his task to combine all the important core aspects of the works published to date into one definition. One of the main findings of this concretization is that the two terms Green IS and Green IT usually describe different partial aspects and must therefore be defined separately (Loeser, 2013). As a comprehensive concept, IS describes “the technology components and human activities related to the management and employment process of technology within the organization” (Chen et al., 2010, p. 237), whereas IT is understood as the technological fundament for IS which provides the necessary hardand software artifacts (Ijab et al., 2010, p. 434). Following the example of the distinction between IT and IS, Green IT can be seen as a subfield of the more holistic concept of Green IS. The “crossfunctional characteristics of Green IS” (p. 6) are especially emphasized by Loeser (2013), as it combines issues of technology and organization. The differences of Green IT/IS are also expressed in their range of effects, especially in terms of management. While Green IT practices are rather utilized at the operational and tactical level of IT departments, Green IS deals with far-reaching and long-term decisions at the strategic level that influence the direction of the business and the organization as such (Ijab et al., 2010, p. 441; Loeser, 2013, p. 6). On a high level Green IT is a label for technologies and processes that have a reduced negative environmental impact compared to traditional ones, in short: they are environmentally friendly (Loeser, 2013, p. 5). This understanding can be manifested in three stages according to Loeser (2013, p. 5): First, environmental criteria should be taken into account when acquiring new IT equipment and services. Second, the operation of IT infrastructure in data centers and offices should be energy efficient. And finally, IT equipment passing the end of its life cycle should be disposed correctly or recycled. These rather operational practices can be categorized as the 1st degree environmental impact of IS (Loeser, 2013, p. 6). With Green IS, sustainability and environmental friendliness can be achieved through business process reengineering and environmental management systems. This is referred to as the 2nd degree. Furthermore, the 3rd degree is concerned with the innovation of end-user products and services, as well as tracking their emissions and resource demands. 1st and 3rd are of specific interest for this thesis, as the former is a black box to the end-user, because it involves making already established online services ‘greener’ in their operation. While the latter is directed toward the end-user by offering innovative services, claiming to contribute in an environmentally sustainable way. To reduce the 1st degree impact, big players of their respective service niche, like Google, Facebook, Netflix and Spotify, either source their energy from renewables, invest directly in renewable energy power plants, fund sustainability projects or offset emissions with RECs or carbon offsets (Facebook, 2020; Google, 2021a; Netflix, 2021; Spotify, 2021). Products and services reducing the 3rd degree impact for end consumers are for instance any smart home devices that promote to reduce energy consumption (Koo et al., 2015, p. 68; Loeser, 2013, p. 8). Furthermore, services can be enhanced with functions that should foster sustainable decisions, e.g. Google listing the carbon footprint next to the search results when searching for a flight (Google, 2021b). Another example can be services that completely market themselves as directly contributing to environmental sustainability, like the search engine Ecosia, which advertises to plant a tree for every search query on their site (Ecosia, 2022). 2.2. Awareness of Green IT and Green IS The whole concept of Green IT/IS, with its strategic, tactical, and operational orientation, as well as its three degrees of impact feels very grand. But looking past the challenges regarding its implementation in organizations, it also has its influence on the level of an individual. To get an idea about research on the individual’s awareness of Green IT/IS a brief literature review has been conducted. It has been noted by Dalvi-Esfahani et al. (2020, p. 2) that most of the earlier research was specific to an organizational context. Since the focus of this work is on the individual in the role of the enduser, papers with an organizational context were not specifically studied. Kurkoon et al. (2018) conducted a survey among Thai people familiar with technology products regarding their intention to purchase Green IT products. Those products had aspects about “energy efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emission, recycling and other eco-beneficial characteristics” (Kurkoon et al., 2018, p. 1). After evaluating 618 responses, they concluded that environmental concern is present, but knowledge about Green IT products is poor. However, they had no clear differentiation between a Green IT product and a service, despite using both terms. Hernandez (2019) investigated objective and perceived knowledge of Green IT among 288 Philippine computing students using a questionnaire. He assessed them to have average Green IT knowledge (e.g., reusing old devices, using power management, reduce paper and travelling by using digital alternatives, etc.) but are not very well informed about the R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608586 implication of resource use and energy efficiency of compute device in their development and production. Knowledge regarding online services was not part of the observation. Dalvi-Esfahani et al. (2020) looked at the individual Green IT practice of Malaysian students, who already had experience with Green IT. The result of analyzing 262 responses was that the intent to practice Green IT was found to be driven by attitude, perceived behavioral control, and personal norm. A link to online services was also not present in this study. Leung et al. (2018) surveyed students from multiple countries, regarding their Green IT knowledge and practice. In addition, unlike the studies mentioned above, question about music and video streaming services were also a part of the questionnaires. Analysis of the gathered data indicates that knowledge about sustainable ICT practices influences the individual confidence in the ability and controllability of a particular behavior, also referred to as personal behavior control, meaning an increase of Green IT information increases the perception that Green IT practice is not difficult and practicing Green IT is within reach. Molla et al. (2014) and Nash and Wakefield (2021) investigated the Green IT beliefs and practices among Australian and mostly North American IT professionals respectively. The evaluation of 322 survey responses by Molla et al. (2014) showed that IT professional believe that IT can resolve environmental problems, but only commit to simple Green IT practices. After collecting results from 157 surveys, Nash and Wakefield (2021) further discovered that self-identity in a way motivates the intention to practice Green IT, to the extent that it is part of the identity. Koo et al. (2015) focused their research on South Korean consumers perceived usefulness of smart green IT devices that are supposed to help reduce electricity consumption. After evaluating 100 questionnaire responses, they concluded that motivational values may influence perceived usefulness, in turn positively affecting consumers’ green IT usage behavior. Nevertheless, the study only narrowly looked at people already using that specific device, leaving out other products and services. Kern et al. (2011) also directed their research at consumers by performing an experiment to check whether the energy consumption of software can be improved through user configuration. They found a measurable difference, but if consumers would translate this knowledge from theory into practice was left up to debate. From the collected literature, it can be inferred that the main concern of most studies was the examination of the individuals’ Green IT adoption behavior. The lesser of those studies focused on the context outside of organizations or people who have no connection to the field of IT, professionally or in studies. Moreover, the focus was rather on practicing Green IT as an individual in the direct sense, rather than practicing it through assessing the services by their environmental friendliness or ‘hidden’ sustainability concerns as said in the introduction. In that sense, the individual Green IT awareness was not discussed in the context of companies and their services that claim to be green. Interestingly, Kern et al. (2011, p. 208) assumed that users could contribute to a sustainable internet by gathering information about the energy consumption of accessed servers, but it is not specified how and where they get the information from. 2.3. Online Service In scientific literature, the word ‘online service’ is used in many different contexts and varies slightly in the characteristics of its definition and what it actually describes. This chapter provides an overview of commonly used terms, their meaning, and finally a unified definition for use in this thesis. Terms that are often used together or synonymously are: web service, e-service, digital service, and of course online service. The term ‘web service’ emerged from computer science, as a designation in software development for functions invokable over the Internet (Baida et al., 2004, p. 2). Most often, a web service can be a technical vehicle to provision an eservice (Baida et al., 2004, p. 2; Chaudhri, 2003, p. 70; Hull et al., 2003, p. 2). According to the Council of the European Union (2011, p. 5) an e-service or ‘electronically supplied services’ are “impossible to ensure in the absence of information technology” (p. 5) and “involve[s]minimal human intervention” (p. 5), which is due