Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire

Study

Jennifer Gross

, Temesgen Hagos Mengesha and Soﬁa Ouhbi

Dept. Information Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

ﬁ

Keywords:

Software Sustainability, Questionnaire Study, Industry, Practitioners, Perceptions.

Abstract:

Despite growing awareness, many industry efforts regarding software sustainability often appear superﬁcial

and fail to address its complex, multifaceted nature. This paper examines software sustainability practices in

the industry through the perspectives of IT practitioners. A questionnaire study involving 23 professionals

based in Sweden revealed a signiﬁcant gap in understanding, with 35% of participants unfamiliar with the

term “software sustainability.” Most deﬁnitions provided by participants focused on technical aspects, over-

looking economic and social dimensions. The ﬁndings indicate that key barriers perceived by participants to

integrating sustainability include a lack of awareness, time and budget constraints, and skepticism toward sus-

tainability metrics. A majority of respondents recognized the link between sustainability and software quality.

To promote sustainable software practices, respondents recommended embedding sustainability into industry

practices and educational curricula, as well as developing clear metrics to measure its impact.

1 INTRODUCTION

Software plays a vital role in various sectors, includ-

ing education, healthcare, and industry, with global

software sales projected to reach $896.20 billion by

2029 (Statista, 2024). As Information and Communi-

cations Technology (ICT) systems now consume 10%

of the world’s electricity (Verdecchia et al., 2021), the

urgency of incorporating sustainability into software

development has never been greater. Understanding

how sustainability principles are applied throughout

the software development lifecycle is essential as our

reliance on software continues to grow.

Despite increasing awareness, many industry ef-

forts regarding sustainability are perceived as super-

ﬁcial, often overlooking the complexities of the issue

(Kretschmer, 2022). Sustainability is a multifaceted

concept that encompasses technical, social, environ-

mental, and economic dimensions (McGuire et al.,

2023). Sustainable software can be deﬁned as soft-

ware that minimizes environmental impact and maxi-

mizes resource efﬁciency across all stages of its life-

cycle, while also considering economic and social

factors (Calero et al., 2021). However, the software

engineering research community lacks a consensus on

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6397-4087

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7614-9731

what constitutes sustainable software (McGuire et al.,

2023; Gross and Ouhbi, 2024a).

In the ICT industry, the complexity of software

sustainability is often oversimpliﬁed, resulting in

strategies that focus narrowly on aspects such as en-

ergy efﬁciency or software durability, while neglect-

ing broader, interconnected sustainability elements

(Venters et al., 2023). A recent tertiary study (Gross

and Ouhbi, 2024a) identiﬁed several key challenges

that impede progress in the ﬁeld: ambiguity in deﬁn-

ing software sustainability, uncertainty about when to

integrate sustainability into software development, a

lack of assessment metrics and tools, limited perspec-

tives on sustainability in software systems, and insuf-

ﬁcient awareness of sustainable practices among de-

velopers and end-users.

While various research studies have explored soft-

ware sustainability, little is known about current in-

dustry practices. A recent review (Danushi et al.,

2024) focusing on environmental sustainability found

that the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of exist-

ing environmentally sustainable software design so-

lutions is low, with few studies reaching advanced

stages—an essential requirement for advancing the

ﬁeld in practice.

This paper addresses the gap in research on how

software sustainability is implemented in the indus-

try by exploring the perspectives of IT practition-

Gross, J., Mengesha, T. H. and Ouhbi, S.

Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0013405300003928

In Proceedings of the 20th Inter national Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2025), pages 197-207

ISBN: 978-989-758-742-9; ISSN: 2184-4895

197

ers. We conducted a questionnaire study to gather

insights from industry professionals regarding their

awareness and implementation of software sustain-

ability. Speciﬁcally, this paper seeks to answer the

following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How do IT professionals perceive software

sustainability?

RQ2: How do IT professionals perceive the relation-

ship between software quality and software sus-

tainability?

RQ3: How do IT professionals perceive the feasibil-

ity and obstacles of incorporating sustainability

into practice?

2 RELATED WORK

The study by (Oyedeji et al., 2021) utilized grounded

theory derived from a workshop with various software

development practitioners to understand their deﬁni-

tions of software sustainability. They compared these

practitioners’ deﬁnitions with those from academia.

Initially, when asked, 75% of early-career develop-

ers reported having no understanding of software sus-

tainability, in contrast to 75% of mid-level and se-

nior practitioners, who had some form of deﬁnition.

The study revealed that practitioners prioritized eco-

nomic and technical sustainability as the most impor-

tant dimensions, while they perceived no connection

between their work and social sustainability. The au-

thors emphasized the need for greater collaboration

between academia and industry to align their percep-

tions of software sustainability.

The study by (Karita et al., 2022) aimed to

bridge this knowledge gap by enhancing professional

competencies and establishing an industry-standard

framework for software sustainability. Their research,

which included a systematic mapping study and in-

dustry surveys, highlighted the importance of involv-

ing stakeholders and managing trade-offs when ad-

dressing sustainability concerns throughout the soft-

ware development lifecycle. They connected these

concerns to ﬁve key dimensions of sustainability:

economic, environmental, technical, social, and indi-

vidual.

The study by (Bambazek et al., 2022) examined

practitioners’ perspectives on integrating sustainabil-

ity into agile development, focusing speciﬁcally on

the Scrum framework. They found that practitioners

often struggled to incorporate sustainability into ag-

ile practices, underscoring the need for expert input

to effectively assess the impacts of software systems.

