Transforming our World through Software:
Mapping the Sustainability Awareness Framework to the UN Sustainable
Development Goals
Norbert Seyff
1 a
, Stefanie Betz
2 b
, Dominic Lammert
2
, Jari Porras
3 c
, Leticia Duboc
4 d
,
Ian Brooks
5 e
, Ruzanna Chitchyan
6 f
, Colin C. Venters
7 g
and Birgit Penzenstadler
8,9 h
1
FHNW & University of Zurich, Switzerland
2
Furtwangen University, Germany
3
Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, Finland
4
La Salle - University Ramon Llull, Spain
5
University of the West of England, U.K.
6
University of Bristol, U.K.
7
University of Hudderfield, U.K.
8
Chalmers, Sweden
9
LUT, Finland
Keywords:
Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, Requirements Engineering, Software Engineering, SusAF.
Abstract:
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations focus on key issues for the transformation
of our world towards sustainability. We argue for stronger integration of the SDGs into requirements and
software engineering and for the creation of methods and tools that support the analysis of potential effects of
software systems on sustainability in general and on SDGs in particular. To demonstrate one way of under-
taking this integration, we report on how the Sustainability Awareness Framework (SusAF – a tool developed
by the authors of this paper) can be mapped to the SDGs, allowing the identification of potential effects of
software systems on sustainability and on the SDGs. This mapping exercise demonstrates that it is possible for
requirements engineers working on a specific system to consider that system’s impact with respect to SDGs.
1 INTRODUCTION
“The Sustainable Development Goals are the
blueprint for achieving a better and more sustainable
future for all. They address the global challenges we
face, including those related to poverty, inequality,
climate change, environmental degradation, peace
and justice. The 17 Goals are all interconnected,
and in order to leave no one behind, it is important
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0138-892X
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3613-5893
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3669-8503
d
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-7437-2101
e
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6227-327X
f
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6293-3445
g
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8664-9107
h
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5771-0455
that we achieve them all by 2030. (United Nations
General Assembly, 2015)
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) stim-
ulate the transformation of our world towards sustain-
ability (United Nations General Assembly, 2015) (see
Fig. 1). Though the SDGs do not focus on software
systems and software development, the transforma-
tion of our world is strongly driven by software as
an integral part of modern societies. We already see
that there are more and more software systems built
to support one or more SDGs, such as systems help-
ing to avoid food waste (SDG12) or to support online
teaching (SDG4).
As software engineers who are concerned with
socio-technical systems development as well as fur-
thering the SDGs, we must understand if and to what
extent a particular software system supports or hurts
Seyff, N., Betz, S., Lammert, D., Porras, J., Duboc, L., Brooks, I., Chitchyan, R., Venters, C. and Penzenstadler, B.
Transforming our World through Software: Mapping the Sustainability Awareness Framework to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
DOI: 10.5220/0011063200003176
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2022), pages 417-425
ISBN: 978-989-758-568-5; ISSN: 2184-4895
Copyright
c
2022 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
417
one or more of the SDGs. However, to our knowl-
edge, currently, there are no systematic methods and
tools (see Section II) which support such analysis.
While we consider the development of novel soft-
ware systems that embrace the SDGs as essential for
transforming our world, we are also aware that most
software systems are built without sustainability in
mind (Chitchyan et al., 2016). Yet, these “ordinary”
software systems too will (positively or negatively)
impact the world and the SDGs. The overarching
question for our ongoing research is: How to system-
atically identify if and how a software system affects
the SDGs?
The Sustainability Awareness Framework
(SusAF) is a framework developed and validated by
the authors of this paper (Duboc et al., 2019) (Duboc
et al., 2020). It raises awareness of the potential
effects of IT systems on the social, technical, eco-
nomic, environmental and individual aspects of
sustainability. Therefore, it can provide a starting
point answer our overarching question. Thus, this
paper focuses on exploring how SusAF can be linked
with SDG-related impact identification and analysis.
Therefore, our current concrete research question is:
Can SusAF assist the identification of how software
systems affect the SDGs? The result of investigating
and answering this question will be a framework that
enables requirements engineers to understand and
analyse how a software system they develop would
relate to the SDGs. Presenting this novel framework
and applying it in a case study will result in a first full
research contribution once this research is complete.