to the fact that they are only accessible via the Internet or other networks and usually have a high degree of automation. Kvasnicova et al. (2016, p. 193) further define aspects such as the non-physical nature of an e-service, the need for a provider, a recipient as well as information and communication devices. They also specify that the outcome of its use “can be a benefit, service or acquisition of property” (Kvasnicova et al., 2016, p. 193). The Definition of a digital service by Pakkala and Spohrer (2019, p. 1886) shares the feature of fully relying on a technical system similar to the previous ones. But they differentiate how a specific result for a recipient is created. Namely through “digital Information, Computing, Communication and Automation Technology (ICCAT) based system[s]” (Pakkala & Spohrer, 2019, p. 1886). However, they gave no specification on how digital service are typically accessed. Online service, as a designation, has not received a definition as the previous terms have (Meszaros & Buchalcevova, 2017, p. 301). It is probably due to the reason that it is usually used synonymously or as an umbrella term for the aforementioned terms (Baida et al., 2004; Kvasnicova et al., 2016). It is mostly used to group social media, communication (messaging and video conferencing), music and video streaming, search engines, online gaming, cloud storage, etc. (Cook et al., 2017, p. 18; Kutani et al., 2021, p. 10; Obringer et al., 2021, p. 1; Schmidt, 2011, p. 30). To boil it all down in the most basic sense: an online service is a service served over the Internet. For the purposes of this thesis, however, a final distinction must be made. Following the definition of Kvasnicova et al. (2016), online-shops and online-marketplaces, like Amazon or eBay, are exempt from the idea of an online service, since they sell physical good, still requiring help of human workers. However, services providing digital goods to consumers, like iTunes (music) or Steam (games) do fall under the definition. R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 587 Following the review of the available definitions, an online service is defined as a service offered over the internet by a provider to a user, yielding a non-physical result, generated by a system based on “digital information, computing, communication and automation technology (ICCAT)” (Pakkala & Spohrer, 2019, p. 1886). 2.4. Measuring the Impact of ICT After defining what constitutes an online service, the next step is to look at how this affects the world in practice, in terms of environmental sustainability. Since this thesis looks at online services from a consumer perspective of daily use, the development process and acquisition of resources for an online service are not explicitly considered. As explained in the previous chapter, providers use ICT systems to make the service available to users, so there is no doubt that at least one server and one client device are needed, which of course consume electricity. Yet, this does not exactly represent the journey that a request to an online service goes through when sent by a user. In order to calculate the energy consumption and estimate the resulting carbon footprint, the majority of researchers categorize the energy consuming components into three groups: data centers, data transmission and enduser devices (Ericsson, 2020, p. 7; Hintemann and Hinterholzer, 2020, p. 3; Kamiya, 2020; The Shift Project, 2019). The most prominent example used in recent times for calculating the energy usage of an online service has been video streaming, not only because of its popularity among consumers, but also because it is said to be a considerable contributor to global energy consumption (Marks et al., 2020, p. 2; Widdicks et al., 2019, pp. 1–2). Plenty of methods exist to quantify the energy use, not only because other scopes are set, but also because factors change over time (Coroam˘ a, 2021, pp. 14–16; Marks et al., 2020, p. 3). For this very reason, a number of sources were compared to determine a plausible range of values for the energy impact of video streaming to use as a base for the interviews (see Chapter 3.3). The calculations for the kW/h for one hour of streaming in Table 1are based on the methods developed in each respective paper. The energy consumption for one hour of video streaming has been set into comparison with the time an LED bulb could be powered using the same amount of energy, i.e., the same number of kW/h. To get the time in minutes, the kW/h of the bulb is divided by the kW/h of the stream and then multiplied by 60. The LED light bulb was chosen as the tool of comparison because its energy consumption is easier to grasp and no knowledge of the interpretation of the unit kW/h is required. Therefore, more minutes for the bulb mean that the online service is less resource intensive. Values range from less than a minute to about half an hour. They vary considerably, not only because different end devices were taken into account for the calculation, but also between one and the same type of device due to different assumptions about their consumption. The variance of energy consumption is easily explained as bigger screens use up more energy, Ericsson (2020, p. 11) even goes as far as to say that the end-user device is the only variable having the biggest impact, labeling data transmission and data centers as constant. Kamiya (2020) however points out that the device itself is not the only factor, as the video resolution and the type of network connection (wired, wireless, mobile) also have an effect. This results in an opposite idea of the distribution of energy consumption, Hintemann and Hinterholzer (2020, p. 4) think that the data center and network infrastructure have the bigger influence, because their energy consumption scales with the resolution of the requested video stream, as it requires more computing resources. On a higher level, the calculation is additionally influenced by three essential principles: Moore’s Law, Koomey’s Law and Jevons’ Paradox. Moore’s Law describes the doubling of the number of transistors on a microchip in about every two years (Moore, 1965,1975). This effective doubling of processing power per chip, or improvement in efficiency, is by some stated as a potential driver of the decrease of energy consumption by compute devices (Coroam˘ a, 2021, p. 12; Hintemann and Hinterholzer, 2019, p. 4; Lange et al., 2020, p. 5). Others argue that this only holds true if the number of compute units stays the same and no additional servers are deployed to serve the demand (Schiettekatte, 2021, pp. 24– 25). In addition, too short a replacement cycle of more efficient hardware can also have a negative impact on the environment, because the old hardware needs to be disposed of (Ericsson, 2020, p. 6). Koomey’s Law builds upon the implications of Moore’s Law and describes that the energy consumption of a compute unit is halved roughly every one and a half years (Koomey et al., 2011). This is brought up by several researchers as an indicator for a declining trend in energy consumption (Kamiya, 2020; Lange et al., 2020, p. 4; Maxime and Jean-Noël, 2020, p. 25). However, some researchers point out a rebound effect that mitigates the effect of Moore’s and Koomey’s Law (Cook et al., 2017, p. 18; Lange et al., 2020, p. 5; Marks et al., 2020, p. 2; Santarius et al., 2020). It is also known as Jevons’ Paradox, which states that technological progress that enables more efficient use of a commodity ultimately leads to an increase in the use of that commodity, rather than a decrease (Jevons, 1866). A consumer centric example of that is the market for TVs. Display technology has become more energy efficient over time, but the screen size increased as well, meaning that consumers are inclined to buy bigger TVs, making energy savings negligible (Ericsson, 2020, p. 12). Similarly, an increase in resolution, with the move from HD to 4K, can make past savings obsolete (Hintemann & Hinterholzer, 2020). Thinking further, the ‘smartification’ of appliances, from the already established smart TV to the smart fridge, introduces more internet connected devices to the ‘traditional’ roaster of personal compute devices, like computers, smartphones and tablets (Ericsson, 2020, p. 8). Those may not be influential on the global electricity use now, but might be in the future (Andrae & Edler, 2015, p. 119). Having looked at the concerns regarding the pure energy consumption of an online service, the actual carbon footprint resulting from said consumption is up next. Ericsson (2020) developed a term for it, the digital carbon footprint. With R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608588 Table 1: Streaming Comparison Author Author background Device and video quality kW/h for 1h of streaming Minutes equiv. to hour of LED Bulb Ericsson (2020, p. 11) Swedish ICT Provider Smartphone HD 0,0180 18,33 Laptop HD 0,0450 7,33 Hintemann and Hinterholzer (2020, pp. 5–6) Borderstep Institute for Innovation and Sustainability Smartphone HD 0,2200 1,50 65" TV HD 0,3200 1,03 Kamiya (2020)International Energy Agency (IEA) 50" TV 4K 0,1521 2,17 Laptop HD 0,0462 7,14 Smartphone Auto 0,0102 32,35 The Shift Project Materials (2019)French Thinktank Smartphone HD 0,6786 0,49 Laptop HD 0,6912 0,48 Note. Minutes of video streaming equivalent to lighting a LED Bulb with 5.5W for an hour. that said, their presentation of the term is oddly similar to how the oil company BP (British Petroleum) popularized the individual carbon footprint in the first place (Kaufman, 2020). This is mainly the case because mentions of the digital carbon footprint in the original white paper by Ericsson (2020) predominantly come up with ‘your’, as in ‘the consumer’, in front of it. As it appears, BP’s marketing campaign was intended to deflect responsibility from themselves and their oil business and place it on the shoulders of consumers (Kaufman, 2020). The digital carbon