While Scrum was viewed as a potential solution, not

all of its artifacts aligned with sustainability princi-

ples.

The study by (Heldal et al., 2024) conducted in-

terviews across 27 organizations in nine countries

to investigate the challenges faced in achieving sus-

tainability goals within software development. Their

study found that, despite organizations’ eagerness to

assess the sustainability impacts of their products and

processes, a lack of expertise in the ﬁeld hindered

progress. This knowledge gap complicates the bal-

ancing of customer needs, short-term economic goals,

and long-term sustainability missions.

A survey by (Condori-Fernandez and Lago, 2018)

targeting ICT practitioners with expertise in sustain-

ability aimed to explore their perception about how

quality requirements may contribute to software sus-

tainability. Their ﬁndings reveal that modiﬁability

is perceived to signiﬁcantly impact both technical

and environmental sustainability, while attributes like

functional correctness, availability, interoperability,

and recoverability enhance software endurability. Se-

curity, satisfaction, and freedom from risk are also

perceived as strong contributors to social sustainabil-

ity, with satisfaction also positively inﬂuencing eco-

nomic sustainability.

3 METHODOLOGY

A self-administered online questionnaire was sent to

a list of IT practitioners by email. The study fo-

cused on IT practitioners working in Sweden-based

institutions. The selected individuals were identiﬁed

based on their experience as external thesis supervi-

sors for Uppsala University students in IT, who su-

pervised students in their respective companies either

in 2023 or at the beginning of 2024. A total of 247

contacts were invited to participate in the study via

email, which included a study overview and a link to

the questionnaire. Participants completed the ques-

tionnaire voluntarily and anonymously.

The questionnaire, presented in Table 1 and de-

veloped using Google Forms, covers three main ar-

eas: participant background, awareness of software

sustainability, and perceptions of its relationship to

software quality, applicability, and challenges in prac-

tice. It includes both open-ended and multiple-choice

questions, allowing for detailed responses and spe-

ciﬁc answers. The questionnaire was validated by two

researchers and reﬁned based on their feedback be-

fore distribution. The estimated time to complete the

questions is between 5 to 10 minutes. It was open for

responses from May 21 to June 10, 2024.

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

198

Table 1: Questionnaire. Acronym: Ob. for Obligatory.

ID Question Response Option Ob.

Background

Q1 Gender Open No

Q2 Age 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Yes

Q3 What is the highest level of education

you’ve completed?

Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, Doctorate/Ph.D., Other (Open) Yes

Q4 In which sector are you active in? Information Technology, Healthcare, Finance, Manufacturing, Education, Other Yes

Q5 Job title Open No

Q6 How many years of experience do you have

in industry?

Less than 1 year, 1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, 20+ years Yes

Awareness

Q7 How familiar are you with the concept of

software sustainability?

Very familiar with software sustainability, Somewhat familiar with software sustainability,

Never heard of software sustainability, Other (Open)

Yes

Q8 If you are familiar with software sustain-

ability, please specify the source from

which you gained your understanding of it:

Academic studies or courses, Industry training or workshops, Media, Other No

Q9 How would you deﬁne software sustain-

ability?

Open Yes

Perception

Q10 How important do you think sustainability

is in software systems?

5-point Likert Scale from Not Important to Extremely Important Yes

Q11 Which of these aspects do you think are

important towards software sustainability?

- Social aspects, which aim at preserving societal communities in their solidarity and ser-

vices. - Economic aspects, which aim at maintaining capital and added value. - Environmen-

tal aspects aim at improving human welfare by protecting natural resources such as water,

land, air, minerals, and ecosystem services. - Individual aspects aim at maintaining human

capital, including health, education, skills, knowledge, leadership, and access to services. -

Technical aspects, which focus on the longevity of information, systems, and infrastructure,

ensuring their adequate evolution with changing surrounding conditions. - Other (Open)

Yes

Q12 In which of the following stages do you

think software sustainability should be

considered?

Planning, Requirements, Design, Implementation, Testing, Deployment, Maintenance,

Other (Open)

Yes

Q13 In your opinion, is there a relationship be-

tween software quality and software sus-

tainability?

- Yes, software sustainability is a part of software quality. - Yes, software quality is a part

of software sustainability. - Yes, they are complementary. - No, there is no relationship. - I

don’t know. - Other (Open)

Yes

Q14 How do you perceive the current practices

in industry in relation to software sustain-

ability?

Excellent, Satisfactory, Insufﬁcient, No opinion, Other (Open) Yes

Q15 In your opinion, which of the following ac-

tions are critical to advance sustainability

in software systems?

- Increasing awareness about software sustainability among software professionals. - En-

hancing sustainability education in higher education. - Implementing policies about soft-

ware sustainability. - Developing standards about software sustainability. - No actions are

required. - Other (Open)

Yes

Q16 Which of these product quality attributes

do you think are relevant to software sus-

tainability?

- Functional Suitability: the capability of software to meet the stated and implied needs

of users under speciﬁed conditions. - Performance Efﬁciency: the capability of software

to perform its functions within speciﬁed time and throughput parameters and efﬁciently

use resources under speciﬁed conditions. - Compatibility: the capability of software to

exchange information with other products and perform its functions while sharing the same

environment and resources. - Interaction Capability: the capability of software to be used by

speciﬁed users to exchange information with the system via the user interface to complete

the intended task. - Reliability: capability of a software to perform speciﬁed functions

under speciﬁed conditions for a speciﬁed period of time without interruptions and failure.

