<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>An Assessment Technique for Sustainability: Applying the IMAGINE Approach to Software Systems</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Alejandra Rodriguez</string-name>
          <email>alejandra.rodriguez@mytum.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Birgit Penzenstadler</string-name>
          <email>bpenzens@uci.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Donal Bren School of Informatics and Computer Science, University of California</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Irvine, Irvine, CA</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Software &amp; Systems Engineering, Technische Universita ̈t Mu ̈nchen</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Munich</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>-Sustainability is a concept for which exist many definitions, but most of them are either vague or too limited; no consensus has been achieved. One pragmatic solution is to provide an implicit definition by setting up a standard with criteria that have to be fulfilled, e.g., by a company in order to reach their self-set sustainability goals. The problem is that even with a defined goal or strategy for sustainability, practitioners lack of reference frameworks to align to and from there to derive concrete objectives and activities. Consequently, it is hard to implement such goals or strategies through the use of IT. This paper presents the application of the IMAGINE approach [5], for analyzing and assessing sustainability, on a system supported by IT and software systems. The approach was implemented and its applicability assessed in an industrial case study in a Master student's research project. The approach provides project managers, business analysts, and requirements engineers with the capability to devise a specific strategy for particular contexts and sustainability goals.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Sustainability standards are used to assess companies
interested in validating and certifying their products, projects,
or development and management practices. They consist of
norms and reference criteria related to ideas that pursue
sustainability, and the assessment is usually performed by a
third party.</p>
      <p>
        Several standards that are currently available focus on
sustainable development [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], but we can also find
standards for sustainability reporting [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ], or sustainable
design [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], among others. Furthermore these standards can
be segmented in the industry-specific sectors, like those listed
by the Industry Classification Benchmark [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], for instance
food, oil and gas producers, mining, transportation, healthcare,
and telecommunications.
      </p>
      <p>None of these standards is designed for the application in all
contexts, and considering all sustainability dimensions. Norms</p>
      <p>
        Copyright c 2013 for the individual papers by the papers’ authors.
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume is
published and copyrighted by its editors.
like the ISO 14000 for Environmental Management, cover the
environment dimension but do not give guidance for software
systems. Besides, the software systems and IT supporting such
developments are often obviated from the lifecycle analysis of
a sustainable development project or not clearly indicated in
the analysis. Especially for software systems, sustainability
standards are not yet available and the majority of research
focuses on green IT, energy-efficient software, and human
computer interaction [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. Consequently, practitioners in
software development lack a guideline for assessing
sustainability in their systems.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>B. Contribution</title>
      <p>
        We provide the results of a case study in applying the
IMAGINE approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ], an analysis approach from the
domain of sustainable development, to a software-intensive
system that exhibits a significant impact on the sustainability
of city mobility. It has been adapted to include the role of
technology into the analysis, and to inspect in depth the
rationale, drivers and impact of the planned solution. It can be
applied from the early phases of idea definition up to project
finalisation, production and maintenance.
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>II. BACKGROUND: IMAGINE AND DRIVENOW This section gives a short introduction to the IMAGINE approach and background on the DriveNow case study.</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>A. The IMAGINE Approach</title>
      <p>
        The IMAGINE approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] originates from the
environmental studies field and applies systems thinking
principles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>It was designed to guarantee the cooperation of users,
experts in all levels, performers and public representatives,
through the identification and understanding of problems of
sustainable development, definition of optimal indicators to
measure success, and to develop on decisions about further
development, to conclude with the activities for achieving the
desired scenarios.</p>
      <p>Thus the application of IMAGINE involves the use of
participatory techniques, the inclusion of varied groups of
stakeholders, the identification of meaningful and relevant
indicators for the groups, and the use of scenarios for current
and future states. This enables the tracking of the
evolutionary behavior, the recognition of deviations from the goal to
apply timely corrections. It has only been applied so far in
environmental systems.</p>
      <p>The IMAGINE approach is carried out in five steps:
1) Understanding the context: identify the stakeholders,
their perspectives, and scope the system to be assessed.