footprint feels like it tries to hold consumers accountable for their online service consumption in the same way. This must be looked at critically, because, as stated previously, researchers are not on the same page on whether end-user devices have the biggest contribution to the whole energy consumption. Nonetheless, discussing the concept of the digital carbon footprint has its relevance, namely in the way the actual energy consumption is converted into grams of emitted CO2. Many researchers use the average global energy/electricity mix to model the carbon emissions of an online service. Sources for that can either be the International Energy Association (IEA) or national government institutions. The energy mix describes the blend of produced energy (e.g. energy from fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.), each having a different level of CO2emissions within a given electrical grid. Because of that, researchers emphasize that the actual carbon footprint is highly reliant on the source of the electrical energy and whether it is renewable or not (Cook and Jardim, 2019, p. 8; Maxime and Jean-Noël, 2020, p. 23; Obringer et al., 2021, p. 2). When an energy mix is claimed to be ‘green’, it also needs to be considered what the label means in that context, because some might count nuclear energy or natural gas as environmentally friendly while others might not (Cook et al., 2017, p. 38). So for consumers to “use ICT services that help to reduce carbon emissions” (Ericsson, 2020, p. 15), they need to be aware and get reliable information about factors like screen size, resolution, energy mix, and the meaning of ‘green’ labels, to make an informed decision. 2.5. Bullshitting and Greenwashing Both bullshitting and greenwashing seem to be words that are somewhat similar in their usage and meaning. One would intuitively use them to point out disbelieve in a statement or fact. With that said, ‘calling out the bullshit’ is a colloquial term used to criticize an opposing opinion in politics, journalism, and social media, that, through its frequent use, lost its rude and vulgar connotation in today’s society (Christensen et al., 2019, p. 1588). The omnipresence of information, the constant bombardment of marketing, and the emergence of fake news could lead one to suggest that “[...]we live in an age of bullshit” (Stevenson, 2021, p. 86). By contrast, calling something greenwashing specifically refers to doubtful marketing strategies and dishonest advertisement campaigns in the context of environmental sustainability and environmental friendliness (Idowu et al., 2013, p. 1321). But greenwashing also appears in annual reports, sustainability reports, and on websites of corporations (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011, p. 9). 2.5.1. Greenwashing The environmental activist Jay Westerveld first used the term when he tried to find a name for an issue he noticed while he stayed at a hotel (Orange & Cohen, 2010, p. 30). There were signs in every bathroom advising guests to reuse towels as a means to help save water. But when Westerveld investigated he was baffled, that the well-intentioned conservation of water, was a cost-saving measure to benefit the R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 589 business. A popular definition based on Westervelt’s observation describes greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service” (TerraChoice, 2009, p. 1). Lyon and Maxwell (2011) put further emphasis on withholding information by defining it as “the selective disclosure of positive information about a company’s environmental or social performance” (p. 9) resulting in an overly positive image of the company. Some companies are even willing to invest more money in the promotion of green practices than actual sustainability projects (Idowu et al., 2013, p. 1318). Since a commitment to sustainability may require major changes to a company’s business model, organization, or investments, greenwashing can be motivated by a company’s fear of change while still meeting stakeholder expectations (Sands & Morison, 2020, p. 3). But concealing unsustainable or even dangerous practices comes with a tradeoff (Sands & Morison, 2020, p. 1). Companies can receive major backlash from the public or especially environmental activists (Jong et al., 2020, p. 68; Lyon and Maxwell, 2011, p. 4). Correspondingly, the act of accusation plays a major role in the exist-ence of greenwashing, otherwise, instances of greenwashing would be undetected (Seele & Gatti, 2017, p. 248). This introduces the risk that actions could be falsely ac-cused of being greenwashing, since full transparency cannot always be provided and unrealistic expectations can be made (Seele & Gatti, 2017, pp. 244–245). Nonetheless, information published by companies must always be critically reflected, for example, reports that are self-published are not trustworthy because they are not reviewed by independent third parties (Jones, 2019; Sands & Morison, 2020). 2.5.2. Bullshitting When bullshit has been spotted, it is inherently seen as something bad (Luks, 2017, p. 86). Therefore, some say that uttering bullshit should always be avoided (Frankfurt, 2006; Spicer, 2018). In spite of the general ‘avoiding’ attitude toward bullshit, Luks (2017) points out that “without bullshit, there may be no discourse at all” (p. 90). In his view, the act of bullshitting can be utilized as a tool that contributes to discourse. Moreover, it can be used as a lubricant for stagnant discussions (Luks, 2017, p. 89). Before discussing the concept of bullshitting in detail, it is important to know the four termini used to describe the bullshit process and its participants. First of we have the entity of the (1) bullshitter, they are the source for instances of bullshit (Frankfurt, 2005). Thus, (2) bullshitting is the name for the act of producing bullshit and (3) bullshit is correspondingly the product of bullshitting. During research on the reception of bullshit, the (4) bullshitee emerged as a later addition to the bullshit terminology (ˇ Cavojová et al., 2020; Pennycook et al., 2015). The bullshitee sits at the receiving end of the bullshitting act and is in a sense targeted by the bullshitter. On a high level, bullshitting can be described as a communication practice with “the lack of connection to a concern with truth” (Frankfurt, 2005, pp. 33–34). However, a more in-depth look reveals, that there are two lines of research concerned with the concept of bullshitting, both having their origin in philosophy. Frankfurt (2005, p. 34) emphasized the utmost importance of the respect for truth in his definition of the concept of bullshitting. The fact that a bullshitter does not care for truth is more important than the fact that they do not speak the truth in the first place. In fact, in some situations, a bullshitter may be telling the truth because he may unwittingly report true information, not caring to verify its truthfulness (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 50). This is also what differentiates the bullshitter from a liar. In order to construct a lie, a liar needs to be well aware of the truth (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 51). They must be familiar with the true state of affairs to create an opposite set of facts, which in the best case do not contradict and compromise their position. Despite this important difference, the liar and the bullshitter have similar goals. They want to appear believable, represent their agenda credibly, or emerge as a winner from a dicey situation (Petrocelli, 2018, p. 250). Unfortunately, this makes it difficult to tell a liar and a bullshitter apart, given that one notices to be deceived at all. Frankfurt further specifies the motivation of the bullshitter: it is not about successful deception at the level of the communicated content, but about improving the bullshitter’s self-presentation and the effectiveness of the manipulation (Frankfurt, 2006, p. 3). That being said, the fact that the goal of bullshitting is to deceive others does not always have to be true (Carson, 2016). As the bullshitter is the center of Frankfurt’s concept of bullshitting, he assumed that the bullshitter is always the communicator of bullshit. Cohen (2002) argues that bullshit can emerge without the intent of the bullshitter. People can unintentionally spread bullshit when they do not pay attention while sharing facts from third parties. Cohen (2002, p. 8) would describe these people as “mere victims” of bullshit, innocent and with no ill intent. In contrast to Frankfurt, Cohen (2002) tries to explain bullshit only as the product and not from the view of the bullshitters mindset. As a consequence, his definition does not refer to the motivation of the bullshitter. For Cohen (2002), bullshit in itself is characterized by vagueness and ambiguousness, its truthfulness is inherently difficult to determine. This is what he calls ‘the unclarifiable unclarity’, the essence of bullshit. This is different from Frankfurt’s essence, which can be described as ‘the indifference with truth’. Unclarity can be achieved by changing the structure of a sentence to a point where a clear meaning cannot be made out or by embedding it in a context where defining factors for its truthfulness are not present (Cohen, 2002, p. 6). Given that there are two prevalent definitions of bullshitting, the question remains whether they are competing or even in some ways contradictory. When taking another look at the papers dealing with bullshit, it is apparent that the majority of researchers recognize both definitions and use them in combination (Christensen et al., 2019; Petrocelli, 2018; Spicer, 2018; Stevenson, 2021). To Cohen (2002, p. 1), Frankfurt’s definition is seen “as bullshit of a different kind”, with emphasis, that ‘Frankfurt-bullshitters’ can pro- R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608596 Table 4: Sustainability Awareness