- Security: capability of a software to protect information and data so that persons or other

products have the degree of data access appropriate to their types and levels of authorization,

and to defend against attack patterns by malicious actors. - Maintainability: capability of

a software to be modiﬁed by the intended maintainers with effectiveness and efﬁciency. -

Flexibility: capability of a software to be adapted to changes in its requirements, contexts

of use, or system environment. - Safety: capability of a software under deﬁned conditions

to avoid a state in which human life, health, property, or the environment is endangered. -

None of the product quality attributes are important. - Other (Open)

Yes

Q17 Which of these quality-in-use attributes do

you think are relevant to software sustain-

ability?

- Usability: extent to which a software can be used by speciﬁed users to achieve speciﬁed

goals with effectiveness, efﬁciency, and satisfaction in a speciﬁed context of use. - Accessi-

bility: extent to which software systems, environments and facilities can be used by people

from a population with the widest range of user needs, characteristics and capabilities to

achieve identiﬁed goals in identiﬁed contexts of use. - Suitability: extent to which behav-

iors or outcomes, or both, of a software meet speciﬁed quality requirements when used. -

Freedom from Economic Risk: extent to which a software mitigates the potential risk to

ﬁnancial status, efﬁcient operation, commercial property, reputation, or other aspects in the

intended contexts of use. - Freedom from Environmental and Societal Risk: extent to which

a software mitigates the potential risk to the environment and society at large in the intended

contexts of use. - Freedom from Health Risk: extent to which a software mitigates the po-

tential risk to people’s health in the intended contexts of use. - Freedom from Human Life

Risk: extent to which a software mitigates the potential risk to people’s lives in the intended

contexts of use. - Experience: extent to which users or stakeholders accumulate knowl-

edge acquired over time, especially that gained in a particular profession. - Trustworthiness:

extent to which users or stakeholders have conﬁdence that their expectations are met in a

veriﬁable way. - Compliance: extent to which a user or other stakeholder has conﬁdence

that a software meets requirements, as required by rules or laws. - None of the quality-in-

use attributes are important. - Other (Open)

Yes

Q18 How would you rate the consideration of

end-users’ perspectives in practical efforts

toward sustainable software?

5-point Likert Scale from Very Poor to Excellent Yes

Q19 In your opinion, what aspects of software

sustainability do you believe are important

to the end-user?

Open No

Q20 In your opinion, are there any challenges

or barriers you believe are hindering the

advancement of software sustainability in

practice? If so, please describe:

Open No

Q21 Please use this space to share any addi-

tional comments, suggestions, or feedback

you have regarding software sustainability

in practice.

Open No

Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire Study

199

4 RESULTS

Only 23 practitioners out of 247 participated in the

study. Questionnaire results can be accessed here:

https://shorturl.at/rEZAu.

4.1 Background

Table 2 presents the results of Q1-4 and Q6. Out

of 23 responses, 10 (43%) had a master’s degree, 9

(39%) had a Ph.D and the rest had a bachelor’s de-

gree. The demographics of the respondents indicate

that the minimum education level is a bachelor’s de-

gree. More than half of the respondents have over 10

years of industry experience: 22% have 10-20 years,

35% have more than 20 years, 26% have 5-10 years,

9% have 3-5 years, and 9% have 1-3 years. Except

for two respondents, all stated that they work in the

information technology sector, one respondent works

in R&D, but their speciﬁc sector is unknown, and one

works in manufacturing.

Table 2: Respondent’s Background.

Item Total %

Gender

Male 19 83%

Unspeciﬁed 4 17%

Age

25-34 4 17%

35-44 10 43%

45-54 7 30%

55-64 2 9%

Education

Bachelor’s Degree 4 17%

Doctorate/Ph.D. 9 39%

Master’s Degree 10 43%

Sector of activity

Education 1 4%

Information Technology 20 87%

Manufacturing 1 4%

R&D 1 4%

Years of experience

1-3 years 2 9%

3-5 years 2 9%

5-10 years 6 26%

10-20 years 5 22%

20+ years 8 35%

Table. 3 presents the results of Q5. The partic-

ipants include professionals from both industry and

academia. The majority of respondents have lead-

ership responsibilities and decision-making roles in

their organizations, holding either managerial or se-

nior positions.

Table 3: Job titles as reported by participants.

Job Title Participant ID Total

Project Manager P7, P20 2

Researcher P15, P22 2

Senior Software Engineer P5, P11 2

Software Engineer P6, P12 2

Analytics Engineer P8 1

CTO P3 1

Developer P1 1

Director of Data Engineering P23 1

Expert, Adj Professor P18 1

Head of Operations P14 1

Integration Lead P4 1

Manager Mobile Development P2 1

Professor P13 1

Senior Backend Developer P17 1

Sr. Lead Software Engineer P16 1

Systems Developer P9 1

Team Lead Software P19 1

Vice Principal (Associate Professor) P21 1

(blank) P10 1

4.2 Awareness of Respondents Toward

Software Sustainability

Fig. 1 shows the results of Q7. Surprisingly, 8 out

of 23 participants had never heard of the concept of

software sustainability before. One participant (P9)

selected other and responded “I have not heard the

explicit term but I have heard discussions about envi-

ronmental sustainability of software.” Table 4 shows

the responses to Q7 according to participants’ educa-

tional level and years of experience.

Figure 1: Familiarity with the Concept of Software Sustain-

ability.

The results of Q8 show that among those who had

prior awareness of software sustainability, their un-

derstanding came from industry workshops/training

(38%), academia (19%), media (38%), and peers

(5%).

Results of Q9 show that, with the exception of two

respondents who did not know how to deﬁne software

sustainability, the rest of the participants provided di-

verse deﬁnitions of software sustainability, focusing

on several key themes:

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

200

Table 4: Familiarity with Software Sustainability according to educational level and years of experience.

Familiarity with Software Sustainability Years of Experience Bachelor’s Degree Doctorate/Ph.D. Master’s Degree

Other 1-3 years P9

Never heard of software sustainability 5-10 years P1, P16 P8, P10

10-20 years P14, P22

20+ years P12, P18

Somewhat familiar with software sustainability 3-5 years P6, P11

5-10 years P5, P19

10-20 years P23 P20

20+ years P2, P3 P15 P7

Very familiar with software sustainability 1-3 years P13

10-20 years P4

20+ years P17 P21

• Environmental Impact: Many participants empha-

size sustainability in relation to the environment,

particularly in terms of reducing energy consump-

tion (P11 and P16) and minimizing the environ-

mental footprint of software development and us-

age (P5, P6, P10, and P14). Some highlight the

importance of green practices in the software life-

cycle (P23).

• Longevity and Maintainability: Several partic-

ipants associate sustainability with software’s

long-term viability, maintainability, and adapt-

ability (P7, P13, P18, P20, and P22). This in-

cludes ensuring that software can evolve, remain

relevant, and integrate well with other systems

without requiring excessive rewrites (P3 and P15).

• Resource Efﬁciency: A common theme is the ef-

ﬁcient use of resources—whether it is hardware

(P11) or computational resources (P2, P8, and

P9). Participants also mention writing code that

minimizes waste and is resource-efﬁcient (P8, P9,

and P13).

• Social and Ethical Considerations: A few partic-

ipants connect sustainability to broader social as-

pects, such as the impact on society (P5 and P11).

They suggest that software should promote social

sustainability by being secure and safe, as well

as avoiding unnecessary reliance on speciﬁc hard-

ware (P11).

• Quality and Usability: Sustainability is also

linked to ensuring software quality over

time—meaning it remains functional, secure, and

easy to maintain, inspect, and test (P4, P19, and

P20).

Participants deﬁned software sustainability using

both narrow and broad terms. Narrow deﬁnitions fo-

cused on aspects like energy efﬁciency, resource op-

timization, and minimizing negative environmental

impacts, with comments such as “developing soft-

ware that consumes less energy in practice” (P16)

and the idea that “software is sustainable if it is easy

to maintain” (P9). These perspectives emphasized

speciﬁc criteria, including limiting unnecessary re-

source consumption (P2). In contrast, broad deﬁni-

tions acknowledged the importance of social and en-

vironmental costs in software development, as high-

lighted by the need to analyze these costs (P17). Par-

ticipants considered the software’s lifecycle, includ-

ing its integration, adaptability, and documentation

(P13), and emphasized that sustainability should in-

corporate stakeholder involvement and consider soci-

etal impact (P20).

4.3 Perception of Respondents Toward

Software Sustainability

Fig. 2 presents the results of Q10. More than half of

the respondents considered software sustainability to

be an important or very important topic. Seven partic-

ipants (P3, P5, P11, P13, P16, P19, and P21) viewed

it as very important. Among them, two (P13 and P21)

were very familiar with the term, while one (P16) had

never heard of it before. On the other hand, two re-

spondents (P10 and P12) regarded software sustain-

ability as unimportant, and both had never encoun-

tered the term prior to the questionnaire study.

Figure 2: Perception of the importance of Software Sustain-

ability.

For Q11, respondents were provided with deﬁni-

tions of each aspect as outlined by the Karlskrona

Manifesto (Becker et al., 2015)—economic, environ-

mental, technical, social, and individual—and asked

to select the aspects they believed were important for

software sustainability. Three participants either did

not know (P1 and P12) or did not provide a response

(P19). Fig. 3 shows the count of important aspects

Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire Study

201

selected by the remaining 20 participants. The re-

sponses clearly indicate that the environmental and

technical aspects are perceived by the majority of par-

ticipants as particularly signiﬁcant.

Figure 3: Important aspects for Software Sustainability

(N=20).

For Q12, respondents were asked which stages

of the software development cycle—requirements,

planning, design, implementation, testing, and main-

tenance—should incorporate software sustainability.

Two respondents (P1 and P12) indicated they did not

know. Fig. 4 presents the responses from the remain-

ing 21 participants. The results show that the stages of

requirements, planning, and design were prioritized

the most. Six participants (P3, P7, P9, P15, P17, and

P23) agreed that sustainability should be considered

at all stages, while others provided varying opinions.

Figure 4: Software Sustainability Consideration in the De-

velopment Stages (N=21).

Table 5 shows the results of Q13, which addresses

participants’ perceptions of the relationship between

software sustainability and software quality. A total

of 35% of respondents consider software sustainabil-

ity to be a part of software quality, while 22% believe

software quality is a part of software sustainability.

Also, 17% view them as complementary. Four re-

spondents (17%) (P1, P10, P12, and P14) indicated

that they did not know, and one respondent (P8) stated

that there is no relationship.

Fig. 5 shows that only 2 respondents perceived

that the current practices in industry in relation to soft-

ware sustainability are satisfactory. The majority of

respondents consider them as insufﬁcient and one re-

spondent (P23) perceives them as non existent stating

“Not really existent. Google Cloud talks about this

some, but not much.”

Fig. 6 presents respondents’ views on critical ac-

tions to advance sustainability in software systems.

Table 5: Relationship between Software Quality and Soft-

ware Sustainability.

Response Total %

Yes, software sustainability is a part of

software quality.

8 35%

Yes, software quality is a part of soft-

ware sustainability.

5 22%

Yes, they are complementary. 4 17%

No, there is no relationship. 1 4%

Yes, since efﬁciency and in-code docu-

mentation are a part of it.

1 4%

Don’t know 4 17%

Figure 5: Perception of current practices in industry in rela-

tion to Software Sustainability.

The majority of respondents (83%) consider increas-

ing awareness about software sustainability among

software professionals as a critical action. Nearly half

of the respondents (48%) think enhancing sustainabil-

ity education in higher education and developing stan-

dards for software sustainability are important steps.

One respondent (P2) also suggested the need for ap-

propriate metrics to measure sustainability.

To respond to Q16, respondents were given the

option to select relevant product quality characteris-

tics from the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 model in relation

to software sustainability. Fig. 7 shows that Main-

tainability had the highest number of selections, cho-

sen by 16 respondents (70%), while Functional Suit-

ability had the lowest number of selections, chosen by

6 respondents (26%). One respondent (P10) selected

Other and stated that “All those things seem like ob-

vious good things. I would think about them more

as normal requirements and not being about software

sustainability.”

Fig. 8 presents respondents’ views on software

sustainability in relation to the Quality in Use charac-

teristics from the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 model. Free-

dom from Environmental and Societal Risk was se-

lected by 13 respondents (57%), making it the most

chosen characteristic, while Experience was the least

selected, chosen by only two respondents (9%). P2

selected Other and gave the same response as in Q16.

One respondent (P23), in addition to selecting some

characteristics, noted that software should function

within regulatory limits and cautioned that excessive

requirements can lead to over-design. While AI risks

should be considered, he emphasized that such rules

should not apply universally to all software.

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

202

Figure 6: Critical Actions to Advance Sustainability.

Figure 7: Relevant Software Product Quality Characteris-

tics to Software Sustainability.

Fig. 9 shows how respondents rated the consid-

erations of end-users’ perspectives in practical effort

towards sustainable software. None of the respon-

dents considered that these considerations are excel-

lent. However, the majority consider them good and

very good.

Out of the 16 respondents to Q19, thirteen iden-

tiﬁed key aspects of software sustainability important

to end-users, including reliability, stability, and ease

of use. P3 stated, “Reliability and ease of use are

paramount”, while P9 added that “slow software is

not fun to use, and unstable software is unreliable”.

Environmental impact emerged as a recurring theme,

with many participants highlighting low energy con-

sumption; P5 mentioned this alongside reliability and

efﬁciency. P11 noted the growing interest in eco-

friendly labels, suggesting that such markers can in-

ﬂuence organizational decisions. Usability and trust-

worthiness were also deemed essential, as P7 indi-

cated that “suitability, usability, and trustworthiness

might be the most important aspects”. P16 empha-

sized data portability and long-term system stability

as vital for sustainable software.

Respondents stressed the importance of clear

communication about sustainability aspects. P15 re-

marked, “A clear speciﬁcation of which aspects are

being considered for the product is crucial”. P23 em-

phasized the need for user awareness of sustainabil-

ity issues, stating that “people need to be aware of

the issue and the beneﬁts”. However, P13 expressed

skepticism about end-users’ understanding of sustain-

able software, highlighting a gap in knowledge with

this comment: “I am not convinced the end user can

fully grasp all of the dimensions required to build sus-

tainable software”.Overall, while critical sustainabil-

ity aspects were recognized, respondents called for

improved communication and awareness to empower

end-users in making informed decisions.

For Q20, ﬁfteen respondents identiﬁed several

challenges hindering the advancement of software

sustainability in practice. P3 cited a short-sighted

economic focus, while P4 pointed to the need for

better education on sustainability. P5 mentioned a

lack of political will, distrust in scientiﬁc consen-

sus, and proﬁt-driven development as signiﬁcant bar-

riers. P7 noted the complexity of balancing customer

and stakeholder expectations with budget constraints,

which often impedes investment in sustainability ini-

tiatives. P8 highlighted time constraints in software

projects, and P9 criticized modern development meth-

ods for neglecting performance, leading to resource

drains.

P11 expressed concern that energy consumption

is often overlooked in the rush to develop new fea-

tures, stating that current practices prioritize “cool”

innovations without considering their environmental

impact. P13 emphasized the lack of diversity among

software developers, which may limit awareness of

essential sustainability aspects. P15 found the broad-

ness of the concept of sustainability to be a barrier,

as the numerous factors to consider can be time- and

cost-prohibitive for projects. P16 remarked that capi-

talism and sustainability often appear mutually exclu-

sive, while P17 echoed the sentiment that general ed-

ucation on sustainability is lacking. P19 highlighted

the pressure of short deadlines imposed by stakehold-

ers. P20 noted that many developers lack the maturity

Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire Study

203

Figure 8: Relevant Quality in Use (sub)Characteristics to Software Sustainability.

Figure 9: Consideration of end-users perspectives in sus-

tainable software.

to understand the importance of sustainability, while

P21 mentioned cybersecurity concerns as a barrier.

Lastly, P23 suggested that quantifying sustainability

beneﬁts could help illustrate its importance, stating

that showcasing savings from sustainable practices

could encourage adoption.

For Q21, only a few respondents shared comments

on software sustainability. P1 and P12 expressed frus-

tration with being asked questions about a topic they

didn’t understand. P18 criticized the survey for not

deﬁning “software sustainability”. P10 recognized

software sustainability as related to reducing envi-

ronmental impact but found the term too broad, sug-

gesting it overlaps with standard software develop-

ment goals. P11 emphasized the need to integrate

sustainability into educational curricula, calling for

legislative support and improved tools like energy-

aware integrated development environments (IDEs)

to make early energy-saving decisions. P16 warned

of the rapid growth of harmful applications for large

language models (LLMs) and their signiﬁcant en-

ergy demands, stating, “urgent action is required to

avoid catastrophic long-term consequences”. P20

highlighted the importance of considering the broader

context of software, especially in embedded systems,

noting: “You cannot look at code alone”. P21 men-

tioned cybersecurity concerns. Finally, P23 acknowl-

edged a lack of awareness about software sustainabil-

ity while recognizing its potential beneﬁts.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Main Findings

5.1.1 Limited and Narrow Perspective of

Software Sustainability

This study highlights a signiﬁcant gap in practition-

ers’ understanding of software sustainability, with 8

out of 23 participants reporting they had never en-

countered the term, even among those with over 20

years of experience. Most participants’ deﬁnitions

centered on technical aspects, with limited acknowl-

edgment of economic and individual dimensions, in-

dicating a narrow perspective. Interestingly, this dif-

fers slightly from the study by (Bambazek et al.,

2022), where environmental and technical aspects

were more heavily emphasized. Similar to ﬁndings

by both (Bambazek et al., 2022) and (Heldal et al.,

2024), our results underscore a widespread lack of un-

derstanding of software sustainability, even as interest

in the concept grows.

Our ﬁndings diverge from the study by (Oyedeji

et al., 2021), which linked sustainability primarily

to cost-effectiveness and maintainability. In contrast,

our participants—19 out of 23 of whom had over ﬁve

years of industry experience—had a broader view that

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

204

included social and individual dimensions. This may

reﬂect the higher level of experience among our par-

ticipants compared to (Oyedeji et al., 2021)’s sample,

where only ﬁve had similar expertise.

Environmental sustainability also emerged as a re-

curring theme, with several respondents emphasiz-

ing the importance of energy-efﬁcient software. The

growing inﬂuence of eco-friendly labels and environ-

mental considerations highlights an increasing aware-

ness of sustainability in software systems. While

technical aspects dominated the discussion, respon-

dents did acknowledge the signiﬁcance of economic

and individual dimensions, aligning with the ﬁve

aspects of sustainability outlined in the Karlskrona

Manifesto (Becker et al., 2015). This suggests an

evolving recognition of the need for a more compre-

hensive approach to software sustainability.

5.1.2 Other Challenges to Software

Sustainability

Time pressures and budget constraints were also cited

as signiﬁcant challenges by participants. These con-

straints often push teams to prioritize immediate func-

tionality over long-term sustainability, resulting in

sustainable practices being sidelined. Proﬁt-driven

strategies and skepticism toward the scientiﬁc con-

sensus on sustainability further complicate the issue

(Kretschmer, 2022). Participants such as P3 and P5

expressed doubts about the relevance of sustainabil-

ity metrics, viewing them as costly or impractical for

meeting short-term project goals. Moreover, the ab-

sence of regulatory frameworks mandating sustain-

able practices leaves organizations with little incen-

tive to prioritize sustainability. In such cases, it is of-

ten left to individual organizations to champion sus-

tainability initiatives, limiting broader industry adop-

tion. Legislation may be required to create constraints

on software in order to motivate the creation of more

sustainable software, as emphasized by P11.

Stakeholder involvement is another important as-

pect to consider in relation to software sustainability.

The work by (Karita et al., 2022) motivated the impor-

tance of involving stakeholders and assessing sustain-

ability early and throughout all stages of software de-

velopment, which aligns with our ﬁndings. P19 stated

that short deadlines imposed by stakeholders pose a

challenge to incorporating sustainability in software

development. P7 corroborated this by highlighting

that the complexity and requirements of the software,

combined with budget constraints, make it difﬁcult

to identify ways to integrate sustainability. This sug-

gests a disconnect between stakeholders’ expectations

for the system and the time allocated for refactoring

or sustainability analysis. Alternatively, it may indi-

cate the absence of an internal framework for assess-

ing sustainability.

Another challenge is the end users’ lack of under-

standing of what goes into creating sustainable soft-

ware. A lack of transparency was also identiﬁed as a

key reason why end users may struggle to fully grasp

the impact of software sustainability on them. This

includes the issue of trust highlighted by P11, who

stated, ”[End users] don’t understand what enormous

risk they impose on themselves when trusting soft-

ware systems with every aspect of their life”. How-

ever, trustworthiness, a quality-in-use characteristic,

was identiﬁed by nine participants as an important

factor in software sustainability.

5.1.3 Perceptions of the Relationship Between

Software Sustainability and Quality

The majority of participants recognized a connec-

tion between software sustainability and quality. This

aligns with the work of (Condori-Fernandez and

Lago, 2018), which maps sustainability dimensions

to ISO/IEC quality characteristics. In total, 18 partici-

pants identiﬁed a relationship between software qual-

ity and sustainability, while only one stated that no

such relationship existed. However, this participant

was unfamiliar with the concept of software sustain-

ability and still acknowledged the importance of sev-

eral software quality characteristics (performance ef-

ﬁciency, compatibility, maintainability, usability, and

suitability) in sustainability.

Among the quality characteristics identiﬁed by re-

spondents (in more than 10 responses) as relevant to

software sustainability, two were related to product

quality (maintainability and performance efﬁciency),

and two pertained to quality in use (freedom from

environmental and societal risk, and suitability). In

contrast, characteristics such as interaction capabil-

ity, functional suitability, compliance, trustworthi-

ness, and user experience received fewer than eight

responses and were overlooked by the majority.

Participants’ perspectives on the relationship be-

tween sustainability and software quality varied.

While 36% viewed sustainability as intrinsic to soft-

ware quality—aligning with evolving quality stan-

dards such as ISO/IEC 25010:2023—27% considered

software quality a subset of sustainability, and 14%

saw the two as complementary. These differing per-

spectives highlight a gap in understanding that im-

pacts decision-making, prioritization, and the inte-

gration of sustainability metrics in software develop-

ment. Despite growing recognition of the importance

of sustainability and its relationship to software qual-

ity, this variation suggests that further education and

clariﬁcation are needed to bridge the gap.

Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire Study

205

5.1.4 Recommendations for Advancing Software

Sustainability

To advance software sustainability, increasing aware-

ness and education among practitioners is crucial.

The majority of respondents (83%) emphasized the

need to incorporate sustainability into both industry

practices and educational curricula. Research has

been conducted on integrating sustainability into ed-

ucation by embedding it in requirements engineer-

ing and software engineering courses; however, fur-

ther efforts are needed (Oyedeji et al., 2023; Moreira

et al., 2024). Engaging with a more diverse range

of stakeholders can facilitate a more comprehensive

approach to understanding sustainability. Given the

broad scope of the topic, there is a risk of focusing on

one aspect while overlooking its wider implications.

Our ﬁndings highlight the need to embed sustain-

ability considerations across all stages of the software

development lifecycle—from requirements to mainte-

nance. This holistic approach is essential for fostering

long-term sustainable practices in software systems.

To do so, there is a need to consider sustainability

as a starting point when developing software systems

(Gross and Ouhbi, 2024b). Designing for sustainabil-

ity, such as using the Karlskrona Manifesto for Sus-

tainability Design, involves not only examining the

software system itself but also considering its sur-

rounding environment and broader impacts (Becker

et al., 2014).

Clear communication about sustainability aspects

and the development of metrics to measure its bene-

ﬁts were also recommended by the participants. This

need has been emphasized beyond this research as

well (K

onig et al., 2024; Gross and Ouhbi, 2024a).

Conducting a comprehensive evaluation of sustain-

ability requires access to clear measures and criteria

onig et al., 2024; Gross and Ouhbi, 2024a). Hav-

ing quantiﬁable data can facilitate comparisons be-

tween upfront costs and long-term savings, as well

as justify investments in one area to promote bene-

ﬁts in another. Providing end users with clear, non-

technical information can help them understand the

sustainability choices made in software development,

increasing their awareness of associated risks and de-

cisions. Highlighting features that support more sus-

tainable usage can also empower users to make in-

formed decisions that reduce environmental impact.

Stronger legislation is needed to require compa-

nies to disclose sustainability metrics and provide

stakeholders with transparent information. The lack

of standardization enables practices like greenwash-

ing, which the EU deﬁnes as ”giving a false impres-

sion of the environmental impact or beneﬁts of a prod-

uct” (European Parliament, 2024). In response, the

EU has introduced laws to combat greenwashing, en-

force veriﬁable sustainability claims, and develop reg-

ulations on the right to repair, ecodesign standards,

and green claim veriﬁcation—all of which could drive

sustainable software development.

5.2 Limitations

This study has some limitations that may impact the

generalizability of its ﬁndings, such as the limited

number of participants and the focus on practition-

ers solely in Sweden. Another limitation is that the

majority of respondents were male, which, while ex-

pected given the gender imbalance in the IT indus-

try, may still inﬂuence the perspectives captured in

this study. Moreover, three participants without prior

knowledge contributed minimally to the study. How-

ever, since the study aimed to capture individual per-

ceptions, other participants with no prior knowledge

provided valuable insights into how they perceive

software sustainability in practice. As a result, the

ﬁndings should be viewed as preliminary insights for

further research and may not fully represent the gen-

eral perspectives of practitioners in Sweden. Further-

more, the data was collected through an online ques-

tionnaire, which limited the depth of understanding

regarding respondents’ opinions.

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORK

This paper presents a questionnaire study exploring

how industry practitioners in Sweden perceive and

implement software sustainability, focusing on their

deﬁnitions, its relationship with software quality, and

the challenges of adoption. The ﬁndings reveal a sig-

niﬁcant gap in understanding the term, with many ex-

perienced practitioners unfamiliar with it. The ﬁnd-

ings highlight also that sustainability is rarely consid-

ered in current practices, and several barriers hinder

its adoption.