The main contribution of the present paper (as part of
the ongoing work towards the intended full contribu-
tion) is undertaking a pilot study for demonstrating
the feasibility of linking SusAF with the SDGs.
In Section II, we provide an overview of the SDGs
and their use. Section III presents our overall vision.
Section IV presents SusAF. In Section V, we describe
the mapping of SusAF to the SDGs. Section VI dis-
cusses lessons learned, and Section VII provides more
details on the next steps.
2 BACKGROUND
The UN SDGs have been analysed from different per-
spectives and integrated into different analysis frame-
works. The 17 SDGs, which are decomposed to
169 targets, can be achieved through their supporting
actions (United Nations General Assembly, 2015).
These together have the potential to transform the na-
ture of human development and make environmental
and social sustainability a defining characteristic of
economic activity (Stevens and Kanie, 2016). How-
ever, researchers also argue that the utilisation and
prioritisation of SDGs requires a proper level of sys-
tems thinking (Morton et al., 2017). Filho et al. have
shown how these SDGs can be used for better under-
standing sustainability challenges (Filho et al., 2019).
Their primary goal is to increase the understanding
of the different SDGs and their utilisation for poli-
cymaking. Morton et al. (Morton et al., 2017) state
that even though the SDGs can be divided into ve ar-
eas of critical importance (people, planet, prosperity,
peace and partnership), the way that different coun-
tries pursue these SDGs will be different based on
locally assessed impacts (both positive and negative)
on other goals (Fleming et al., 2017). Consequently,
analysing SDGs requires an understanding of both
each individual goal as well as the inter-goal interac-
tions. The study of various interactions, both positive
co-benefits and negative trade-offs, between different
SDGs has been under analysis in various domains.
Many presume that the SDGs and targets are mutu-
ally supporting, i.e. to progress in one area requires
progress in other areas (Nilsson et al., 2017). How-
ever, both researchers and policymakers have already
highlighted that there can be conflicts as well as sup-
port between SDGs. The work of Nilsson et al. (Nils-
son et al., 2016), for instance, focuses on seven differ-
ent interaction types between SDGs from indivisible
to cancelling. They also show the implications of their
framework (Nilsson et al., 2018) in various contexts
(governance, geographic, and time) in different appli-
cation domains (health, energy and oceans) and pro-
pose a web-based knowledge platform that takes their
research as well as policymaking into account. The
work of Singh et al. on SDG14 (Life Below Water)
shows the full complexity of cross-SDG effects with
267 relationships (both positive and negative as well
as a prerequisite and optional) between the targets of
SDG14 and the other SDGs (Singh et al., 2017). Sim-
ilar kinds of interactions could be seen in other do-
mains like health (Morton et al., 2019). An SDG inte-
gration framework has also been proposed for the cor-
porate value creation process (Adams, 2017), though
this approach does not emphasise accountability as
emphasised by Morton et al. (Morton et al., 2017).
Stafford-Smith et al. show how the interdependencies
among the SDGs work across various sectors, societal
actors and between countries (Stafford Smith et al.,
2017).
To summarise, the SDGs and their interlinkages
have been analysed from different perspectives and
in different domains. In addition to our more general
overview of the use and impact of the SDGs presented
above, we have also started a literature review of work
ENASE 2022 - 17th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering
418
Figure 1: The 17 SDGs of the UN.
on SDGs and software and requirements engineering
specifically. Based on an initial analysis, we see that
there exists only limited work on studies or models
that link the SDGs to software system development or
software systems effects to the SDGs such as (Brooks,
2020). We are aware that we are drawing early con-
clusions, but these findings strongly motivated us to
pursue the research described in this paper.
3 VISION: SUSTAINABILITY AS
A KEY ASPECT FOR ALL
SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
Software systems have an important role in society,
and as such, they should support one or more Sustain-
able Development Goals. While the importance of
the SDGs is widely recognised, we as requirements
engineers are often unaware or neglect that existing
software systems also have an effect on sustainabil-
ity. In addition to building systems targeting specific
SDGs, it is also essential to understand how a system
may affect different SDGs. The most obvious way is
to look at the vision (key features) for a software sys-
tem and compare it with the SDGs. This could iden-
tify contributions of software systems to the SDGs
that were not known before or lead to the change of
some features to better align the system with an SDG.
Consider, for example, a software system supporting
teaching activities at a university, which has a clear
relation to the SDG4 Quality Education. Such a
system could either be built with SDG4 in mind, or if
it already existed, a comparison of the system purpose
with this and other SDGs could be used to understand
how the system is contributing to sustainable devel-
opment. Therefore, it is clear that supporting SDGs
is strongly linked with the overall purpose of the ap-
plication and that SDGs are relevant for software sys-
tems that have been built with sustainability in mind.
However, this level of consideration is not enough.
We also need methods and tools that allow us to in-
vestigate the potential sustainability effects of ordi-
nary software systems and relate them to SDGs. This
starts with their requirements (Becker et al., 2016),
which need to be analysed to understand their poten-
tial effects on sustainability. Doing so allows us to go
beyond building systems that are intentionally devel-
oped to support one or more SDGs: it allows us to
make any software system more sustainable. Ideally,
these novel methods and tools would allow us to con-
nect the insights gained about a system to the SDGs
and, with this, to understand how the software system
supports or jeopardises them.
4 THE SUSTAINABILITY
AWARENESS FRAMEWORK
(SusAF)
There exist methods and tools which allow a discus-
sion of the sustainability effects of ordinary systems
(e.g., (Hilty and Aebischer, 2015) (Alharthi et al.,
Transforming our World through Software: Mapping the Sustainability Awareness Framework to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
419
2018) (Seyff et al., 2018)). We selected the Sustain-
ability Awareness Framework (SusAF) (Duboc et al.,
2020) as the basis for our ongoing research because
it is well described in the literature, and relevant arte-
facts for working with SusAF are publicly available
(Penzenstadler et al., 2020).
SusAF (Duboc et al., 2020) increases awareness
of the relationship between software systems and sus-
tainability by supporting the identification and discus-
sion of the potential effects of such systems on ve
dimensions: economic, environmental, social, indi-
vidual and technical (described in Table 1). SusAF is
composed of a set of questions, a visualisation tool,
guidelines and examples, which are used together to
support the identification and discussion of the poten-
tial effects. We briefly discuss these elements below.
The questions are grouped into the five sustain-
ability dimensions, covering the topics described in
Table 1. The main results of the discussion can be
visualised in the Sustainability Awareness Diagram
(SusAD). The SusAD is an adapted radar chart that
is divided into five slices one for each sustainabil-
ity dimension – and three concentric areas, represent-
ing the immediate, enabling and systemic effects of
a software system (see Table 2). It aims to ease the
visualisation and discussion of the potential chains-
of-effects, which describe how effects can lead to one
another over time. The guidelines and examples en-
hance the understanding, and support the application,
of SusAF.
5 MAPPING OF SusAF TO THE
SDGs
The first contribution of our ongoing research is
an initial, piloted mapping between the SDGs and
SusAF. We carried out a thematic analysis of the top-
ics and questions tackled by the SusAF framework (as
shown in Table 1) and those addressed by the SDGs
(see below, the examples in Stage 1 and 2). One of the
authors conducted the deductive qualitative content
analysis based on (Mayring, 2000) where the coding
guides or category systems are based on the SusAF
topics and the 17 SDGs. The analysis was conducted
in two stages: in the first stage, a general feasibility
of the mapping was considered, after which a detailed
mapping was carried out. Both mappings are briefly
discussed below:
Stage 1: The General Feasibility of Mapping. Here
one of the authors analysed the 25 SusAF topics
1
1
These are listed under Dimensions:Topics heading of
Table 1.
(e.g., participation) and their corresponding questions
in order to identify their relationships with the 169
targets of the 17 SDGs. The topics were considered
related to the SDG where at least one of the SusAF
topic’s questions could be linked to a target of that
SDG. For example, for SusAF’s social dimension and
its topic equality, the question “Can the system make
people be treated differently from each other?” was
mapped to the SDG target 5.1, “End all forms of dis-
crimination against all women and girls everywhere.
which is part of SDG 5 “Gender Equality” because
discrimination against women and girls is an example
of how ‘people can be treated differently’. Therefore,
SusAF’s “equality” topic was linked with the SDG 5
“Gender Equality”. In this way, all SusAF topics were
mapped to one or more SDGs. Having ascertained
the overall relatedness of concepts across SusAF and
SDGs, a more detailed mapping was conducted by the
same author at the second stage to investigate if the
SusAF does cover all points of the SDGs in detail.
Stage 2: The Detailed Mapping. At this stage, one of
the authors carried out a systematic and transparent
deductive qualitative content analysis using maxqda
tool
2
. Here, the 95 questions of SusAF and the 169
SDG targets were independently coded into semantic
categories, which were then compared. If the same
code appeared both in the codeset of a SusAF ques-
tion and in an SDG target, the topic belonging to this
question and the SDG belonging to this target were
mapped. For example, the code “Nature: plants and
animals” can be found in SusAF question “Can the
system impact the plants or animals around it?” of
the topic biodiversity of the environmental domain,
as well as in SDG target 15.4 “By 2030, ensure the
conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their
biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to pro-
vide benefits that are essential for sustainable devel-
opment” of SDG 15 Life On Land. The detailed map-
ping confirmed that SusAF largely corresponds to the
targets of the SDGs. Details can be found in (Lam-
mert and Betz, 2021).
In this piloted detailed mapping, we observed that
5 of the SusAF topics were not directly linked with
any of the SDG targets. These topics are Maintain-
ability, Adaptability, Security and Scalability (Tech-
nical Dimension) and Trust (Social Dimension). We
postulate that topics referring to the Technical dimen-
sion of SusAF relate to the specific technical solu-
tions through which many of the SDGs will be de-
livered, but, given that technical solutions are not dis-
cussed at the abstraction level of the SDGs, the direct
links were not immediately identifiable. Additionally,
Trust, though essential for social sustainability and
2
https://www.maxqda.com/
ENASE 2022 - 17th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering
420
Table 1: Coverage and Questions of the Five Sustainability Dimensions in the SusAF based on (Duboc et al., 2020).
Dimensions: Topics Coverage and Questions
Economic: value, CRM, supply
chain, governance, innovation
The financial aspects and business value. The questions are about how
the system creates or destroys value, how it affects the relationship be-
tween businesses and customers, whether it alters a business supply
chain, governance, processes, or R&D.
Environmental: material & reso-
urces, waste & pollution, bio- diver-
sity, energy and logistics
The use and stewardship of natural resources. The questions are about
how the system may affect the consumption of resources, the production
of waste, pollution and emissions and biodiversity.
Social: community, trust, inclusive-
ness, equity and participation
The relationships between individuals and groups. The questions are
about how the system may affect people’s sense of belonging, their trust
in its surroundings, their perception of others, how they participate in
social groups, or whether they are receiving the same treatment as oth-
ers.
Individual: Health, lifelong learn-
ing, privacy, safety & agency
The individual’s ability to thrive, exercise their rights, and develop
freely. The questions are about how the usage of the system may af-
fect the individual themselves, that is, a person’s physical and mental
health, on their level of knowledge, on their privacy, safety and ability
to act on its surroundings.
Technical: maintainability, usabil-
ity, adaptability, security & scala-
bility
The technical system’s ability to accommodate changes. The questions
aim to identify how the system is maintained and used over time, and
to illustrate the system’s ability of change and adaptability of the func-
tionalities into the change environment, and whether the security of the
system and privacy of its users are considered.
Table 2: Definition of the order of effects (Betz et al., 2015).
Order of effects Definition
Immediate (or ’first order’) effects Are concerned with the immediate impacts resulting from the produc-
tion, use and disposal of software systems, such as energy use. This
can be measured using metrics based on performance requirements or
network bandwidth, for example.
Enabling (or ’second order’) effects Are concerned with the benefits and impacts of ongoing use of the
software system. E.g. This might be, for example, how a web search
engine reduces the cost of access to information.
Structural (or ’third order ’) effects Are concerned with changes resulting from the use of software systems
by a very large number of people over medium to long term, leading to
substantial changes in societal structures such as new laws, politics, or
social norms., or economic structures such as the networked economy.
functioning of the society, appears not to be explic-
itly addressed in the SDG targets.
Furthermore, we found 42 SDG targets that could
not be mapped to SusAF questions. This is a signif-
icant number (25% of the overall targets). We pos-
tulate that one possible reason is that many of these
targets are focusing partially on developing countries
and specific industries. For example, target “10.a Spe-
cial and differential treatment for dev. countries” and
“3.a Tobacco control in all countries”. The other rea-
son is that SusAF was deliberately designed not to be
comprehensive; it aims to kick-start a first exploration
of how technology products and services may affect
sustainability; study of the more detailed aspects of
each system would follow on from this initial explo-
ration (Duboc et al., 2019).
The two tables showing targets and questions that
could not be mapped in this pilot study are provided
in (Lammert and Betz, 2021). Further study and val-
idation of these mapping results and their causes is a
key part of our immediate future research.
The diagram in Fig. 2, showing the mapping, can
be read from the inside out as follows:
The inner-circle shows the five interrelated di-
mensions targeted by SusAF: the individual, so-
cial, economic, technical and environmental di-
mension.
The second circle shows the five topics that drive
the questions for each of the five dimensions. The
individual dimension, for example, concerns pri-
vacy, agency, safety, lifelong learning and health.
Transforming our World through Software: Mapping the Sustainability Awareness Framework to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
421
Finally, the third (outer) circle lists the SDGs
where we have found a mapping between SusAF
topic and SDG Target level. The targets for which
we found a mapping can be seen in the data folder
for this paper (Lammert and Betz, 2021). For ex-
ample, health in the individual dimension can be
connected with six SDGs: 1 No Poverty, 3 Good
Health and Well-Being, 5 Gender Equality, 9 In-
dustry, Innovation and Infrastructure, 12 Respon-
sible Consumption and Production and 6 Clean
Water and Sanitation.
6 LESSONS LEARNED AND
OPEN ISSUES
Overall, we distill several lessons learned through
conducting this pilot mapping:
1. Commonality of concerns is revealed, fostering
transparency and accountability. We observe
that although SusAF is focused on the analysis
of technical products and services and SDGs ad-
dress country or planetary level concerns, the vast
majority of issues considered across both frame-
works are common. As a result, there can be a
clear mapping established across these two frame-
works. We expect that this, in turns, means that
it is possible to identify which SDGs an individ-
ual software system would impact. This provides
both transparency and accountability to the SE
profession in general and RE practitioners in par-
ticular: we can and must consider which SDGs
we affect through our software development ac-
tivities.
2. SusAF is at a different level of abstraction from
the SDGs. As the SDGs specify the high-level
goals and targets that countries need to work to-
wards, they, by necessity, do not detail the specific
technical or other solutions that would be used to
achieve the set goals. However, the impact of the
technical solutions themselves must also be con-
sidered on the SDGs.
3. The relation of technical systems to SDGs may
not be obvious at first sight. Our mapping sug-
gests that technical systems have positive and/or
negative impacts on the SDGs that are not related
to their purpose. For example, research has shown
that the peer-to-peer short-term accommodation
rental platform Airbnb induces racialized gentri-
fication in New York, which is negatively related
to SDG 10 (Reduce Inequalities) and in particu-
lar with the target 10.2 (“promote the social, eco-
nomic and political inclusion of all, irrespective
of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, reli-
gion or economic or other status”) (Wachsmuth
and Weisler, 2018). Thus, the SusAF can help to
identify potential hidden effects of technical sys-
tems on the SDGs.
4. Empirical Evidence is needed to validate the
mapping. The domain and system context might
have an influence on the mapping between SusAF
and SDGs, as presently, these were carried out
without case study-based validation. Take, for ex-
ample, the educational system exemplified in Sec-
tion III. The main functionality of the system is to
support teaching activities at a university to im-
prove quality education. Additionally, the system
may also support lifelong learning if it provides
content for a wider public, not only the students.
When applying SusAF we identify that the system
supports “lifelong learning” (a topic of SusAF)
that is linked to SDG4 Quality Education.
5. Threats to the study validity. The work pre-
sented in this paper fosters a better understanding
of how software solution choices can contribute
to/hurt the broader SDGs, and while we present
the above preliminary findings, we must also note
several threats to this pilot study’s validity:
As noted above, this preliminary mapping is
presented with no validation case studies; thus,
it is possible that we have missed and/or mis-
represented various areas in which SusAF ques-
tions can help us see how software systems
could impact SDGs. Thus, the mapping must
undergo case-study based validation.