Interviewees Codes Sustainability Definition Act Sustainably BIO1 Careful use of resources, environmental friendliness Practices: sustainable food, sustainable clothing Perceived as difficult: has to drive a lot, for some things the time investment is too high BIO2 Careful use of resources, mentions economic sustainability - but no further explanation, respect for future generations Practices: sustainable food, secondhand clothing, saving electricity at home, cosmetics: shower gel and shampoo Perceived as difficult: fair trade clothing is expensive BIO3 Responsible use of resources in manufacturing and use of products, animal welfare, no exploitation of people Practice: buys regional products BIO4 Recycling, environmental friendliness, conserving resources Practices: secondhand clothing, food without plastic packaging Perceived as difficult: has guilty pleasures - not explained in detail IT1 Use of ecologically good (renewable) resources in the manufacturing and use of products, reuse (recycling), environmental friendliness Practices: cosmetics: packaging-free shower gel, shampoo and conditioner, toothbrush pastilles, bamboo toothbrushes, and washable cotton pads Perceived as difficult: Food with plastic packaging IT2 Climate neutrality, environmental friendliness IT3 Use of regenerative (renewable) resources in the manufacturing and use of products, reuse (recycling), environmental friendliness Practices: does not buy unsustainable food, public transport instead of car Perceived as difficult: emission compensation for parcel services, green labels IT4 Renewable resources/energies in the manufacturing and use of products, recycling, reduce CO2emissions Practices: recycled paper, wears clothes for a long time, flexitarian diet, sustainable food Perceived as difficult: buying used books Although none of the respondents’ definitions attempt to explain the concept at a high level, like scientific definitions such as the one by Ben-Eli (2018, p. 1339) in Chapter 2.1 do, everyone has a basic understanding of what is meant by sustainability and, more importantly, how to achieve it. In order to further validate the understanding of sustainability as a concept, but more importantly, capture the awareness of sustainability, the interviewees were asked how exactly they implement sustainability in their own everyday lives. Unfortunately, the chance was missed to ask IT2 how they practice sustainability for themselves, which is why data is missing for this interviewee in the column ‘Act Sustainably’. The most popular practice among the interviewees is trying to buy sustainable food whenever possible. Some are guided by labels that indicate fair trade or organic farming (BIO2, 13:24; IT1, 16:53; IT4, 23:39), others understand this to include purchasing regional products (BIO3, 16:15), and again others explicitly avoid products that have a bad reputation, for example the hazelnut spread ‘Nutella’, because palm oil is used in its production (IT3, 13:25). Some of the interviewees have mentioned that labels should not be blindly trusted and that it is better to pay attention to recognized labels (BIO2, 13:24; IT3, 13:25; IT4, 23:39). Others also pay attention to sustainability in cosmetics (BIO2, 13:34; IT1, 16:18). The second most popular act is buying secondhand or sustainable clothes and getting the most use out of them before buying new ones (BIO1, 15:02; BIO2, 12:49; BIO4, 10:48; IT4, 21:43). However, a hurdle was also mentioned here, relating to the fact that sustainably produced clothing is often more expensive (BIO2, 14:26). Similarly, sustainable foods were rated as more expensive, but worth spending the extra money (IT1, 39:18; IT4, 23:39). Public transport was also mentioned as a means to increase sustainability in mobility (IT3, 12:55), but some of the interviewees also admitted R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 597 that they have difficulties getting along without a car (BIO1, 12:45). In general, it was also addressed that the time required for some actions does not do justice to the preservation of sustainability (BIO1, 12:45). All in all, respondents convey a credible commitment to the practice of sustainability in their everyday lives, however, none mentioned concrete Green IT practices, such as using secondhand smartphones or power-saving on devices at home. On top of that the lack of awareness toward online services in a direct sense, was already apparent as seen in Chapter 4.1, because everyone stated that they do not actively pay attention to sustainability in online services. A look at the sustainable activities collected indicates a lack of active efforts to achieve sustainability in the use of technology. 4.3.3. Reasons for the Lack of Sustainability Awareness of Online Services So far, the results paint the picture that the young adults who participated in the interviews have a lack of sustainability awareness for online services. Since this is rather alarming, possible reasons and factors were collected from the interviews, which were either mentioned directly by the interviewees or emerged from the context. Table 5groups individual reasons and factors into three groups of main codes. The first group of codes summarizes aspects that directly relate to the lack of awareness. The second group’s codes collect incentives to use online services. And lastly, reasons against the use of online services were listed in the third group of codes. With the most coded segments in both groups in total, ‘Not thinking about it’ is not a reason per se, but it shows that the interviewees are open to admit their shortcomings when asked. It could translate to them not having enough occasions where they are confronted with the topic. ‘Powerlessness’ directly refers to the belief that acting sustainably does not have an impact on the big picture, possibly lowering the intention to take action. For example, some would not feel any achievement by using an online service claiming to be green (IT2, 23:22; IT3, 25:33) because it would not make any difference (BIO1, 32:10). Segments coded with ‘Unapplied Knowledge’ include expressions of concern related to sustainability of online services, like cooling or energy consumption, but ultimately do not seem to have a lasting impression on the assessment, as they are followed by statements coded with ‘Not thinking about it’ (BIO4, 09:21; IT3, 16:56). Notably, some of this ‘Unapplied knowledge’ is sometimes prone to technical errors, as the assumption that the coolant used by data centers has to be ‘dumped somewhere’ (BIO1, 35:23), is not exactly right. In fact, most liquid cooling systems use closed-loop systems where coolant is circulated, having no need to dispose of it regularly (Ebrahimi et al., 2014, p. 627; Iyengar et al., 2012, p. 213). A very interesting reason given by the interviewees with an IT background is the fact that online services have no physical appearance and might therefore be more difficult to assess, as explained in an example by IT1 (39:18), where the quality of an organic chicken (as food) can be better judged than a service claiming to be green. Some of the members of the IT group simply stated that, as the code says, ‘Privacy is preferred’ to sustainability, which influences the choice of services. This will later be relevant when presenting the data for the Google example, as the same interviewees are not users of Google services, but it also indicates a clear prioritization when it comes to features of online services. While the codes ‘Small User Base’ and ‘No Alternative’ have been only coded once each, their specific problematization justify their existence. The former refers to the problem that alternative (sustainable) platforms are not attractive to new users because the initial user base is very small, which, for example, in the case of a messenger, limits the number of people with whom one can communicate on that platform (IT1, 41:55). The latter refers to the hurdle that some services might not have a sustainable alternative available. To express that there are no usable alternatives for certain online services, IT2 (26:07) uses an analogy. From the point of view of utility and energy consumption, a bicycle is a better alternative for a car than an encyclopedia for a search engine. A big reason why the interviewees tend to prefer online services is convenience. Examples of online services creating convenience include online banking (IT1, 07:21), food delivery (IT4, 08:41), booking trips online (BIO3, 06:59), and music or video streaming (IT4, 09:14) because these offer a large selection to choose from, flexibility, and a low effort to use (BIO1, 08:46; BIO3, 02:20; IT3, 05:46). Another reason to use online services coded as ‘No choice’ is that sometimes one is simply forced to use them. A prominent example by the interviewees is that university documents or learning material can only be obtained via the university’s online portals (BIO2, 03:44; BIO3, 07:46; IT4, 05:43). Interestingly, the interviewees do not express if they see this circumstance as a bad thing, which thematically fits in with thecode ‘Ubiquity’. The interviewees say, that online services have already become part of their everyday life and that a lot can only be done via the Internet, which makes online services quietly and steadily omnipresent (BIO2, 15:24; IT2, 05:36; IT3, 04:15). Finally, some concerns were raised about the use of online services, outside of sustainability. As already noted, online services have no physical form and, according to the definition used in this thesis, require as little human intervention as possible. BIO3 (06:59) stresses this as a downside, as they would prefer personal contact, as in face-to-face consultation, where guidance or advice is valued by the customer. They also would not like to have everything provided as an online service because to them these have the potential to replace jobs of the people, who would have performed this service previously (BIO3, 06:59). Interestingly, the convenience of an online service is also mentioned in the same paragraph, suggesting that it is seen as a trade-off. 4.3.4. Attitude Toward Google During the interview, it has already become clear that it cannot be assumed that every participant uses Google as their preferred search engine. Therefore, it was also surveyed R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608598 Table 5: Reasons for Poor Awareness Group BIO IT Mentions Once per int. Total Once per int. Total Reasons to Disregard Sustainability of Online Services Not thinking about it 4 10 4 8 Powerlessness 3 4 3 3 Unapplied Knowledge 2 4 2 2 Immateriality 0 0 2 3 Privacy is preferred 0 0 2 2 Small User Base 0 0 1 1 No Alternative 0 0 1 1 Reasons to Use Online Services Convenience 3 5 3 8 No Choice 2 3 1 1 Ubiquity 1 1 2 2 Reasons to Not Use Online Services No Personal Contact 1 1 0 0 Replacing Jobs 1 1 0 0 Note. ‘Once per Int.’ shows the appearance of the code counted once per interview. ‘Total’ counts every instance of a coded segment in all interviews. which search engine was used and why. This resulted in the following data, which can be seen in Table 6. Among all interview participants, the majority of interviewees use Google as the preffered search engine. It has to be pointed out, that two of these people were not exactly sure at first if they use Google as a search provider. BIO3 (26:01) said that they are using Safari on a Mac and therefore not using Google Search, it was made clear to them that they are probably using Google because it is the default option in Safari. Similarly, IT1 (41:30) stated that they directly type the search query into the address bar. They realized soon after that, that Google would probably be the default search provider in that case too. BIO2 (19:58) and IT3 (23:09) did not explicitly state that they do not use Google by the time the interview section has been introduced. (BIO4, 15:23) stated they use Google, but should use Ecosia, as the ‘sustainable alternative’ to Google. Nevertheless, they stay with Google out of convenience and shy away from switching. The two that have specified to use DuckDuckGo, said that they want to protect their privacy which in this case is more important to them than sustainability (IT2, 17:56; IT4, 25:11). However, IT4 (25:55) added that they occasionally use the Google Drive cloud storage service with a throwaway account. Out of the four people who know Ecosia as a sustainable search engine, there is only one person who actually uses it. Those who know about it did not seem particularly convinced of it either. Ecosia was described as a search engine that ‘supposedly’ plants trees for each search query (IT3, 25:33). IT1 (39:18) said they know Ecosia but are not familiar enough with it to declare if the company behind the search engine really plants the trees as they claim. Even the one that uses Ecosia expressed, that Ecosia at least advertises that they act sustainably (BIO1, 21:28). They knew about the rough number of trees that have been planted so far but disclosed that they did not research it themselves, but got the information from their professor (BIO1, 27:40). After clarifying which search engine they prefer, the interviewees were asked, what they knew about Google’s sustainability efforts. Most of those interviewed said they did not know anything about it (BIO2, 19:52; BIO3, 25:47; BIO4, 26:45; IT1, 25:29; IT4, 30:40). Hardly anyone was aware of the slogan “CO2-neutral seit 2007” [eng.: carbon neutral since 2007]at the bottom of the German desktop version of Google Search. Some were even surprised that Google is committed to sustainability (BIO4, 27:10). Others said that they only know negative headlines about Amazon and their data centers and therefore assume that Google, as a big tech company, cannot be any better (IT1, 26:06). The opposing code to ‘No Knowledge [...]’ is called ‘Some Knowledge about Google’s Efforts’ with emphasis on ‘some’, because the statements were very broad or not exactly correct. Of course, comprehensive knowledge on the subject cannot be demanded, but only one example would R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 599 Table 6: Preferred Search Engine Preferred Search Engine Interviewee BIO1 BIO2 BIO3 BIO4 IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 Google X X X DuckDuckGo X X Ecosia X Aware of Ecosia X X X X Unsure X X Table 7: Knowledge about Google’s Sustainability Efforts Knowledge Interviewee BIO1 BIO2 BIO3 BIO4 IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 No Knowledge X X X X X X Some Knowledge X X not suffice for basic knowledge if one presents oneself as particularly committed to sustainability. As an example, IT2 (17:07) heard that Google has started to build data centers in the sea to reduce electricity costs for cooling. After asking a follow-up question, it was specified that Google submerged tanks with servers inside, which were presumably deposited off the coast of Scotland. But it turns out this was not Google after all. The venture was a pilot project by Microsoft (Cellan-Jones, 2020) therefore it must be a mix-up. Now that the interviewees’ ‘basic attitude’ towards the company has been presented, their statements on Google’s commitment and the spokesperson’s statement can be addressed. This was achieved by looking at the relationships between the codes describing the attitude toward Google and the ‘basic attitude’ from before the commitment and the statement were presented to the interviewees. A relationship exists if a code from the y-axis and the x-axis of the table occurs in the same transcript, i.e., they were mentioned by the same interviewee. The four tables 8to 11 have the codes for the ‘Attitude toward Google’ on the left and the codes indicating their preferred search engine and knowledge about Google’s sustainability effort on the top. It is important to add that the codes on the left differ between the context of the commitment and the statement, as new aspects were added by the interviewees when the statement was disclosed. The results for the BIO group and the IT group are displayed in separate tables because of size constraints. The maximum value in the top line indicates the maximum number of relations a code can have, since there can only be as many relations as there is people coded with the code in the top row (see Table 6and Table 7). Looking at the tables 8and 9, it is apparent that the most common code is ‘Better than nothing’ with no definite affiliation to a group or a ‘basic attitude’. For example, the participants say that the commitment is well-intentioned, but the effect of it needs to be proven (IT2, 21:53; IT3, 24:42). The option for choice is welcomed, but it is speculated whether the implementation of the commitment has only a small effect or any effect at all (BIO2, 22:53; BIO4, 28:23). All in all, none seem particularly enthusiastic about the commitment and see the exemplary implementation of it (see Chapter 2.1) as a ‘nice to have’ rather than a game-changer. The overall skepticism against Google and its actions toward sustainability seems to be more apparent within the IT group. As in ‘we need to question this’ (IT3, 13:58), ‘is it really like that’ (IT1, 32:12), or ‘what do the numbers actually mean’ (IT4, 31:59). Concrete criticism however is comparable in number between both groups. ‘Carbon Offsets’ were only mentioned by one interviewee in the IT group out of all participants. They assumed that Google achieves its carbon neutral status by using those instead of actively reducing its emissions (IT1, 35:10). ‘Conflicting Interests’ were also mentioned by only one respondent from the BIO group. What they saw as a conflict of interest in Google’s implementation of the commitment is, that the carbon rating and advertisements by third parties on their platform could compete, potentially impacting the revenue stream for Google (BIO1, 24:05). To them, this would compromise the implementation of the commitment. Both IT1 (39:18) and BIO4 (10:48) call Google’s slogan and their implementation of the commitment greenwashing, and even bullshit. They describe it as misleading advertisement and as a scam [ger.: “Masche”]alike (BIO4, 28:23). Although not R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608600 Table 8: Attitude toward Google (Commitment/BIO group) Attitude toward Google Aware of Ecosia (max. 1) Google (max. 2) Unsure (max. 1) Ecosia (max. 1) No Knowledge (max. 4) Total mentions Better than nothing 1 2 1 1 4 7 Carbon Offsets - - - - - 0 Conflicting Interests - - - 1 1 1 Greenwashing 1 1 - - 1 3 Lack of Transparency - - - 1 1 1 Offloading to Consumers 1 2 - - 2 3 Skepticism - - - 1 1 1 Table 9: Attitude toward Google (Commitment/IT group) Attitude toward Google Aware of Ecosia (max. 3) Google (max. 1) Unsure (max. 1) DuckDuckGo (max. 2) No Knowledge (max. 2) Some Knowledge (max. 2) Total mentions Better than nothing 3 1 1 2 2 2 5 Carbon Offsets 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 Conflicting Interests - - - - - - 0 Greenwashing 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 Lack of Transparency 2 - 1 1 1 1 3 Offloading to Consumers 2 - 1 2 2 1 3 Skepticism 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 directly related to Google, it was noted under ‘Lack of Transparency’ that BIO1 (26:48) does not think that the information from Ecosia, on how many trees they planted, is realistic. They said that they could ‘theoretically’ get information on that, but the wording makes it sound more like they have not done so yet. The information released by companies is generally seen as ambiguous (IT1, 39:18; IT2, 20:14). The code ‘Offloading to Consumers’ is present in both groups again. Some interviewees expressed outrage, because the commitment seemed like Google was trying to transfer its responsibility to the customer while taking credit for the sustainability efforts (IT1, 30:06; IT4, 33:26). IT2 (21:53) even