2) Agreeing on Sustainability Indicators (SI) and bands of
equilibrium: identify relevant indicators for each group
of stakeholders, agree in a common set for the whole
system, and establish reference boundaries within which
each SI remains sustainable.
3) AMOEBA scenario making: develop the desired future
situations of the system in terms of the selected SI to
measure and depict it in an AMOEBA diagram.
4) Review and Metascenario making: review the status of
the system conducting the whole process again and
contrasting the scenarios and diagrams over time.
5) Publicity and Marketing the message: end of an Imagine
iteration where the outcomes are publicized among
potential consumers of the information.</p>
      <p>
        For each one of the steps a variety of instruments to ease the
adoption in companies is available in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ], for example:
Controlling, Corporate Social Accounting, Corporate Volunteering,
Cross-impact analysis, Dialog instruments, Eco-design/Design
for environment, Environmental Shareholder Value, Mission
Statement, Reporting, Scenario analysis, Supply Change
Management, Sustainability Balanced Scorecard, and Total Quality
Environmental Management.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>B. The DriveNow Case Study</title>
      <p>Our industrial case study is developed for a car sharing
system deployed in 2011 in three major German cities by
BMW, Mini, and Sixt in a 50%-50% venture. The project
concept was designed to provide new mobility services that
are individually attractive and socially sustainable.</p>
      <p>The business model of DriveNow presents the rent of
premium vehicles for a short period of time within the city
using public parking areas inside an established perimeter
without incurring in additional parking costs.</p>
      <p>We chose DriveNow for our case study as it is been
marketed as a positive contributor towards sustainability and
environmental protection. Among their main goals are the
reduction of CO2-emissions by: replacing old private cars for
new shared cars, integrating new technologies and introducing
electronic cars, and reducing the number of cars with only one
passenger by encouraging car pooling.</p>
      <p>The project involves automobiles and technology for
efficiency, care-hire know-how, IT systems and a comprehensive
customer registration and interaction network. The whole
lifecycle is highly dependent on technology, from the development
of the equipment and software, the infrastructure, disposition
and maintenance of registration, authentication and interaction
platforms between the provider, partners, users and members
of the community, and the creation of startups extending the
service.</p>
      <p>The initial idea of modern mobility services was integrated
with environmental focuses, engaging the project in
sustainability initiatives.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>C. Outline</title>
      <p>The remainder of this paper describes the application of the
IMAGINE steps for the case study of the DriveNow system.
Section III describes how the system of interest is scoped,
Section IV presents the process of selection of sustainability
indicators (SIs) and definition of bands of equilibrium for
these indicators, Section V explains the development of future
scenarios and the AMOEBA diagram, Section VI discusses
some open issues and limitations. Section VII concludes with
open issues and suggestions for future work.</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>III. UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT</title>
        <p>The assessment begins with the comprehension and
delimitation of the system or project of interest, and the context
where it is applied. This first step is crucial to obtain a
well defined problem and a precondition for a successful
assessment.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>A. Stakeholder Perspectives</title>
      <p>The system of interest is scoped from four main perspectives
as illustrated in Fig. 1, by directly gathering information from
relevant stakeholders and available documentation. The four
perspectives are formed by individual representatives of
stakeholders under the roles of owners (customers), implementers
(developers), beneficiaries (users), and regulators (government,
legislation).</p>
      <p>Figure 2 shows the results of the stakeholder analysis for all
four perspectives in DriveNow. The owners are BMW, Sixt,
and Stattauto, and the regulators are the government, certifying
organizations, and controlling agencies like the police. The
beneficiaries are the drivers, the community, and friends, and
the implementers include the whole development process as
well as marketing and additional service providers.</p>
      <p>
        The information can be gathered by any participatory
technique, using the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
(DPSIR) approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] shown in Fig. 3. The DPSIR seeks to
identify the Drivers to design the system, the Pressures to
use unsustainable products or practices, what aspects of the
current State might seem affected by the introduction of the
system, which Impact and level of severity is expected, and
what are the Responses of the environment and users to the
system regarding sustainability. The most common technique
in the early steps of the analysis are structured interviews.
As major result after the consolidation of the interview data,
the main objectives of the system and the assumptions made
are identified and concisely stated. A graphical overview of
the DPSIR analysis approach is provided in Fig. 4. For the
complete set of DPSIR indicators in DriveNow, see [13, p.
25-29].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>C. Root Definitions</title>
      <p>For a succinct statement of the result we use Root
Definitions. A Root Definition is a structured description of a system
and a clear statement of activities which (might) take place in
the context of our system. A properly structured root definition
comprises three elements: What the aim of the system is, How
that aim is to be achieved, and whY the activity is carried out
w.r.t. a long-term aim. This is stated as ”A System to do W,
by means of H, in order to achieve Y”.</p>
      <p>The root definitions elaborated for DriveNow were:
1) The Car Sharing Project focused on private users that do
not own a car, and realized by the implementers, in order
to establish the brand as a mobility service provider,
while removing old cars from the streets, assuming
behavioral patterns, government support and managing
feasibility, capacity of production, offer and demand,
prices and easiness of use.
2) The Car Sharing Project focused on offering community
members that do not own a car, in order to provide a
support and convenience when needing a car for occasional
use, while involving them into the membership and
Fig. 4. DPSIR indicators in DriveNow
maintaining the initiative sustainable without profiting,
assuming behavioral patterns, government support and
managing prices and schedules of use.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>D. Data Collection in Interviews</title>
      <p>The interviews to collect the information in our case study
were conducted with three representatives for the groups
of Owners, Beneficiaries and Regulators. The implementers’
point of view was partially covered by the representative of
the owners. Once the system and context are clearly defined,
the next step is the selection of reference measures and the
establishment of sustainability criteria for each one of them.</p>
      <p>
        The full documentation of the case study is accessible as
Technical Report [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>IV. AGREEING ON SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND</p>
      <p>BANDS OF EQUILIBRIUM</p>
      <p>There is no general consensus on the concept of
sustainability; the definition of sustainability varies from company to
company and from person to person, i.e. a precise conception
of sustainability varies depending upon who is using it and in
which context [5, p. 28]. Hence flexibility on the selection of
important measurements is needed, without losing
standardization and the comparison capability among companies.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>A. Catalogue of Sustainability Indicators</title>
      <p>A general catalogue of sustainability indicators (SIs) is
therefore employed here and only those relevant and suitable
for the context are pre-selected. They are prioritized in a
subsequent step by simultaneously looking at the priority
assigned for each group of stakeholders.</p>
      <p>
        The catalogue is part of our research results and was created
based on general indicators and extensions for which we could
find official measurement values. The catalogue is structured
into groups, with corresponding standard themes, sub-themes,
a list and a description of each indicator; Fig. 5 shows a
fragment. For the full catalogue, please refer to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>B. Prioritization of Concerns</title>
      <p>The final selection of SIs from the set of pre-selected ones
is performed by a multi-dimensional stakeholder prioritization
of concerns, here the most relevant SIs for each stakeholder
are contrasted with the other stakeholders. The contrast is
graphically depicted in a 2x2 matrix were each SI is assigned
a point in the grid according to the relevance for each pair of
stakeholders.</p>
      <p>Next, the SIs are grouped into topics, subtopics and
finally listed individually. Our extension takes as basis the
three dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line, respectively the
Environmental, Social, and Economic perspective as topics,
and adds two more, namely the Human and Technology
dimensions. The Human dimension associates the SIs
pertinent to individuals, contrary to the social dimension that
refers to the society collectively. The Technology dimension
makes reference to the technological infrastructure supporting
the different tasks over the lifecycle, as well as technology
capacity limits, availability and access to technology based on
demographics, extension and integration of additional services,
and communication mechanisms enabled by technology. The
structure is, hence, based on the five topics of our extended
approach, i.e. environmental, social, economic, human and
technology, each with subtopics and a list of selected SIs to
be measured.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>C. Bands of Equilibrium</title>
      <p>With the priority SIs selected, we define a band of
equilibrium describing the boundaries within which our SIs values
must stay. This band is determined according to the selected
measurement unit and method, and is given by two values,
one for the minimum value our SI can have such that it is still
sustainable (any value lying below is unsustainable by lack),
a second value for the maximum value of our SI to still be
sustainable (consequently, any value above is unsustainable by
excess).</p>
      <p>For DriveNow, a general catalogue of SI indicators was
developed, and a sub-set of them was selected and structured
based on the information gathered in the previous step [13, p.
37-47]. The bands of equilibrium were defined using values
found in standards, regulations and publications, applicable to
the DriveNow project.</p>
      <p>At this point we have the foundations for the elicitation
of current and future scenarios. The next step evaluates the
weaknesses and strengths of the current status of the system,
the potential for improvement of particular SIs, as well as
the overall improvement. It also gives a suggestion on the
prioritised corrective actions to take.</p>
      <sec id="sec-11-1">
        <title>V. AMOEBA AND SCENARIO MAKING</title>
        <p>In this third step we start with the current situation appraisal
of the system and the definition of the future scenarios we
want to attain with the time. A consolidation of the previous
conducted steps can be summarized in the future scenarios
and AMOEBA diagram. By obtaining a current measure of
the system for each SI, and defining the values we ideally
expect to reach at different future points in time, we obtain
the current and goal values for each scenario. For simplicity
in this paper we only consider one future scenario, therefore
only a goal value.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>A. Data Collection for Values</title>
      <p>The current and goal values for each SI were obtained from
official concept descriptions, sustainability reports, press
publications, public statistical data from the city and government,
market analyses, and other documentation. The measurement
data from all sources were obtained by experts in the field, in
some cases with the aid of specialized equipment (e.g. sensors
measuring air pollution) and in general being reliable data.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>B. Future Scenarios</title>
      <p>The scenarios are depicted considering the four values
determined for each one of the priority SIs, the two values of
the band of equilibrium established in (Step 2), the value of the
current measurement and the value for the goal in the future,
all four for one scenario. These are plotted in an AMOEBA
diagram, for each defined future scenario, see Fig. 7.</p>
      <p>The graphical representation of the future scenarios in an
AMOEBA diagram enables the visual identification of SIs that
are lying outside the band of equilibrium either by exceeding
the maximum sustainable, or by not reaching the minimum
sustainable limit, and those SIs closer or further from the
goal value. By overlapping these four scenarios global insights
can be gained about the system, its sustainability level, its
weaknesses and strengths. An AMOEBA with too many
’teeth’ will indicate several weaknesses on particular SIs in
comparison to the level of the other SIs, on the contrary a
more circular amoeba is an indication of equally evolved SIs
as far as they lie within the band of equilibrium.</p>
      <p>The primary corrective actions must be those that
accomplish a sustainable and effective positive reaction without
negative effects, such that a more sustainable current situation
of the system can be achieved in a short time. A more
sustainable situation is characterized by an AMOEBA diagram
where no SI lies outside boundaries, and ideally all of them
are close to the goal value.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-14">
      <title>C. Analysis According to Sustainability Dimensions</title>
      <p>An additional element of the assessment is the balance of
SIs belonging to each one of the five topics of our approach,
see Fig. 8. The amount of SIs belonging to a certain topic
are grouped together, plotted and the whole topic highlighted,
building a color coding of five shades.</p>
      <p>In the AMOEBA, we can observe the general balance of the
system, depicting the priority SIs for multiple stakeholders in
parallel. In our example (see Fig. 7) a shadow color is assigned
to each dimension (environmental, economic, social, human,
and technology), the SIs belonging are plotted close to each
other, and then highlighted with a triangular surface.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-15">
      <title>D. Current Challenges in DriveNow</title>
      <p>For readability, only a sub-set of indicators was selected for
the AMOEBA diagrams presented here. Since the project was
launched only one year ago, some SI values are undefined or
did not change with respect to the initial scenario. However,
Fig. 8 clearly depicts the challenges that DriveNow is currently
facing:</p>
      <p>With regard to the environmental aspect, the number of
cars that could be saved still has to increase.</p>
      <p>In the technological sector, there are some availability
issues for system improvements that have yet to be
solved.
For the economic perspective, the market acceptance is
currently too low and needs to be improved.</p>
      <p>As the analysis can only provide insights into misalignments
with goals, the respective actions to be taken to solve the
challenges are subject to individual efforts at BMW and Sixt,
but we could provide them with a concise overview of the
current status of the project with regard to the sustainability
dimensions.</p>
      <sec id="sec-15-1">
        <title>VI. DISCUSSION</title>
        <p>
          We are aware that the application of the IMAGINE
approach [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ] in this setting is not in an application domain
originally intended by its inventor. This research had the goal
to investigate the applicability and usefulness of an approach
from within classical sustainability research to requirements
engineering for software-intensive systems.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-16">
      <title>A. Informal Evaluation</title>
      <p>There is no formal evaluation possible as there is no data
officially available that would have all the information
gathered using the IMAGINE approach. However, the feedback
by our industrial partner indicated that the analysis results
included not only a summary of the information they had
originally elaborated when gathering scope and requirements
of the project, but also held some new aspects due to its
completeness and integrity.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-17">
      <title>B. Assessment of the AMOEBA Diagrams</title>
      <p>From the AMOEBA diagram we can determine where flaws
occur, distinguish the issue areas, and draw some conclusions
about the corrective actions. Further investigation and
feasibility analysis can be performed to ensure that sufficiently
informed decisions are made.</p>
      <p>A sustainable system in the AMOEBA diagram should have
all the colors in an equal proportion. Whenever a topic is left
unattended, this is an indication for the inclusion of additional
SIs in that specific topic, it is mainly achieved through strategy
revision and sensibilization. The topics with a high proportion
of unsustainable SIs in the current scenario implicitly advise
future steps to achieve the desired scenario and the main points
to invest.</p>
      <p>After some corrective actions have been applied and a
reasonable time has passed, new data must be collected, and
the results of the whole process must be revised and adjusted.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-18">
      <title>C. Assessment of the DriveNow Case</title>
      <p>The DriveNow project was originally designed to
encompass mainly economic and social aspects. The introduction of
the environmental facet has not shown positive results yet,
since it takes long time to exhibit changes. Moreover, the
results have been affected by the plan of future important
contributions to the environment as is the introduction of
electronic cars. The assessment presented a current overview
of the project, revealed relevant faults regarding environment,
the achievement of goals, and promising results with respect to
the social and economic aspects. It provides a basis for review
and forthcoming analyses.</p>
      <sec id="sec-18-1">
        <title>VII. CONCLUSION</title>
        <p>The extension of the IMAGINE approach, an encompassing
analysis approach from the sustainability science domain, has
been successfully applied in an industrial case study with a
system that has been online for a year, supported by IT and
with a focus on sustainability in its roots. The developed
indicator catalogue is available for use in other assessments
in related application areas.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-19">
      <title>A. Summary</title>
      <p>The first two steps are mainly used to scope the right
problem and the participation of several stakeholders from
each group enriches the result. The third step provides succinct
information and an overview of the current system status,
as well as it provides insights and indications of strengths,
weaknesses and potential for improvement. The fourth step is
there to enable flexibility and make possible an evolutionary
assessment over time. This information can later be used for
informed and precise decision making relating to sustainability
matters.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-20">
      <title>B. Benefits</title>
      <p>Our experience with the IMAGINE approach with regard
to requirements engineering practices exhibits improvements
in the elicitation process. The identification of stakeholders in
different areas and at different hierarchy levels, including
government and certifying organizations, sustainability experts,
potential and real partners, as well as market factors, endorsed
the balance regarding prioritization and completeness of the
elicited requirements.</p>
      <p>The formulation of root definitions helped to state purposes
clearly and to define a more sharp scope. The SIs help to
state finer measurable objectives, as well as to convey long
and short term goals. The AMOEBA diagrams depict
information of different scenarios in a manageable and compact
way, understandable for the participants, and useful for the
assessment over time. The flexibility of the approach regarding
the instruments that can be used in the different business areas
eases and assist the adoption into companies.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-21">
      <title>C. Assessment</title>
      <p>The take-away message is that it is worth looking over
the rim of one’s teacup and evaluate the use of techniques
of related domains in a different setting. It is unlikely that
approaches are applicable one-to-one, but it is very likely
that it can be adapted in a way that contributes more than
developing new techniques from scratch. In the case at hand,
the study brought new insights for the system and a means to
perform an encompassing analysis that will be reused in the
future evolution of the project.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-22">
      <title>D. Future Work</title>
      <p>We intend to develop a toolset to support the usage of
the IMAGINE approach, which eases the current and historic
information management for a system under consideration,
and the review step in posterior revisions. This work can be
integrated to be part of a broader sustainability quality model
and established as a state of the practice standard for assessing
sustainability in any context.</p>
      <sec id="sec-22-1">
        <title>ACKNOWLEDGMENT</title>
        <p>We would like to thank our industry partners from BMW
for providing us with the necessary input to perform the study
and for giving feedback on the analysis results. This work
is part of the EnviroSiSE project (grant number PE2044/1-1)
funded by the DFG in Germany.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>ISO</given-names>
            <surname>14000 - Environmental</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>management</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          . http://www.iso.org/iso/ home/standards/management-standards/iso14000.htm.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>[2] ISO 26000 Guidance on social responsibility</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          . http://www.iso.org/ iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.S.</given-names>
            <surname>General Services</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Administration</article-title>
          . Sustainable design.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>EEA (European Environment Agency</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>)</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>Environmental indicators:typology and overview</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical Report 25</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>EEA (European Environment Agency</surname>
          </string-name>
          ),
          <year>Sept 1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Simon</given-names>
            <surname>Bell</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Stephen</given-names>
            <surname>Morse</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Sustainability indicators: Measuring the immeasurable? Earthscan Publications</article-title>
          , London :,
          <year>1999</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Peter</given-names>
            <surname>Checkland</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Systems Thinking, Systems Practice</source>
          . John Wiley and Sons,
          <year>April 1981</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.S.</given-names>
            <surname>Green Building</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Council. Leadership in energy and environmental design (leed)</article-title>
          . http://www.usgbc.org/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>FTSE</given-names>
            <surname>Group</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The industry classification benchmark (icb</article-title>
          ),
          <year>2012</year>
          . http://www.icbenchmark.com/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Global</given-names>
            <surname>Reporting</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Initiative</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Amsterdam, Netherlands.
          <source>Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, version 3.1 edition</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Christian</given-names>
            <surname>Herzig</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Stefan</given-names>
            <surname>Schaltegger</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Corporate sustainability reporting. an overview</article-title>
          . In Stefan Schaltegger,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Martin</given-names>
            <surname>Bennett</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and Roger Burritt, editors,
          <source>Sustainability Accounting and Reporting</source>
          , volume
          <volume>21</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>301</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>324</lpage>
          . Springer Netherlands,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lorenz</surname>
            <given-names>Hilty</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Wolfgang Lohmann, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Elaine</given-names>
            <surname>Huang</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Sustainability and ICT - an overview of the field</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the EnviroInfo</source>
          <year>2011</year>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stefan</surname>
            <given-names>Naumann</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Markus Dick, Eva Kern, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Timo</given-names>
            <surname>Johann</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The greensoft model: A reference model for green and sustainable software and its engineering</article-title>
          .
          <source>Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Alejandra</given-names>
            <surname>Rodriguez</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Birgit</given-names>
            <surname>Penzenstadler</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>An Assessment Technique for Sustainability: Applying the IMAGINE Approach to Software Systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical Report TUM-I1218</source>
          , Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Schaltegger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Herzig</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Kleiber</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Mueller</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement in Unternehmen. Center for Sustainability Management on behalf of Bundesministerium fuer Umwelt</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit</source>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>