Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

Bridging the Silos of Digitalization and Sustainability by Twin Transition: A Multivocal Literature Review

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Most research labeled 'twin transition' never coordinates digital and sustainability transitions.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy and transparent review, but the 81.4% mislabeling headline is more definition-dependent than the paper lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04267 v1 pith:7GCSWNIY submitted 2025-06-03 physics.soc-ph cs.ET

Baran Shajari , Istvan David This is my paper
classification physics.soc-phcs.ET
keywords twintransitiondigitaltransformationsustainabilitymultivocalliteraturereviewgraygreendigitalizationsustainable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the research literature on 'twin transition' — the idea that digitalization and sustainability should advance in a mutually reinforcing way, 'greening of and by IT and data' — mostly misuses the term. Reviewing 781 candidate works and classifying 161 that address both digital and sustainability transitions, the authors find that only 24 meet the bidirectional criterion, while 92 of 113 self-labeled twin transition studies describe transitions that are parallel or only one-way (digitalization serving sustainability). The paper then maps sustainability dimensions, stakeholders, enablers, and challenges across the 24 genuine twin transition studies, and argues that the field's imprecision feeds unwarranted techno-optimism and neglects the ecological cost of digitalization itself. A sympathetic reader would care because if the diagnosis holds, a large body of policy and innovation advice labeled as twin transition is pursuing the wrong target.

What carries the argument

The classification scheme that carries the argument is a three-way distinction among transition models based on the degree of coordination between digitalization and sustainability: parallel transition (no link between the two), informed transition (one-way link, in practice always digitalization aiding sustainability), and twin transition proper (bidirectional coordination). The scheme operationalizes the definition of twin transition from the European Green Deal and the phrasing 'greening of and by IT and data,' and it is applied to 161 studies that address both transitions. The 81.4% figure is the share of self-labeled twin transition studies that fall into the first two categories.

What would settle it

Re-code the same 161-study corpus with a definition that accepts one-way digitalization-enabled sustainability as a valid twin transition and recompute the share of self-labeled twin transition studies that are correctly labeled; a large jump in that share would show the headline figure depends on the strict definition, while little change would confirm the paper's boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dominant usage of 'twin transition' in academic and gray literature is imprecise: 81.4% (92 of 113) of studies that call themselves twin transition do not actually coordinate digital and sustainability transitions in both directions. Of these, 42 (37.2%) treat the two transitions as parallel with no link, and 50 (44.2%) treat digitalization as a tool serving sustainability while ignoring the sustainability of digitalization. Only 14.9% (24 of 161) of works addressing both transitions meet the bidirectional definition, and 21 of those label themselves correctly. The authors further report that genuine twin transition studies consistently include environmental sustainability (100%), usually combine it with economic and/or social dimensions, involve almost no technical stakeholders, and identify complexity and cost as the main challenges.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the strict definition that twin transition requires bidirectional coordination between digitalization and sustainability, taken from [16,41]; if common usage legitimately includes one-way or loosely linked transitions, the 81.4% mislabeling statistic is an artifact of the chosen definition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers and policy analysts should treat 'twin transition' as a loaded term: a large share of publications using it do not study coordinated transitions, so evidence syntheses based on self-reported labels will overstate the maturity of the field.
  • Funding and innovation programs aimed at twin transition should require explicit demonstration of bidirectional coordination, such as assessing the ecological footprint of the digital technologies themselves, not only their benefits for sustainability.
  • The near-total absence of technical stakeholders in the corpus suggests that information systems and software engineering expertise is underused in current twin transition work; the paper's recommendations point to modeling, ontologies, and participatory methods as entry points.
  • Because environmental sustainability appears in all genuine twin transition studies while technical and individual sustainability appear in none, the 'green' framing of twin transition may be crowding out social and longevity dimensions of sustainability.
  • The field's imprecision reinforces techno-optimism: if digitalization is assumed to be automatically green, the projected growth of ICT's carbon footprint (2-4% of global emissions now, up to 14% by 2040) goes unaddressed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The headline statistic is definition-sensitive: if one accepts one-way digitalization-to-sustainability links as a legitimate early-stage twin transition, the 81.4% mislabeling figure would shrink substantially; the paper's contribution is partly a recommendation about how the term should be used, not only a measurement of how it is used.
  • A natural testable extension is to survey authors of the 92 'mislabeled' studies: if many deliberately use 'twin transition' to mean any joint consideration of digitalization and sustainability, then the field has a terminological dispute rather than a competence gap.
  • The paper's stakeholder finding suggests a concrete design opportunity: building decision-support dashboards, digital twins, or applied-observability tools for government and business leaders could shift the stakeholder mix toward technical actors, though the paper does not itself test such interventions.
  • The exclusive use of the classic three sustainability dimensions in the corpus, with no attention to technical or individual sustainability, may reflect the term's provenance in European policy; a broader sampling of non-European literature might change the dimension counts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a multivocal literature review (MLR) on the 'twin transition' concept, defined as the mutually supporting digital and sustainability transitions ('greening of and by IT and data'). The authors searched eight databases on 3 September 2024, screened 472 unique references with explicit exclusion criteria, and selected 24 primary studies. In RQ1 they classify 161 digital/sustainability transition studies into parallel (66), informed (71), and twin (24) transitions, and report that 92 of 113 (81.4%) self-labeled twin-transition studies use an imprecise notion. RQ2-RQ5 characterize sustainability dimensions, stakeholders, enablers, and challenges, and Section V derives five research-and-practice recommendations.