links it directly to the ‘scandal’ about BP’s individual carbon footprint discussed in Chapter 2.2. Members of the BIO group call the commitment an excuse for Google to call itself sustainable or wishful thinking that people do make the more sustainable decision thanks to a Google service (BIO2, 24:35; BIO4, 31:50). As already mentioned, the codes in the following tables (Table 10 and Table 11) are slightly different from the ones before. ‘Better than Nothing’ and ‘Carbon Offsets’ did not come up again in the context of the statement by the Google spokesperson. However, the codes ‘Intolerable Behavior’, ‘Statement is Understandable’, and ‘Company has the power to change’ needed to be defined to capture statements concerned with these aspects. Since ‘Better than Nothing’ is one of the few codes that can be associated positively, the overall mood shifts to the negative after the statement is presented. From all of the newly emerged codes, ‘Intolerable Behavior’ has the most negative connotation. The initial reaction to the statement of the spokesperson is that the image of Google is ‘weak’ and ‘wrong’, as they are not carbon neutral on all accounts (IT1, 44:09). Most interviewees agree that the route traveled via the Internet should also be factored in. Others say that since this statement is true, carbon neutrality should not be advertised in this way because it is dishonest (BIO3, 33:28, 38:14). Some even go so far as to say that this is consumer fraud, as the statement is disguised by the general public portrayal of Google (BIO2, 33:46). The code ‘Company has the power to change’ has two slightly different variants: on one hand it is assumed that Google, as a major player in the market, could use its power to enforce regulation in its supply chain (IT3, 30:32; IT4, 39:14). On the other hand, it is demanded that they just do so (BIO4, 37:27). While the first assertion, appeals to Google’s drive, the second skips this and demands direct action. Going fur- R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 601 Table 10: Attitude toward Google (Statement/BIO group) Attitude toward Google Aware of Ecosia (max. 1) Google (max. 2) Unsure (max. 1) Ecosia (max. 1) No Knowledge (max. 4) Total mentions Company has the power to change 1 1 - - 1 1 Conflicting Interests - - - 1 1 1 Greenwashing 1 2 1 - 3 5 Intolerable Behavior - 1 1 - 2 3 Lack of Transparency - 1 1 1 3 5 Offloading to Consumers - - - - - 0 Skepticism - - - 1 1 1 Statement is Understandable 1 1 1 - 2 2 Table 11: Attitude toward Google (Statement/IT group) Attitude toward Google Aware of Ecosia (max. 3) Google (max. 1) Unsure (max. 1) DuckDuckGo (max. 2) No Knowledge (max. 2) Some Knowledge (max. 2) Total mentions* Company has the power to change 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Interests - - - - - - 0 Greenwashing 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 Intolerable Behavior 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 Lack of Transparency - - - - - - 0 Offloading to Consumers - - - 1 1 - 1 Skepticism - - - - - - 0 Statement is Understandable 1 1 - 2 1 2 3 ther, ‘Statement is Understandable’, while not overly positive, shows some interviewees to be in part considerate of Google. It is accepted that Google does not have control over the entire route that their online services take over the network (IT3, 31:58). For most, however, this consideration does not last long. This ‘truth’ is then contrasted with the fact that one then cannot advertise with complete carbon neutrality (BIO3, 38:14). Wich in part leads back to the idea of ‘Offloading to Consumers’ (IT4, 39:14). To preserve its legitimacy it should then be Google’s obligation to stop such misleading practices (BIO4, 37:27). Some said they had already guessed that there would be a catch, and they did not expect to be surprised (BIO1, 34:32; IT2, 28:03). The tables show that the code ‘Greenwashing’ occurs more frequently in the BIO group after the statement has been presented, while it remains unchanged in the IT group. IT1 (45:35) consolidated their point of view by reiterating their greenwashing accusation. BIO4 (36:02) also reinstated the point, that the slogan is ‘bullshit’ and felt vindicated. Google’s image is now described as ‘contradictory’, ‘fake’, and ‘different behind the scenes’ (BIO2, 30:07, 31:38; BIO3, 33:28). ‘Lack of Transparency’ came up more frequently in the BIO group as well, by contrast, the aspect was not repeated in the IT group. BIO1 (29:57) used the example of Amazon to explain that it is tricky to understand what actually happens when an order is placed. They criticized that those orders show up in multiple packages even though it was chosen to deliver them all at once. BIO2 (33:46) followed suit to admit that it is difficult to assess such claims, they also added that the statement allows Google to use it as an excuse if they are accused of lying. More transparent handling of the matter was demanded by BIO3 (34:42). Lastly, the codes ‘Conflicting Interests’ and ‘Offloading to Consumers’ appeared only once again each. The former was repeated in a slight variation (BIO1, 35:23) and the latter was mentioned again to underpin the point that the commitment is dishonest (IT4, 39:14). R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608602 4.3.5. Opinions on the Responsibility for Sustainability Between the commitment and the statement part of the interview, the interviewees were asked which side, i.e., consumer or company, should take more responsibility for sustainability. This and the emergent question about political intervention provide the data for Table 12. The table clearly shows that there is no permanently assignable opinion, neither to a group nor to specific interviewees, as they sometimes express several viewpoints. From left to right, BIO1 has the most varied opinion. To them, the main responsibility was first with the companies (28:12), then it was added that the customer is also in part responsible (28:12). After that, it was noted that companies cannot be responsible for everything (29:57) and at last it was stated that no one wants to take full responsibility (32:45). BIO2 (25:35) took a clearer stand, to them the responsibility is of equal parts. BIO3 (31:27) shared the same opinion and emphasized that everyone must do their part. BIO4 (34:01) takes the stance that companies should be made responsible, as they have not cared in the past. To them, relying on the consumers” initiative yields little to nothing. IT1 (36:27) would see the responsibility on the company’s side because they are in the position of power. They added that the purchasing power of the consumer could influence a company’s actions if an alternative product is available, but they still think that the contribution of the consumer is important (45:35). IT2 (24:25) argued that it is not easy to decide who should bear the responsibility, but they stressed that companies who call themselves sustainable should be held liable for it (30:52). IT3 (27:41) is the only one among the interviewees who thinks that the responsibility is with the consumer, they justify it by market mechanisms. To them, companies would move toward sustainability through supply and demand (27:58). Lastly, IT4 (35:44) would not distinguish between ‘either-or’ but would attribute significantly more to companies because they are the main polluters. 5. Discussion The research question aims to address two sub-aspects, firstly the effect of sustainability awareness and IT knowledge in assessing the sustainability of online services, and secondly whether bullshit claims about the sustainability of these online services can be detected. To evaluate if the collected qualitative data contribute to answering the research question, the results are discussed in the respective chapters with regard to the two sub-aspects. Subsequently, the theoretical contribution and practical implications, as well as the limitations of the work, are addressed. 5.1. Influence of Sustainability Awareness and IT Knowledge The results strongly suggest that it does not matter whether a higher level of sustainability awareness or IT knowledge influence the awareness of the sustainability of online services, as all participants effectively say that they do not consciously pay attention to whether an online service is sustainable or not. With that said, the sustainability awareness is similar between groups, so no direct link can be made to IT knowledge. A more detailed survey of personal sustainable practices based on the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS) by Markle (2013) might have allowed for a finer distinction, but would also have taken time away from other important parts of the interview. The PEBS would enable to measure the ‘performance’ of the environmental behavior rather than describing it as basic, as in the case of this thesis (Markle, 2013, p. 912). The assessment of IT knowledge was clearer, as the IT students were able to explain the background of online services more convincingly and in much greater detail. Accordingly, the statements were also technically correct when compared to the conceptual foundation of this thesis. As previous research projects have shown, it cannot generally be concluded that Green IT will be practiced more just because sustainability awareness is increasing among the population as a whole (Koo et al., 2015, p. 75; Kurkoon et al., 2018, p. 9; Leung et al., 2018, pp. 2–3). This is also confirmed by this thesis in the context of online services, which have not yet been studied in such detail. Likewise, the interviews uncovered reasons responsible for the low awareness of sustainability concerning online services. These will now be discussed and compared to existing literature to see if the same or similar findings have already been made or if other barriers exist exclusively for online services. The most prominent issue is the lack of knowledge that came up with the code ‘Not