Furthermore, as discussed in the Background
section of this paper, we have strong evidence
of (positive and negative) interaction among
SDGs. However, at this pilot study, the interac-
tions consideration has not been included into
our mapping process, which may necessitate
future revisions.
Equally important, we have not involved SDGs
experts in the mapping process. Also, since
the mapping is created from the perspective of
a single person, it could have resulted in bi-
ased impact representation and interpretation of
mapping. However, the mapping has been re-
viewed by two other researchers on a random
basis and by one researcher thoroughly, if dis-
crepancies in the mapping emerged, they were
discussed until a consensus was reached. Nev-
ertheless, external SDG expert validation and
the participation of multiple people is another
open issue to address for this work.
Yet, despite the possible researcher and validation bi-
ENASE 2022 - 17th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering
422
Figure 2: Mapping between SusAF and the SDGs.
ases, this paper demonstrates the feasibility of map-
ping SusAF to the SDGs, helping to bridge the ab-
straction gap that software practitioners must face
when contemplating the impacts and contributions of
their software systems to SDGs and sustainability.
7 NEXT STEPS AND
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, we piloted our mapping study
using thematic analysis across SuSAF questions and
SDG targets and actions. We intend to both validate
the initial results presented above, and refine them us-
ing a case study (to be conducted in collaboration with
an industry partner). We envision this in the context
of software systems evolution to support the indus-
try partner in better understanding whether their pro-
posed changes will support or violate specific SDGs.
With this first application, we expect to validate our
mapping in the context of a specific system and do-
main. We also envision a second more sophisticated
mapping involving multiple authors and an SDG ex-
pert still knowing that any mapping might have a
subjective character influenced by the opinions and
knowledge of the people conducting the mapping. In
Transforming our World through Software: Mapping the Sustainability Awareness Framework to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
423
the course of this planned research, we will also ex-
plore the reasons for the 25% of SDG targets not
being mapped by exploring whether there are areas
where SusAF could be enhanced or whether some tar-
gets are simply not amenable to mapping to software-
supported solutions as well as looking into other pos-
sible reasons.
We conclude that this pilot mapping shows a
strong relatedness between the SusAF requirements
analysis framework and the UN SDGs. Consequently,
the socio-technical impacts of each individual soft-
ware system can be directly attributed to specific
SDGs. We hope that, armed with this knowledge and
the SuSAF tool, software system owners, engineers
and stakeholders could now start to consider how their
systems contribute to the SDGs and take more respon-
sibility for the systems they create or own.
It is worth emphasizing that with this work, we
do not want to suggest that software systems are the
only means through which one could achieving the
SDGs, but they are one of the tools in the toolbox of
transition to sustainability. By presenting our work
at ENASE as a position paper, we hope to gener-
ate a deeper discussion on the operationalisation of
the SDGs and to gain new insights into how to pro-
ceed with our research. Furthermore, with this con-
tribution, we want to stimulate the software engineer-
ing community to develop new methods and tools for
contributing to the SDGs through software.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is partially funded by the UK EPSRC
Refactoring Energy Systems (EP/R007373/1) project
and the Digitaldialog 21 Project.
REFERENCES
Adams, C. A. (2017). The sustainable development goals,
integrated thinking and the integrated report. Interna-
tional Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC).
Alharthi, A., Spichkova, M., and Hamilton, M. (2018). Su-
softpro: Sustainability profiling for software.
Becker, C., Betz, S., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easter-
brook, S. M., Penzenstadler, B., Seyff, N., and Ven-
ters, C. C. (2016). Requirements: The key to sustain-
ability. IEEE Software, 33(1):56–65.
Betz, S., Becker, C., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easter-
brook, S., Penzenstadler, B., Seyff, N., and Venters,
C. (2015). Sustainability debt: A metaphor to sup-
port sustainability design decisions. CEUR Workshop
Proceedings, 1416:55–63.
Brooks, I. (2020). The united nations sustainable develop-
ment goals in systems engineering: Eliciting sustain-
ability requirements. In 7th International Conference
on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S2020), pages 196–
199. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Chitchyan, R., Becker, C., Betz, S., Duboc, L., Penzen-
stadler, B., Seyff, N., and Venters, C. C. (2016).