Significance. If the RQ1 classification is accepted, the paper provides the first systematic quantitative evidence that the term 'twin transition' is frequently used for one-way or uncoordinated transitions, which is a useful and timely corrective for the information systems community. The study's strengths include a documented and reproducible protocol, a public replication package, a high inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.854) at the screening stage, a quality-checklist self-assessment, and the inclusion of gray literature following established guidelines. The multivocal design is appropriate for an emerging topic. However, the headline 81.4% statistic is conditional on a strict bidirectional definition of twin transition that is not independently validated; the main contribution therefore needs a sensitivity analysis or a stronger justification of the definitional boundary before the claim can be considered robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV-A, RQ1; Table I] The headline finding that 81.4% (92 of 113) of self-labeled twin-transition studies are imprecise depends entirely on counting the 50 'informed transition' papers as mislabeled. The protocol, however, does not justify this boundary. Table I defines E4 as 'Sustainability is clear but not related to digitalization,' while Sec. IV-A describes informed transition as recognizing a one-directional link in which digitalization serves sustainability; these two descriptions are contradictory, and the mapping from E4 to 'informed transition' is introduced only after screening. If one-way digitalization-for-sustainability is accepted as a legitimate reading of 'twin transition' (as in much EU policy usage where digitalization is an enabler of the green transition), the mislabeling share drops to 42 of 113 (37.2%). Please provide an independent justification that the strict bidirectional condition from [16,41] is the operative definition in the field, or report results under both definitions as a sensitivity analysis.
  2. [Sec. III-B-4] The reported Cohen's kappa of 0.854 applies to the E1-E5 inclusion/exclusion screening, not to the three-way classification of the 161 studies into parallel, informed, and twin transitions that drives RQ1. No inter-rater reliability is reported for that classification, and the categories are not defined with decision rules (e.g., what counts as 'recognizing a link' in one or both directions). Please add a reliability assessment for the RQ1 classification, or at least a second-round coding of the 161 studies with disagreement resolution, so that the headline counts are auditable.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Table I] The last row of Table I (198 excluded, 24 included, 3.07%, 0.854) needs clearer labels; as printed, the row is difficult to parse against the E0-E5 rows.
  2. [Fig. 2] Add a caption that explains the three left bars (66, 71, 24) and the split of TT-labeled versus not TT-labeled within each category; the current figure is hard to interpret without the text.
  3. [Sec. V-C] Table III reports non-technical stakeholders in 24 of 24 primary studies, while the text in Sec. V-C says 20 of 24 (83.3%); please correct this inconsistency and check whether the downstream conclusions are affected.
  4. [Sec. IV-A] The claim that in all 71 informed-transition studies 'digitalization serves sustainability ambitions' is asserted without a per-study table or a coding rule; please provide the underlying classification in the replication package or an appendix.
  5. [Sec. II-C] The related-work section would benefit from a more detailed comparison with Mouthaan et al. [50] and Wang et al. [67] to clarify what the new MLR adds beyond those reviews.
  6. [References] Reference [7] is a social-media post; for a claim about greenwashing in mainstream media, consider citing the associated news article or a more durable source.
  7. [Sec. III-A-1] The abbreviation GL (gray literature) is used in Sec. III-A-1 but is not defined at first use; please define it when it first appears.
  8. [Sec. III-C-d] The quality checklist score is given as 7 of 11 points, and the itemized points (1+1+2+2+1=7) sum correctly; please state the maximum score for each item to make the 11-point total transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical classification against an externally sourced definition, and self-citations appear only in non-load-bearing recommendations.

full rationale

The paper's headline result—that 81.4% of self-labeled twin transition studies use an imprecise notion—is an empirical classification of 113 studies against an externally sourced definition. The definition ('greening of and by IT&data', attributed to the WEF playbook [16] and the JRC page [41]) is not derived from the corpus being classified; it is applied to it. The categories of parallel, informed, and twin transition are operationalized from the presence or absence of bidirectional linkage, and the counts come from a documented screening process with reported inter-rater agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.854). The E3/E4 exclusions are re-labeled as 'parallel' and 'informed' in RQ1 rather than fitted to produce the headline. Self-citations ([23]–[26], [47]) appear only in the recommendations section as proposed future directions; they do not support the empirical findings and are not load-bearing for the central claim. No equation or construction makes the 81.4% figure true by definition. A different external definition would change the classification, but that is definition sensitivity, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the paper's stated premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a literature review, so it introduces no free parameters or physical entities. Its analytical load rests on definitional and methodological assumptions, most importantly the strict bidirectional definition of twin transition and the new three-way classification scheme.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Twin transition is defined as bidirectional coordination between digitalization and sustainability ('greening of and by IT and data').
    Operational criterion for classifying the 161 studies into parallel, informed, and twin transition in Sec. IV-A; adopted from Blüm [16] and the European Green Deal context [41].
  • domain assumption The Brundtland three-dimension sustainability framing (environmental, economic, social), extended by technical and individual dimensions, is the correct coding scheme for sustainability ambitions.
    Used in Sec. II-B and RQ2 to classify the sustainability dimensions in the corpus; standard in the sustainability literature, but a choice that shapes the results.
  • domain assumption Garousi et al. [33] multivocal literature review guidelines and the Petersen et al. [59] quality checklist are appropriate for assessing this corpus.
    Justifies the inclusion of gray literature and the reported 63.6% study quality score in Sec. III-C.
  • ad hoc to paper The degree of coordination between the two transitions can be discretized into three categories: parallel, informed, and twin.
    This coding scheme is introduced by the authors in Sec. IV-A; it is not validated independently and drives the headline 81.4% finding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging the Silos of Digitalization and Sustainability by Twin Transition: A Multivocal Literature Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GCSWNIY

@misc{pith2026250604267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging the Silos of Digitalization and Sustainability by Twin Transition: A Multivocal Literature Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GCSWNIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04267}
}
read the original abstract

Twin transition is the method of parallel digital and sustainability transitions in a mutually supporting way or, in common terms, "greening of and by IT and data." Twin transition reacts to the growing problem of unsustainable digitalization, particularly in the ecological sense. Ignoring this problem will eventually limit the digital adeptness of society and the problem-solving capacity of humankind. Information systems engineering must find ways to support twin transition journeys through its substantial body of knowledge, methods, and techniques. To this end, we systematically survey the academic and gray literature on twin transition, clarify key concepts, and derive leads for researchers and practitioners to steer their innovation efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Studies on twin transition (as of September 2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proportions of various digital/green transition concepts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Breakdown of joint sustainability dimensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AI Simulation by Digital Twins: Systematic Survey, Reference Framework, and Mapping to a Standardized Architecture

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic survey of digital twin enabled AI simulation produces the DT4AI reference framework and maps it to ISO 23247.

  2. Complex Model Transformations by Reinforcement Learning with Uncertain Human Guidance

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A framework that fuses uncertain human advice, encoded as subjective logic opinions, into the policy of a reinforcement learning agent improves learning of model transformation sequences, but only convincingly at low-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Fundamentals of Inclusive HCI Design

    Julio Abascal and Luis Azevedo. “Fundamentals of Inclusive HCI Design”. In: Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity . Springer, 2007, pp. 3–9

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies

    Richard Adams et al. “Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies”. In: Int. J. Manag. Rev. 19.4 (2017), pp. 432–454

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Where Dig- italization Meets Sustainability: Opportunities and Chal- lenges

    S. Aksin-Sivrikaya and C. B. Bhattacharya. “Where Dig- italization Meets Sustainability: Opportunities and Chal- lenges”. In: Sustainability in a Digital World . Springer, 2017, pp. 37–49

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    A critique of techno-optimism: Efficiency without sufficiency is lost

    Samuel Alexander and Jonathan Rutherford. “A critique of techno-optimism: Efficiency without sufficiency is lost”. In: Routledge Handbook of Global Sustainability Governance. Routledge, 2019, pp. 231–241

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    User-Centered Evaluation of Explainable Ar- tificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Literature Re- view

    Noor Al-Ansari, Dena Al-Thani, and Reem Al- Mansoori. “User-Centered Evaluation of Explainable Ar- tificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Literature Re- view”. In: Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2024 (2024). DOI: 10.1155/2024/4628855

    doi:10.1155/2024/4628855 2024

  6. [6]

    Reducing acciden- tal complexity in domain models

    Colin Atkinson and Thomas K ¨uhne. “Reducing acciden- tal complexity in domain models”. In: Soft Sys Mod 7.3 (2008), pp. 345–359. DOI: 10.1007/s10270-007-0061-0

    doi:10.1007/s10270-007-0061-0 2008

  7. [7]

    https://x.com/TheTranscript /status/1849949076294598947

    AWS CEO on AI & Energy. https://x.com/TheTranscript /status/1849949076294598947. Acc: 2024-12-06. 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Process-aware digital twin cockpit synthesis from event logs

    Dorina Bano et al. “Process-aware digital twin cockpit synthesis from event logs”. In: J Comput Lang 70 (2022), p. 101121. DOI: 10.1016/j.cola.2022.101121

    arXiv 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Ontology-based modeling of part digital twin oriented to assembly

    Qiangwei Bao et al. “Ontology-based modeling of part digital twin oriented to assembly”. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 236.1-2 (2022), pp. 16–28. DOI: 10.1177/0954405420941160

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Modelling sustainability in cy- ber–physical systems: A systematic mapping study

    Ankica Bari ˇsi´c et al. “Modelling sustainability in cy- ber–physical systems: A systematic mapping study”. In: Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems 45 (2025), p. 101051. DOI: 10.1016/j.suscom.2024.101051

    2025

  3. [11]

    Full cost accounting: An agenda for action

    Jan Bebbington et al. Full cost accounting: An agenda for action . V ol. 73. Certified Accountants Educational Trust London, 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    Requirements: The Key to Sus- tainability

    Christoph Becker et al. “Requirements: The Key to Sus- tainability”. In: IEEE Software 33.1 (2016), pp. 56–65. DOI: 10.1109/MS.2015.158

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommen- dations

    Lotfi Belkhir and Ahmed Elmeligi. “Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommen- dations”. In: J Clean Prod 177 (2018), pp. 448–463

    2018

  6. [14]

    Back to Basics: Explainable AI for Adaptive Serious Games

    Florian Berger and Wolfgang M ¨uller. “Back to Basics: Explainable AI for Adaptive Serious Games”. In: Serious Games. Springer, 2021, pp. 67–81

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ontological Representation of FAIR Principles: A Blueprint for FAIRer Data Sources

    Anna Bernasconi et al. “Ontological Representation of FAIR Principles: A Blueprint for FAIRer Data Sources”. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineer- ing. Springer, 2023, pp. 261–277

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sjoerd Bl ¨um. What is the ’twin transition’ - and why is it key to sustainable growth? https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2022/10/twin-transition-playbook-3-phases-to- accelerate-sustainable-digitization/. Access: 2025-03-02

    2022

  9. [17]

    Google Scholar and Scopus

    Sarah Bonato. “Google Scholar and Scopus”. In: J Med Libr Assoc 104.3 (2016). DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2016.31

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    The Role of Modeling in the Analysis and the Design of Sustainable Systems