thinking about it’. It is not to be understood as a lack of interest, but as a lack of education, as the interviewees made the impression that they were eager to know how online services can be sustainable (BIO3, 17:37). The fact that the interviewees do not practice sustainability in terms of online services, because they do not know where to start, coincides with the findings of Leung et al. (2018, p. 9), who conclude that a good understanding of Green IT increases the confidence in practicing Green IT. Kurkoon et al. (2018, p. 4) point out that ‘noticeability’ is also an important factor influencing the intention to use Green IT products. Noticeability is understood as the ability to recognize green products as such, based on the observation that consumers would like to use sustainable products, but most of the time do not know what qualifies as a sustainable product. This is reminiscent of how the interviewees initially did not know what a sustainable online service could be, with the exception that only a few named Ecosia as an example. The idea of the ‘Perceived Green Benefit’ by Kurkoon et al. (2018, p. 4), goes a step further, as it partially requires knowledge about Green IT. The perceived green benefit describes the added value of a sustainable product that a consumer expects individually. The added value, i.e., the advantages of a Green IT product, are also crucial for the intention to use them. Besides partly relating to the code ‘Not thinking about it’, it is comparable to the statements coded as ‘Powerlessness’, as it summarizes the feeling that acting sustainably does not have an impact, thus not creating any value in R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 603 Table 12: Opinion on who has Responsibility for Sustainability BIO1 BIO2 BIO3 BIO4 IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 Equal Responsibility X X X X X Responsibility of Consumers/Users X X Responsibility of Companies X X X X X choosing a particular green service. An extreme example of that would be the statement of IT3 (25:20), who does not think that Google’s services provide any sustainable benefit to them. Despite that, they still use Google for searching the web, which from the sustainability perspective goes against the point of Koo et al. (2015, p. 71), who argue that the perceived usefulness prolongs the use of green products. However, it is apparent that the reason for using Google is not primarily sustainability, but convenience. To be swayed by convenience is another important aspect that came up in the interviews and has been discussed in previous research. Kurkoon et al. (2018, p. 4) address this with the idea of ‘Resource Sacrifice’, meaning that green products or services tend to be less feature-rich and lack performance in comparison to non-sustainable ones. While the interviewees did not draw a direct comparison between a sustainable and a non-sustainable service, it was very evident that they value the convenience of online services over regular services, as listed in Chapter 4.3.3, and conversely would rather not return to the ‘old’ way. The issues labeled as ‘Small User Base’ and ‘No alternative’ also share the sentiment of not wanting to give up something in turn for sustainability. For the example of video streaming, Leung et al. (2018, p. 8) found that people would choose streaming providers based on cost and quality rather than sustainability when they indicated that they found it difficult to practice Green IT. Although it is not about the same properties, this finding is similar to the preference for privacy of some interviewees. One aspect that is only briefly touched upon by previous research is the immateriality of online services. It is mentioned that “green products and services are likely to be abstract objects” (Kurkoon et al., 2016, p. 599) from the perspective of consumers, making it difficult to assess them. But given the context, which further explains the idea of noticeability mentioned earlier, the word abstract is referring to green products and services being difficult to grasp and not the abstraction of a service from the material to the digital world. Koo et al. (2015, p. 68) argue that the effects of Green IT and Green IS can actually be seen by consumers across products and services. However, the results of this thesis contradict this assertion, because the interviewees state that sustainability is not immediately apparent to them in online services. Koo et al. (2015, p. 68) further note that the usefulness perceived by the consumer depends on whether the effects of sustainability are obvious to the consumer. This might be true for the power monitoring devices looked at in their study, but online services seem to act differently in that regard. Since the interviewees struggled to make sense of the sustainability of online services, the effects are not obvious or perhaps not made obvious enough. One last observation worth mentioning is that the interview partner who uses Ecosia does it based on a recommendation and does not really seem convinced either (BIO1, 22:03). However, Kurkoon et al. (2018, p. 9) described the influence of the social environment as insignificant, which contrasts with previous studies that assumed the opposite, as they themselves affirm. Even if this is only a single case, it is still interesting to note that this usage decision is motivated more by extrinsic than intrinsic motivation. Since all other sustainability practices seemed to be done out of conviction. Thus, social influence is credited with having some degree of impact. Looking at the discussed aspects, it can be concluded that some influencing factors of Green IT products can be transferred to online services, but hurdles have also been identified that have not been considered so far in research. In the end, it does not matter whether sustainability awareness or IT knowledge is more strongly developed, in the end, Green IT knowledge must be promoted directly to the consumer as already concluded by Leung et al. (2018, p. 9). 5.2. Ability to Spot Bullshit Claims The question of whether the interviewees were able to debunk Google’s bullshit claims is difficult to answer. Overall, it is clear that the interviewees generally had doubts about the feasibility or usefulness of the commitment that Google has made, even though the commitment is considered good in principle. Moreover, this critical attitude develops and is confirmed or even strengthened with the unveiling of the statement of the press spokesperson. Now, this stands however in strong contrast to the conclusion that as good as nobody pays attention to the sustainability of online services and beyond that nobody really knew what Google does for sustainability at all. There is no discernible connection between the coded critical statements, and the preferred search engine and knowledge about Google’s activities to promote sustainability. This raises the question of whether this criticism and skepticism are justified at all when no one really knows what Google contributes to sustainability in practice. But it also seems obvious that this is precisely the problem. Many interview partners have mentioned the lack of transparency and R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608604 difficult comprehensibility as a point of criticism. This could explain the aforementioned lack of knowledge. However, it is unclear whether it is the lack of transparency on the part of the company or the ignorance of consumers who regularly use Google. There is a hint of this kind of ignorance because at one point it was subliminally admitted that someone could look it up if they wanted to (BIO1, 26:48). The others have not expressed themselves in this way, but it cannot be ruled out that they too act this way. This is, again, difficult to determine from the interview material ex-post. It would have required asking questions regarding the gathering of information, which was not considered beforehand. However, it would generally be wrong to completely doubt the basic skepticism of the interviewees toward Google because critical questioning is right and important. But one can ask whether the interviewees might not be bullshitting themselves. It does not fit: they do not know what Google is doing at all, criticize them, and partly use their services anyway. It almost seems like a form of ‘meta-bullshit’. Accusing Google of bullshitting for downplaying important details in marketing is one thing, but doing so on a basis of unawareness, which fits the practice of bullshitting, makes the accusation seem less genuine. Still, the bullshit was recognized, so the assessment of the interviewees is correct. Yet, as stated in the conceptual foundation, the produced bullshit can still be ‘true’ despite the lack of knowledge about the ‘truth’. However, it can be ruled out that the kind of bullshit in which the interviewees are interwoven is Frankfurt bullshit. This is the case because the interviewees are presumably not pursuing the motive of appearing particularly critical and environmentally aware in the interview. Otherwise, they would have claimed from the start to pay attention to sustainability in online services. The interviewees rather fell for Cohen bullshit. That is justified in the fact that many of the interview partners came back to the assumption that large companies, including Google, can only be up to no good (BIO1, 32:45; BIO4, 34:01; IT1, 26:06). This is an assertion that is often said about large companies in the vernacular, which is also confirmed by scandals from time to time, see the example of BP in Chapter 2.4. The skepticism is therefore based mostly on the assumption that large companies are bad, instead of having concrete information. Since the interviewees have no concrete knowledge about Google’s sustainability efforts, it has to be said that Google does not do a good job of being convincing and trustworthy when it comes to sustainability, provided