These ﬁndings underscore the need for improved

education, standardized guidelines, clearer communi-

cation, and potentially legislative action to promote

sustainable practices. Strengthening awareness and

discourse around software sustainability will be es-

sential for driving meaningful progress in the indus-

try.

Future research should expand to various regions

and industries to better assess software sustainabil-

ity practices. By using diverse data collection meth-

ods and a larger participant pool, future studies can

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

206

achieve more accurate results. We also plan to supple-

ment our ﬁndings with interviews on current industry

practices in Sweden and replicate the study in other

countries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to express our gratitude to all the par-

ticipants who actively took part in this questionnaire

study.

REFERENCES

Bambazek, P., Groher, I., and Seyff, N. (2022). Sustain-

ability in agile software development: A survey study

among practitioners. In 2022 International Confer-

ence on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S), pages 13–23.

IEEE.

Becker, C., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easterbrook, S., Ma-

haux, M., Penzenstadler, B., Rodriguez-Navas, G.,

Salinesi, C., Seyff, N., Venters, C., et al. (2014). The

karlskrona manifesto for sustainability design. arXiv

preprint arXiv:1410.6968.

Becker, C., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easterbrook, S., Pen-

zenstadler, B., Seyff, N., and Venters, C. C. (2015).

Sustainability design and software: The Karlskrona

Manifesto. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE Inter-

national Conference on Software Engineering, vol-

ume 2, pages 467–476. IEEE.

Calero, C., Moraga, M.

A., and Piattini, M. (2021). Intro-

duction to software sustainability. Springer.

Condori-Fernandez, N. and Lago, P. (2018). Characteriz-

ing the contribution of quality requirements to soft-

ware sustainability. Journal of Systems and Software,

137:289–305.

Danushi, O., Forti, S., and Soldani, J. (2024). Envi-

ronmentally sustainable software design and develop-

ment: A systematic literature review. arXiv preprint

arXiv:2407.19901.

European Parliament (2024). Stopping greenwashing: how

the EU regulates green claims. https://www.europarl.

europa.eu/topics/en/article/20240111STO16722/

stopping-greenwashing-how-the-eu-regulates-green-claims.

Accessed: Feb 12, 2025.

Gross, J. and Ouhbi, S. (2024a). Clearing the path for soft-

ware sustainability. Accepted in 2030 Software Engi-

neering Workshop. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15637.

Gross, J. and Ouhbi, S. (2024b). Sustainability as a start-

ing point in software development. In 2024 50th Eu-

romicro Conference on Software Engineering and Ad-

vanced Applications (SEAA), pages 252–255. IEEE.

Heldal, R., Nguyen, N.-T., Moreira, A., Lago, P., Duboc,

L., Betz, S., Coroam

a, V. C., Penzenstadler, B., Por-

ras, J., Capilla, R., et al. (2024). Sustainability com-

petencies and skills in software engineering: An in-

dustry perspective. Journal of Systems and Software,

211:111978.

Karita, L., Mour

ao, B. C., and Machado, I. (2022). Towards

a common understanding of sustainable software de-

velopment. In Proceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian

Symposium on Software Engineering, pages 269–278.

onig, C., Lang, D. J., and Schaefer, I. (2024). Sustain-

able software engineering: Concepts, challenges, and

vision. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering

and Methodology.

Kretschmer, A. (2022). Green pioneer or green-

washer? the tech industry and sustainability.

URL: https://www.iresearchservices.com/blog/green-

pioneer-or-greenwasher-the-tech-industry-and-

sustainability/ [Accessed on Oct 10 2024].

McGuire, S., Schultz, E., Ayoola, B., and Ralph, P. (2023).

Sustainability is stratiﬁed: Toward a better theory of

sustainable software engineering. In 2023 IEEE/ACM

45th International Conference on Software Engineer-

ing (ICSE), pages 1996–2008. IEEE.

Moreira, A., Lago, P., Heldal, R., Betz, S., Brooks, I.,

Capilla, R., Coroam

a, V. C., Duboc, L., Fernandes,

J. P., Leiﬂer, O., et al. (2024). A roadmap for inte-

grating sustainability into software engineering edu-

cation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering

and Methodology.

Oyedeji, S., Adisa, M. O., Abdullai, L., and Porras,

J. (2023). Application of sustainability awareness

framework in software engineering courses: Perspec-

tives from ICT students. In ICT4S (Doctoral Sympo-

sium, Demos, Posters), pages 122–133.

Oyedeji, S., Shamshiri, H., Porras, J., and Lammert, D.

(2021). Software sustainability: academic under-

standing and industry perceptions. In Software Busi-

ness: 12th International Conference, ICSOB 2021,

Drammen, Norway, December 2–3, 2021, Proceed-

ings 12, pages 18–34. Springer.

Statista (2024). Global software market - statistics

& facts. www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/software/

worldwide. Accessed: Feb 11, 2025.

Venters, C. C., Capilla, R., Nakagawa, E. Y., Betz, S.,

Penzenstadler, B., Crick, T., and Brooks, I. (2023).

Sustainable software engineering: Reﬂections on ad-

vances in research and practice. Information and Soft-

ware Technology, page 107316.

Verdecchia, R., Lago, P., Ebert, C., and De Vries, C.

(2021). Green IT and green software. IEEE Software,

38(6):7–15.

Software Sustainability Perceptions in the Industry: A Questionnaire Study

207