    Dominik Bork et al. “The Role of Modeling in the Analysis and the Design of Sustainable Systems”. In: Communications of AIS 54 (2024). DOI: 10 . 17705 / 1CAIS.05434

    2024

  11. [19]

    Process Prediction with Digital Twins

    Tobias Brockhoff et al. “Process Prediction with Digital Twins”. In: 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C). 2021, pp. 182–187. DOI: 10. 1109/MODELS-C53483.2021.00032

    2021

  12. [20]

    Our common future–Call for action

    Gro Harlem Brundtland. “Our common future–Call for action”. In: Environmental conservation 14.4 (1987), pp. 291–294

    1987

  13. [21]

    Agriculture and rural areas facing the “twin transition

    Gianluca Brunori. “Agriculture and rural areas facing the “twin transition”: principles for a sustainable rural digitalisation”. In: Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. (REA) 77.3 (2022), pp. 3–14

    2022

  14. [22]

    Digital and Sustainable (Twin) Transformations: A Case of SMEs in the European Union

    Aurelija Burinskiene and Jolanta Nalivaike. “Digital and Sustainable (Twin) Transformations: A Case of SMEs in the European Union”. In: Sustainability 16.4 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    SusDevOps: Promoting Sustainability to a First Principle in Software Delivery

    Istvan David. “SusDevOps: Promoting Sustainability to a First Principle in Software Delivery”. In: 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE- NIER). IEEE, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Sustainable Systems by Sustainable Meth- ods: A Conceptual Framework

    Istvan David. “Sustainable Systems by Sustainable Meth- ods: A Conceptual Framework”. In: 1st International Workshop on Low Carbon Computing, LOCO . 2024. URL: https : / / www. sicsa . ac . uk / wp - content / uploads / 2024/11/LOCO2024 paper 42.pdf

    2024

  17. [25]

    Infonomics of Au- tonomous Digital Twins

    Istvan David and Dominik Bork. “Infonomics of Au- tonomous Digital Twins”. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering . V ol. 14663. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 563–578. ISBN : 978-3-031-61057-8. DOI: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-61057-8 33

    2024

  18. [26]

    Circular systems engineering

    Istvan David, Dominik Bork, and Gerti Kappel. “Circular systems engineering”. In: Soft Sys Mod 23.2 (2024), pp. 269–283. DOI: 10.1007/s10270-024-01154-4

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Collaborative Model-Driven Soft- ware Engineering: A Systematic Update

    Istvan David et al. “Collaborative Model-Driven Soft- ware Engineering: A Systematic Update”. In: 24th In- ternational Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2021, Japan, 2021 . IEEE, 2021, pp. 273–284

    2021

  20. [28]

    Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edi- tion)

    Alan Dix et al. Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edi- tion). Prentice-Hall, 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    Do we Really Know What we are Building? Raising Awareness of Potential Sustainability Effects of Software Systems in Requirements Engineer- ing

    Leticia Duboc et al. “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 Intl Requirements Engineering Conf. 2019, pp. 6–16. DOI: 10.1109/RE.2019.00013

    2019

  22. [30]

    Human-Centered Explain- able AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approach

    Upol Ehsan and Mark Riedl. “Human-Centered Explain- able AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approach”. In: HCI International 2020 Late Breaking Papers: Multi- modality and Intelligence . Springer, 2020, pp. 449–466

    2020

  23. [31]

    Reasoning with Rules and Ontolo- gies

    Thomas Eiter et al. “Reasoning with Rules and Ontolo- gies”. In: Reasoning Web: Second International Summer School 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2006, Tutorial Lectures. Springer, 2006, pp. 93–127. DOI: 10. 1007/11837787 4

    2006

  24. [32]

    Collaborative Model-Driven Soft- ware Engineering: A Classification Framework and a Research Map

    Mirco Franzago et al. “Collaborative Model-Driven Soft- ware Engineering: A Classification Framework and a Research Map”. In: IEEE Trans Softw Eng 44.12 (2018), pp. 1146–1175. DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2017.2755039

    2018

  25. [33]

    Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering

    Vahid Garousi, Michael Felderer, and Mika V . M ¨antyl¨a. “Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering”. In: Inf. Softw. Technol. 106 (2019), pp. 101–121

    2019

  26. [34]

    What Is an Ontology?

