Corporate carbon-neutrality commitments have proliferated, but the credibility of corporate transitions depends on whether climate ambition is translated into measurable operational change. Firms must make connected decisions about energy, production, procurement, logistics, product design, capital allocation, and value-chain relationships while balancing environmental objectives with financial viability. This article examines how data-driven decision-making (DDDM) can strengthen corporate environmental performance during carbon-neutrality transitions. It develops an integrative review of recent research on digital transformation, environmental management, carbon accounting, sustainability disclosure, and net-zero governance, supplemented by authoritative standards and climate assessments published since 2021. The synthesis identifies five mechanisms through which DDDM may create environmental value: impact visibility, analytical diagnosis, operational optimization, cross-functional coordination, and accountability-based learning. It also identifies conditions under which these mechanisms are weakened, including poor data quality, fragmented systems, weak managerial incentives, uncertain Scope 3 estimates, rebound effects, and the substitution of carbon credits for gross emissions reductions. The article proposes a conceptual framework linking data infrastructure and analytical capabilities to decision routines, implemented interventions, and verified environmental outcomes. Governance quality, regulatory pressure, supplier influence, and organizational learning are theorized as important boundary conditions. The article concludes that DDDM should be treated as a strategic organizational capability rather than a reporting tool or technology purchase. Its contribution should be assessed not by the volume of data collected, but by whether the data change decisions and support additional, measurable, and verifiable environmental improvements without undermining long-term economic resilience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saiyed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: