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

, 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

FHNW & University of Zurich, Switzerland

Furtwangen University, Germany

Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, Finland

La Salle - University Ramon Llull, Spain

University of the West of England, U.K.

University of Bristol, U.K.

University of Hudderﬁeld, U.K.

Chalmers, Sweden

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

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0138-892X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3613-5893

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3669-8503

https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-7437-2101

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6227-327X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6293-3445

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8664-9107

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

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 ﬁve 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 ﬁve

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

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

. 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

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