    Nicola Guarino, Daniel Oberle, and Steffen Staab. “What Is an Ontology?” In: Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, 2009, pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3 0

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    An ontology-based approach to engineering ethicality requirements

    Renata Guizzardi et al. “An ontology-based approach to engineering ethicality requirements”. In: Soft Sys Mod 22.6 (2023), pp. 1897–1923. DOI: 10.1007/s10270-023- 01115-3

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Key principles for user-centred sys- tems design

    Jan Gulliksen et al. “Key principles for user-centred sys- tems design”. In: Behaviour & Information Technology 22.6 (2003), pp. 397–409

    2003

  29. [37]

    The relevance of information and communication technologies for environmental sustain- ability – A prospective simulation study

    Lorenz M. Hilty et al. “The relevance of information and communication technologies for environmental sustain- ability – A prospective simulation study”. In: Environ Model Softw 21.11 (2006), pp. 1618–1629

    2006

  30. [38]

    ICT in- dustry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent by 2030

    International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ICT in- dustry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 . Tech. rep. 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    https://www.iso

    ISO/IEC 21031:2024 Information technology – Software Carbon Intensity (SCI) specification . https://www.iso. org/standard/86612.html. Access: 2024-12-06. 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    AI Anx- iety

    Deborah G. Johnson and Mario Verdicchio. “AI Anx- iety”. In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68.9 (2017), pp. 2267–2270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23867

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    The twin green & digital transition: How sustainable digital technologies could enable a carbon-neutral EU by 2050

    Joint Research Centre – European Commission. The twin green & digital transition: How sustainable digital technologies could enable a carbon-neutral EU by 2050. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and- updates/twin-green-digital-transition-how-sustainable- digi...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Procedures for performing system- atic reviews

    Barbara Kitchenham. Procedures for performing system- atic reviews. Tech. rep. 33. Keele, UK, Keele University, 2004, pp. 1–26

    2004

  35. [43]

    Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research

    Sascha Kraus et al. “Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research”. In: Sage 11.3 (2021), p. 21582440211047576

    2021

  36. [44]

    The sustainability assessment frame- work toolkit: a decade of modeling experience

    Patricia Lago et al. “The sustainability assessment frame- work toolkit: a decade of modeling experience”. In: Soft Sys Mod (2024). DOI: 10.1007/s10270-024-01230-9

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Douglas B. Laney. Infonomics: How to Monetize, Man- age, and Measure Information as an Asset for Compet- itive Advantage. English. Routledge, 2017, p. 322

    2017

  38. [46]

    Digital Transformation and Sustainability Goals: Ad- vancing the “Twin Transition

    Alessandra Lazazzara, Rocco Reina, and Stefano Za. “Digital Transformation and Sustainability Goals: Ad- vancing the “Twin Transition””. In: Towards Digital and Sustainable Organisations. Springer, 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  39. [47]

    Participatory and Collaborative Modeling of Sustainable Systems: A Sys- tematic Review

    Rajitha Manellanga and Istvan David. “Participatory and Collaborative Modeling of Sustainable Systems: A Sys- tematic Review”. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 27th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems . MODELS-C ’24. ACM, 2024, pp. 645–654...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Gartner Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2024

    Ava McCartney. Gartner Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2024 . https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/ gartner- top- 10- strategic- technology- trends- for- 2024. Access: 2024-12-06. Oct. 2023

    2024

  41. [49]

    Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning

    Carol Midgley. Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Routledge, 2014

    2014

  42. [50]

    Systemic sustainability effects of contemporary digitalization: A scoping review and re- search agenda

    M. Mouthaan et al. “Systemic sustainability effects of contemporary digitalization: A scoping review and re- search agenda”. In: Futures 149 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Boundary matters: the potential of system dynamics to support sustainability?

    Ehsan Nabavi, Katherine A. Daniell, and Husain Najafi. “Boundary matters: the potential of system dynamics to support sustainability?” In: Journal of Cleaner Produc- tion 140 (2017), pp. 312–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.03.032

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    https : / / techcrunch

    Nearly half of AI data centers may not have enough power by 2027 . https : / / techcrunch . com / 2024 / 11 / 14 / nearly-half-of-ai-data-centers-may-not-have-enough- power-by-2027. Access: 2024-12-06. Nov. 2024

    2027

  45. [53]

    Graphical User Interface and Human- Computer Interaction

    Gerard O’Regan. “Graphical User Interface and Human- Computer Interaction”. In: The Innovation in Computing Companion. Springer, 2018, pp. 143–146

    2018

  46. [54]

    Twin Transition through the Implementation of Industry 4.0 Technologies: Desk- Research Analysis and Practical Use Cases in Europe

    Juan-Jose Ortega-Gras et al. “Twin Transition through the Implementation of Industry 4.0 Technologies: Desk- Research Analysis and Practical Use Cases in Europe”. In: Sustainability 13.24 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Knowledge mapping of resilience and human rights in supply chains: A roadmapping taxonomy for twin green and digital transition design

    Chung-Lien Pan, Han-Teng Liao, and Yuan Zhang. “Knowledge mapping of resilience and human rights in supply chains: A roadmapping taxonomy for twin green and digital transition design”. In: Front. Environ. Sci. 11 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    A Generic Model for Sustainability with Process- and Product- Specific Instances

    Birgit Penzenstadler and Henning Femmer. “A Generic Model for Sustainability with Process- and Product- Specific Instances”. In: Proc. of the 2013 Workshop on Green in/by Software Eng. ACM, 2013, pp. 3–8

    2013

  49. [57]

    Software Engineering for Sustainability: Find the Leverage Points!

    Birgit Penzenstadler et al. “Software Engineering for Sustainability: Find the Leverage Points!” In: IEEE Software 35.4 (2018), pp. 22–33. DOI: 10 . 1109 / MS . 2018.110154908

    2018

  50. [58]

    Monetizing Observable Data Will Separate the Winners and Losers

    Lori Perri. Monetizing Observable Data Will Separate the Winners and Losers . https://www.gartner.com/en/ articles/monetizing- observable- data- will- separate- the- winners-and-losers. Access: 2024-12-06. Nov. 2022

    2024

  51. [59]

    Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update

    Kai Petersen, Sairam Vakkalanka, and Ludwik Kuzniarz. “Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update”. In: Inf Soft Tech 64 (2015), pp. 1–18

    2015

  52. [60]

    Digital transformation: A review and research agenda

    Dmitry Plekhanov, Henrik Franke, and Torbjørn H. Net- land. “Digital transformation: A review and research agenda”. In: European Management Journal41.6 (2023), pp. 821–844

    2023

  53. [61]

    Model-Driven Engineering

    Douglas C. Schmidt. “Model-Driven Engineering”. In: IEEE Computer 39.2 (2006), pp. 25–31

    2006

  54. [62]

    Conceptual Modeling: Topics, Themes, and Technology Trends

    Veda C. Storey, Roman Lukyanenko, and Arturo Castel- lanos. “Conceptual Modeling: Topics, Themes, and Technology Trends”. In: ACM Comput. Surv. 55.14s (2023). DOI: 10.1145/3589338

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    Ontological reasoning for consis- tency in the design of cyber-physical systems

    Ken Vanherpen et al. “Ontological reasoning for consis- tency in the design of cyber-physical systems”. In: 1st Intl. Workshop on Cyber-Physical Production Systems . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–8. DOI: 10.1109/CPPS.2016.7483922

    2016

  56. [64]

    Digital transformation: conceptual framework

    Natalja Verina and Jelena Titko. “Digital transformation: conceptual framework”. In: Intl. Sci. Conf. Contempo- rary Issues in Business, Management and Economics Engineering. Vilnius Gediminas TU, 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda

    Gregory Vial. “Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda”. In: J of Strat Inf Systems 28.2 (2019), pp. 118–144

    2019

  58. [66]

    Tools and methods in partici- patory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job

    Alexey V oinov et al. “Tools and methods in partici- patory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job”. In: Environmental Modelling & Software 109 (2018), pp. 232–255. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    Making Cyberspace Towards Sus- tainability A Scientometric Review for a Cyberspace that Enables Green and Digital Transformation

    Zijia Wang et al. “Making Cyberspace Towards Sus- tainability A Scientometric Review for a Cyberspace that Enables Green and Digital Transformation”. In: Intl. Conf. on Cyberspace Innovation of Advanced Technolo- gies. ACM, 2020, pp. 394–400

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.