that they really do what they say. It remains surprising that the direct accusations of bullshit and greenwashing also tended to come from those who even use Google, although with such a small number of respondents this could also be a coincidence. If the previous interpretations are summarized, it can be stated that there is a discrepancy between what is done and what is said. Without the interviews, this discrepancy might not have become visible at all, because the interviewees would not have been asked about it. It is surprising that among all the critical comments, there were also concessions to Google, some of which expressed agreement that Google has no influence. This is in contrast to the fact that Google is credited with having the power to change something. What is particularly striking here is that in some cases one and the same person expressed these points, which in itself sounds contradictory (BIO4, IT3, IT4). Yet whether this is an inconsistency in the interviewees’ opinions or a misfortune in formulation lies within the scope of interpretation of the material and cannot be answered unequivocally. Lastly, the question about responsibility for sustainability did reveal the positions of individual interviewees. However, it did not help to identify patterns in the interview material. The opinions of the interviewees on this topic are varied, as are their reasons. What can be inferred, however, is that most of them do not see the responsibility entirely in the hands of one party. Which partly reflects the obligation of the companies to publish information [ger.: ‘Bringschuld’] and the obligation to collect information of the consumers [ger.: ‘Holschuld’], as a result of the transparency dilemma mentioned earlier. 6. Conclusion In conclusion, neither the level of sustainability awareness nor the IT knowledge of young adults contribute to the assessment of the sustainability of online services , as the results of the of the interview show. It has been found that interviewees have few clues about the issue of sustainability in online services. Reasons contributing to this lack of knowledge were identified and discussed. The latter part of the research question, regarding the ability to spot bullshit claims, can be partially answered but not fully explained. While the interviewees did point out issues with Google’s portrayal of being sustainable, those callouts of ‘bullshit’ were rather based on general assumptions than on concrete knowledge. It could not be finally answered how there can be a connection that the interviewees know almost nothing about Google in the context of sustainability but are nevertheless aware of the possible bullshit. In addition, it remains unclear why some still use Google altogether. 6.1. Theoretical Contribution On the one hand, this thesis contributes through theory building as new observations were made. Most notably, the immateriality of online services as a reason for the difficulty in evaluating their sustainability or the discrepancy between the attitude toward Google and the use of its services. From these phenomena, new hypotheses can be derived that can in turn become the basis for a theoretical explanation. On the other hand, this thesis also contributes by theory testing to some extent. Previous hypotheses and theories from the literature that are originally applied to the quantitative approach of questionnaires, were field-tested with the qualitative approach of interviews. Both theory testing and theory building are of utmost importance to create good theories and enable “advancements in science” (Bhattacherjee, R. Roskosch /Junior Management Science 10(3) (2025) 582-608 605 2012, p. 4). Since the approach to answering the research question in two sub-aspects provided both expected and unexpected results, it allows for progress in both areas. Furthermore, this study adds to the existing literature on the reception of green IT products and practices by more specifically looking at the research subject of online services. 6.2. Practical Implication The main implication of this thesis is that users of online services should be made more aware of the factors that influence the energy consumption of such a service or ICT in general. Consumers should be empowered, to look beyond the general criticism of ICT-providing companies and engage with what they claim to be doing for sustainability. In addition, they should also obtain concrete third-party information on that if possible, to separate the bullshit from the facts. Companies can also learn from the results of the interviews. They should take care to provide information in a more accessible way to have a more convincing effect on consumers. Efforts to promote sustainability should not be misunderstood as mere marketing when it is in fact genuine. Nevertheless, the information problem, as discussed, comes from both sides, so the information must be accessible enough to be accepted in order to reach the masses. Only in this way can sustainable development, driven and supported by consumers, achieve its full potential. 6.3. Limitations As with any interview with pre-structured questions, it cannot be ruled out that other factors or topics not asked in the interviews may influence the results of the research. For example, a missed question remains: Would those who use Google’s services continue to use them after critically discussing them in the interview, or would they perhaps refrain from doing so? It could be hypothesized that they ignore the criticism they have voiced at the next opportunity, a la ‘Ignorance is Bliss’. What speaks for this is the ‘convenience’, as described in Chapter 5.1 but since the interviews did not cover this point in-depth, this cannot be answered with what was learned from the results. In the same vein, the phrase “guilty pleasure” (BIO4, 16:38) is also interesting but was unfortunately not discussed further in the interview. Furthermore, it was wrong to assume that everyone who could participate in the interviews is familiar with Google. Although the opportunity to gain insights from other search engine users was embraced, it could have been better integrated into the interviews if this had been considered from the beginning. The generalizability of the results from young adults to consumers is limited due to the sample size. Simply said every student is a consumer, but not every consumer is a student. The target group only represents a section of all possible types of consumers. In addition, the interviews could very well lead to different results, if other interview partners were acquired, let alone if the age group of the field of studies were defined differently. In turn for gaining deeper insight, the individual nature of the interviewees’ responses further limits the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, the study is limited by the objectivity of the researcher, as they might have an influence on the interview (Alsaawi, 2014, p. 155). Because of that, the results could be unconsciously biased in a favorable direction. This bias was mitigated to the best of the researcher’s knowledge by using the method of semi-structured interviews in which the interview guideline was reviewed by third parties to avoid leading questions. Nevertheless, this study advances the research on the topic and contributes to closing the research gap. 6.4. Future Research Since this work has encountered some limitations in its execution, these should be taken into account in further research. Among those limitations were, as explained, missed aspects, questions, and the general issue of generalizability. To address these, researchers could design a survey based on the interview guideline and the code system to see if the same results occur in a large group of people. Especially the codes for the reasons for the lack of sustainability should be verified with a more representative group of respondents. In addition, two hypotheses can be derived from the discussion that should be considered in particular in the future. First, immateriality affects the assessment of online services in terms of sustainability. And second, convenience influences the willingness to change the current online service usage behavior. Furthermore, the discrepancy between factual knowledge and broad criticism toward Google should be further investigated, as it is unclear whether this behavior is limited to the interview participants and how it can be explained. The research could also be conducted from a different perspective. Instead of looking at the reception of consumers, exclusively, it could also be investigated what companies can do to be more genuine and trustworthy when actively contributing to sustainability. Finally, it should be considered which measures can be developed to help consumers become more aware of sustainability when choosing their online services. As the present thesis exposes the shortcomings in the handling of the topic by companies and consumers alike. References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress,40, “Article 7”, 64–65. Alsaawi, A. (2014). A Critical Review of Qualitative Interviews. SSRN Electronic Journal.https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819536 Andrae, A., & Edler, T. (2015). On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges,6(1), 117–157. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe6010117 Arshad, H., Saleem, K., Shafi, S., Ahmad, T., & Kanwal, S. (2020). Environmental Awareness, Concern, Attitude and Behavior of University Students: A Comparison Across Academic Disciplines. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,30(1), 561–570. https://doi.org/1 0.15244/pjoes/122617 Baida, Z., Gordijn, J., & Omelayenko, B. (2004). A shared service terminology for online service provisioning. In M. Janssen, H. G. Sol, & R. W. Wagenaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce - ICEC ’04 (p. 1). https://doi.org /10.1145/1052220.1052222