Sustainability design in requirements engineering:
State of practice. In 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th Interna-
tional Conference on Software Engineering Compan-
ion (ICSE-C), pages 533–542.
Duboc, L., Betz, S., Penzenstadler, B., Akinli Kocak, S.,
Chitchyan, R., Leifler, O., Porras, J., Seyff, N., and
Venters, C. C. (2019). Do we really know what we are
building? raising awareness of potential sustainability
effects of software systems in requirements engineer-
ing. In 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements
Engineering Conference (RE), pages 6–16.
Duboc, L., Penzenstadler, B., Porras, J., Akinli Kocak, S.,
Betz, S., Chitchyan, R., Leifler, O., Seyff, N., and
Venters, C. C. (2020). Requirements engineering for
sustainability: an awareness framework for designing
software systems for a better tomorrow. Requirements
Engineering, 25.
Filho, W., Tripathi, S. K., Andrade Guerra, J. B., Gine, R.,
Orlovic Lovren, V., and Willats, J. (2019). Using the
sustainable development goals towards a better under-
standing of sustainability challenges. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecol-
ogy, 26(2):179–190.
Fleming, A., Wise, R., Hansen, H., and Sams, L. (2017).
The sustainable development goals: A case study. Ma-
rine Policy, 86:94–103.
Hilty, L. and Aebischer, B. (2015). ICT for Sustainability:
An Emerging Research Field, volume 310, pages 3–
36.
Lammert, D. and Betz, S. (2021). ENASE Data Folder.
https://figshare.com/s/ce84deccfd049670d0b6.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative So-
cial Research, 1(2).
Morton, S., Pencheon, D., and Bickler, G. (2019). The
sustainable development goals provide an important
framework for addressing dangerous climate change
and achieving wider public health benefits. Public
Health, 174:65–68.
Morton, S., Pencheon, D., and Squires, N. (2017). Sustain-
able development goals (sdgs), and their implementa-
tion: A national global framework for health, devel-
opment and equity needs a systems approach at every
level. British medical bulletin, 124:1–10.
Nilsson, M., Chisholm, E., Griggs, D., Howden-Chapman,
P., McCollum, D., Messerli, P., Neumann, B., Ste-
vance, A.-S., Visbeck, M., and Stafford Smith, M.
(2018). Mapping interactions between the sustainable
development goals: lessons learned and ways forward.
Sustainability Science, 13:1–15.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., and Visbeck, M. (2016). Pol-
icy: Map the interactions between sustainable devel-
opment goals. Nature, 534:320–322.
ENASE 2022 - 17th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering
424
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., Ringler, C., and Mc-
Collum, D. (2017). A framework for understanding
sustainable development goal interactions. a guide to
sdg interactions: From science to implementation. In-
ternational Council for Science.
Penzenstadler, B., Duboc, L., Akinli Kocak, S., Becker, C.,
Betz, S., Chitchyan, R., Easterbrook, S., Leifler, O.,
Porras, J., Seyff, N., and Venters, C. C. (2020). The
SusA Workshop - improving sustainability awareness
to inform future business process and systems design.
Seyff, N., Betz, S., Duboc, L., Venters, C., Becker, C.,
Chitchyan, R., Penzenstadler, B., and N
¨
obauer, M.
(2018). Tailoring requirements negotiation to sustain-
ability. pages 304–314.
Singh, G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A., Swartz, W., Cheung,
W., Guy, A., Kenny, T.-A., Mcowen, C., Asch, R.,
Geffert, J., Wabnitz, C., Sumaila, R., Hanich, Q., and
Ota, Y. (2017). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and
trade-offs among sustainable development goals. Ma-
rine Policy, 93.
Stafford Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Rey-
ers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach,
M., and O’Connell, D. (2017). Integration: the key to
implementing the sustainable development goals. Sus-
tainability Science, 12.
Stevens, C. and Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative po-
tential of the sustainable development goals (sdgs). In-
ternational Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law
and Economics, 16.
United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming
our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-
ment.
Wachsmuth, D. and Weisler, A. (2018). Airbnb and the
rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
50(6):1147–1170.
Transforming our World through Software: Mapping the Sustainability Awareness Framework to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
425