pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09307 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.CY

The Need for a Green ICT Reference Framework

Marco Aiello , Mina Alipour , Antonio Brogi , Rafael Capilla , Lidia Fuentes , Ilche Georgievski , Gabriele Gianini , Mahyar Tourchi Moghaddam
show 2 more authors
Monica Vitali Sebastian Werner
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.CY
keywords Green ICTsustainability assessmentreference frameworkICT governancelifecycle phasessustainability integrationenvironmental impact
0
0 comments X

The pith

Metrics alone cannot sufficiently assess or govern the sustainability impacts of ICT systems, requiring instead a shared reference framework that integrates multiple perspectives, domains, lifecycle phases, and governance contexts.

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

Assessing the environmental and sustainability effects of information and communication technology systems faces obstacles from their inherent structural complexity, scattered measurement methods, and ambiguous accountability across different layers. The paper contends that these problems go beyond what metrics can solve by themselves. A unified reference framework for Green ICT is proposed to weave together sustainability considerations from various angles, areas, stages of a system's life, and oversight settings. This integration would allow for more effective management and evaluation of ICT's green aspects. The authors offer an early version of such a framework to begin building this common structure.

Core claim

The sustainability impacts of ICT systems are difficult to assess and govern due to structural complexity, fragmented measurement practices, and unclear responsibilities across system layers. These challenges cannot be addressed solely by metrics and motivate the need for a shared Green ICT reference framework that integrates sustainability across multiple perspectives and domains, lifecycle phases, and governance contexts. An initial framework is presented as a first step towards a comprehensive reference framework.

What carries the argument

A shared Green ICT reference framework integrating sustainability across multiple perspectives and domains, lifecycle phases, and governance contexts.

Load-bearing premise

That creating a reference framework through group consensus will overcome the structural complexity, fragmented practices, and unclear responsibilities in assessing ICT sustainability without additional empirical validation or enforcement.

What would settle it

Demonstration that metrics by themselves adequately address sustainability governance in ICT despite the complexities, or that the proposed framework does not lead to better integration and outcomes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09307 by Antonio Brogi, Gabriele Gianini, Ilche Georgievski, Lidia Fuentes, Mahyar Tourchi Moghaddam, Marco Aiello, Mina Alipour, Monica Vitali, Rafael Capilla, Sebastian Werner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A General Framework for Green ICT can hide unsustainable ICT components, dilute emissions’ responsibilities, and enable forms of greenwashing. How resource-efficient software should be addressed across multiple levels—including software infrastructures, architec￾tures, applications, and hardware environments—is also a matter of growing importance for standardization bodies. Notably, a recent recommendation… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The sustainability impacts of ICT systems are difficult to assess and govern due to structural complexity, fragmented measurement practices, and unclear responsibilities across system layers. We argue that these challenges cannot be addressed solely by metrics and motivate the need for a shared Green ICT reference framework that integrates sustainability across multiple perspectives and domains, lifecycle phases, and governance contexts. We present an initial framework developed within the Informatics Europe Green ICT Working Group as a first step towards a comprehensive reference framework.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper argues that assessing and governing the sustainability impacts of ICT systems is hindered by structural complexity, fragmented measurement practices, and unclear responsibilities across system layers. It claims these challenges cannot be addressed solely by metrics and motivates the need for a shared Green ICT reference framework integrating sustainability across multiple perspectives, domains, lifecycle phases, and governance contexts. An initial version of such a framework, developed within the Informatics Europe Green ICT Working Group, is presented as a first step toward a comprehensive reference.

Significance. If the proposed reference framework can be elaborated, validated, and adopted through broad consensus, it could offer a useful integrative structure for Green ICT efforts that goes beyond isolated metrics. The collaborative working-group origin is a strength, as is the explicit framing as an initial step. However, the current manuscript is preliminary and does not yet demonstrate how the framework would overcome the stated barriers, so its significance remains prospective rather than established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and introduction: the load-bearing claim that 'these challenges cannot be addressed solely by metrics' is asserted without concrete examples or analysis of specific metric systems (e.g., energy models or carbon-accounting protocols) that have failed due to structural complexity, fragmentation, or unclear responsibilities. No failure cases or comparative assessment is provided to show why integration across lifecycle phases and governance contexts inherently exceeds metric capabilities.
  2. [Framework description] Framework presentation section: the initial framework is described at a high level but lacks detail on its concrete components, integration mechanisms, or explicit mapping to the three identified challenges. Without such elaboration it is difficult to evaluate whether the framework actually addresses the motivation or remains a high-level taxonomy.
minor comments (2)
  1. Define key terms such as 'structural complexity', 'governance contexts', and the precise scope of 'Green ICT' at first use to improve accessibility for readers outside the working group.
  2. Add references to existing ICT sustainability standards, metrics, or frameworks (e.g., ISO standards, GHG Protocol for ICT) to situate the proposed reference framework and clarify its incremental contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments identify opportunities to strengthen the motivation and the description of the initial framework. We address each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and introduction: the load-bearing claim that 'these challenges cannot be addressed solely by metrics' is asserted without concrete examples or analysis of specific metric systems (e.g., energy models or carbon-accounting protocols) that have failed due to structural complexity, fragmentation, or unclear responsibilities. No failure cases or comparative assessment is provided to show why integration across lifecycle phases and governance contexts inherently exceeds metric capabilities.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from concrete examples to support this claim. The current text is a concise position paper that identifies the structural challenges and motivates the framework as a response, but it does not include detailed failure analyses of existing metrics. In the revised version we will add a short subsection in the introduction that provides two illustrative cases: (1) limitations of data-center energy metrics such as PUE that overlook embodied carbon, supply-chain governance, and multi-tenant responsibility allocation; and (2) shortcomings of carbon-accounting protocols when applied to distributed ICT systems spanning multiple lifecycle phases and organizational boundaries. These examples will clarify why a shared reference framework is required in addition to isolated metrics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Framework description] Framework presentation section: the initial framework is described at a high level but lacks detail on its concrete components, integration mechanisms, or explicit mapping to the three identified challenges. Without such elaboration it is difficult to evaluate whether the framework actually addresses the motivation or remains a high-level taxonomy.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly presents the framework as an initial version developed by the Informatics Europe Green ICT Working Group and frames it as a first step toward a comprehensive reference. We acknowledge that readers would find an expanded description helpful for assessing its relation to the stated challenges. In the revision we will enlarge the framework section to list the principal dimensions (perspectives, domains, lifecycle phases, governance contexts), describe the intended integration approach (contextualization of metrics within the multi-dimensional structure), and include a mapping table that links each framework element to the challenges of structural complexity, fragmented measurement practices, and unclear responsibilities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: position paper with no derivations, equations, or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The manuscript is a position paper that identifies challenges in Green ICT (structural complexity, fragmented practices, unclear responsibilities) and asserts these cannot be solved by metrics alone, thereby motivating a reference framework developed via the Informatics Europe working group. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or formal derivations appear in the text. The central claim is an argumentative premise rather than a result derived from prior inputs or self-citations; the framework is explicitly labeled an 'initial' first step without any reduction to fitted values or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work. The proposal is therefore self-contained as a call for consensus and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about ICT sustainability challenges without new evidence or derivations; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Sustainability impacts of ICT systems are difficult to assess and govern due to structural complexity, fragmented measurement practices, and unclear responsibilities across system layers.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the premise motivating the framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5393 in / 1253 out tokens · 51016 ms · 2026-05-10T17:16:59.020349+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Power hungry: How AI will drive energy demand,

    C. Bogmans, P. Gomez-Gonzalez, G. Ganpurev, G. Melina, A. Pescatori, and S. Thube, “Power hungry: How AI will drive energy demand,”IMF Working Papers, vol. 81, no. 4, p. 2025, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Sustainability design and software: The karlskrona manifesto,

    C. Becker, R. Chitchyan, L. Duboc, S. Easterbrook, B. Penzenstadler, N. Seyff, and C. C. Venters, “Sustainability design and software: The karlskrona manifesto,” in2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2. IEEE, 2015, pp. 467– 476

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Framing sustainability as a property of software quality,

    P. Lago, S. A. Koc ¸ak, I. Crnkovic, and B. Penzenstadler, “Framing sustainability as a property of software quality,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 70–78, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Corporate social responsibility communication in the ict sector: digital issues, greenwashing, and materiality

    “Corporate social responsibility communication in the ict sector: digital issues, greenwashing, and materiality.”

    work page

  5. [5]

    Green ICT Research and Challenges,

    R. Verdecchia, F. Ricchiuti, A. Hankel, P. Lago, and G. Procaccianti, “Green ICT Research and Challenges,” inAdvances and New Trends in Environmental Informatics, V . Wohlgemuth, F. Fuchs-Kittowski, and J. Wittmann, Eds. Springer, 2017, pp. 37–48

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Carbon-Efficient Software Design and Development: A Systematic Literature Review,

    O. Danushi, S. Forti, and J. Soldani, “Carbon-Efficient Software Design and Development: A Systematic Literature Review,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 57, no. 10, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Iso open consultation on resource-efficient software: final report,

    DIN/ISO, “Iso open consultation on resource-efficient software: final report,” August 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zeno do.19088758

    work page doi:10.5281/zeno 2025

  8. [8]

    Metrics for sustainable data centers,

    V . D. Reddy, B. Setz, G. S. V . R. K. Rao, G. R. Gangadharan, and M. Aiello, “Metrics for sustainable data centers,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 290–303, 2017

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08476 , year=

    A. S. Luccioni and A. Hernandez-Garcia, “Counting Carbon: A Survey of Factors Influencing the Emissions of Machine Learning,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08476

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Toward a systematic survey for carbon neutral data centers,

    Z. Cao, X. Zhou, H. Hu, Z. Wang, and Y . Wen, “Toward a systematic survey for carbon neutral data centers,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 895–936, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Hoarding and minimalism: Tendencies in digital data preservation,

    F. Vitale, I. Janzen, and J. McGrenere, “Hoarding and minimalism: Tendencies in digital data preservation,” inProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018, pp. 1–12

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Data governance,

    B. Otto, “Data governance,”Business & Information Systems Engineer- ing, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 241–244, 2011

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Why transparency matters for sustainable data centers and carbon-neutral artificial intelli- gence (ai),

    C. Hankendi, A. K. Coskun, and B. K. Sovacool, “Why transparency matters for sustainable data centers and carbon-neutral artificial intelli- gence (ai),”iScience, vol. 28, no. 11, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    A systematic survey on energy-efficient techniques in sustainable cloud computing,

    S. Bharany, S. Sharma, O. I. Khalaf, G. M. Abdulsahib, A. S. Al Hu- maimeedy, T. H. Aldhyani, M. Maashi, and H. Alkahtani, “A systematic survey on energy-efficient techniques in sustainable cloud computing,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 6256, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Adaptive green cloud applications: Balancing emissions, revenue, and user experience through approximate computing,

    M. Vitali, P. Wiesner, K. Kreutz, and R. Gandola, “Adaptive green cloud applications: Balancing emissions, revenue, and user experience through approximate computing,”Future Generation Computer Systems, p. 108143, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Reuse, reduce, support: Design principles for green data mining: J. schneider et al.: Reuse, reduce, support: Design principles for green data mining,

    J. Schneider, S. Seidel, M. Basalla, and J. vom Brocke, “Reuse, reduce, support: Design principles for green data mining: J. schneider et al.: Reuse, reduce, support: Design principles for green data mining,” Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 65– 83, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    A review of energy efficiency evaluation metrics for data centers,

    X. Shao, Z. Zhang, P. Song, Y . Feng, and X. Wang, “A review of energy efficiency evaluation metrics for data centers,”Energy and buildings, vol. 271, p. 112308, 2022

    work page 2022