Core Dilemmas and Resolution Paths in Software Project Management under Sustainability Constraints: An Analysis Based on Global Practices

This study systematically investigates the core dilemmas and resolution paths for software project management under sustainability constraints. Drawing on a comprehensive systematic literature review of recent peer-reviewed articles, international standards, and authoritative industry and policy reports, this research identifies and analyzes the lifecycle-wide challenges faced by software projects in integrating sustainability. The findings reveal a series of critical dilemmas, including the initial conflict between sustainability and business goals, the gap in standardized sustainability metrics, the dual constraints of technology and team capabilities during development, stakeholder coordination and acceptance issues at delivery, the trade-off between low-carbon operations and service quality, and the lack of effective evaluation and experience capitalization at project closure. In response to these dilemmas, this paper proposes a multi-dimensional, scenario-adaptive solution system, offering specific, actionable paths for different stages of the project lifecycle. Furthermore, it constructs a three-dimensional adaptation framework that considers enterprise scale—encompassing large, medium, and start-up organizations—and project management models such as Agile and Waterfall, providing targeted guidance for global software project managers and organizations. This research enriches the theoretical framework for sustainable software engineering and offers a practical roadmap for the industry to navigate the complexities of integrating sustainability into software project management, ultimately contributing to the broader goals of digital and global sustainability.

Sustainable Software Engineering, Software Project Management, Sustainability Constraints

1. Amazon Web Services. (n.d.). Sustainability in the cloud. https://aws.amazon.com/sustainability/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Andrikopoulos, V., Boza, R.-D., Perales, C., & Lago, P. (2022). Sustainability in software architecture: A systematic mapping study. In 2022 48th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (pp. 426–433). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA56994.2022.00073 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Atadoga, A., Umoga, U. J., Lottu, O. A., & Sodiy, E. O. (2024). Tools, techniques, and trends in sustainable software engineering: A critical review of current practices and future directions. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences, 11(1), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjaets.2024.11.1.0051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00069-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bhandari, K. R., Ranta, M., & Salo, J. (2022). The resource-based view, stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and sustainable competitive advantage. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1525–1537. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boston Consulting Group. (2022, April 11). Six pitfalls to avoid when mobilizing for sustainability. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/six-pitfalls-to-avoid-when-mobilizing-for-sustainability [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Calero, C., & Piattini, M. (2017). Puzzling out software sustainability. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 16, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2017.10.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Caricola, R., & Grimaldi, M. (2011). Knowledge and human capital management tools: a case study. International Journal of Services Sciences, 4(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2011.038462 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Computer Weekly. (2025, November 11). Simplify IT, save money and carbon: The rise of the minimalist CIO. https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Simplify-IT-save-money-and-carbon-The-rise-of-the-minimalist-CIO [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Condori-Fernandez, N., & Lago, P. (2018). Characterizing the contribution of quality requirements to software sustainability. Journal of Systems and Software, 137, 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Datamatics. (2024). Ashapura: Boosting ROI by 40% with Datamatics Cloud Migration. https://www.datamatics.com/resources/case-studies/ashapura-gets-its-overall-roi-improved-by-40-after-moving-to-cloud [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Deloitte. (2023). Sustainable requirements: Is your software eco-friendly? https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-zone2/uk/en/docs/services/consulting/2023/deloitte-uk-sustainable-requirements-engineering-whitepaper.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (4th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Durrani, N., Raziq, A., Mahmood, T., & Khan, M. R. (2024). Barriers to adaptation of environmental sustainability in SMEs: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE, 19(5), e0298580. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298580 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ebbesen, J. B., & Hope, A. J. (2013). Re-imagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding sustainability into project constraints. PM World Journal, 2(3), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. FasterCapital. (2025, December 22). Contract negotiation for sustainability. https://fastercapital.com/services/Contract-Negotiation-for-Sustainability.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fernandes, G., & Araújo, M. (2019). Improving and embedding project management practice: Generic or context dependent? International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 7(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm070103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Google. (2025). Google 2025 environmental report. https://sustainability.google/google-2025-environmental-report/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Green Software Foundation. (2024a). Software Carbon Intensity (SCI) specification (Version 1.1.0). https://github.com/Green-Software-Foundation/sci/blob/main/SPEC.md [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Green Software Foundation. (2024b). Green software patterns. https://github.com/Green-Software-Foundation/patterns/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Green Software Foundation. (2025a). Green software engineering principles and patterns. https://principles.green/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Green Software Foundation. (2025b). Sustainable Organisational Framework for Technology (SOFT). https://greensoftware.foundation/articles/celebrating-the-ratification-of-sustainable-organizational-framework-for-technolo/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Green Software Foundation. (2026, February 13). Green software practitioner course. https://learn.greensoftware.foundation/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hanus, N., Newkirk, A., & Stratton, H. (2023). Organizational and psychological measures for data center energy efficiency: Barriers and mitigation strategies. Energy Efficiency, 16(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-022-10078-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hmaittane, A., Bouslah, K., M’Zali, B., & Ibariouen, I. (2022). Corporate sustainability and cost of equity capital: Do managerial abilities matter? Sustainability, 14(18), 11363. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. International Energy Agency. (2024). What the data centre and AI boom could mean for the energy sector. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/what-the-data-centre-and-ai-boom-could-mean-for-the-energy-sector [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. International Organization for Standardization. (2015). ISO 14001:2015—Environmental management systems: Requirements with guidance for use. https://www.iso.org/standard/60857.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. International Telecommunication Union. (2022). ITU-T Recommendation L.1480: Enabling the net zero transition. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1480-202212-I/en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. IEEE Standards Association. (2025). Global standards for a sustainable digital future. https://itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2025/es/Files/View/DOC/8d5295d61363f01188b8005056a84dbd/outcomedocument_session_350_ieee.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 83(7/8), 134–147. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Khalifeh, A., Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M. K., Yaseen, H., Mathani, B., & Wahsheh, F. R. (2023). Exploring the nexus of sustainability and project success: A proposed framework for the software sector. Sustainability, 15(22), 15957. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215957 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (Technical Report EBSE 2007-001). Keele University and Durham University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kocabıyıkoğlu, A., Göğüş, C. I., Duygulu, O., & Tüzün, K. B. (2025). Sustainability logic and goals in operations: An experimental study. Journal of Business Research, 201, 115736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115736 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. König, C., Lang, D. J., & Schaefer, I. (2025). Sustainable software engineering: Concepts, challenges, and vision. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 34(5), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3709352 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Leong, J., May Yee, K., Baitsegi, O., Palanisamy, L., & Ramasamy, R. K. (2023). Hybrid project management between traditional software development lifecycle and agile based product development for future sustainability. Sustainability, 15(2), 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Lyneis, J., & Sterman, J. (2016). How to save a leaky ship: Capability traps and the failure of win-win investments in sustainability and social responsibility. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Ma, A. K. F., Chen, Y., & Chen, Y. (2025). Sustainability in the technology industry: board attributes, ESG and corporate financial performance in an emerging market. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 19(2), 198–225. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbge.2023.10059239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Matthew, U. O., Asuni, O., & Fatai, L. O. (2024). Green software engineering development paradigm: An approach to a sustainable renewable energy future. In Advancing Software Engineering Through AI, Federated Learning, and Large Language Models (pp. 281–294). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3502-4.ch018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Mehra, R., Sharma, V. S., Kaulgud, V., Podder, S., & Burden, A. P. (2022, May). Towards a green quotient for software projects. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (pp. 295–296). Association for Computing Machinery. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Microsoft. (2025a). 2025 environmental sustainability report. https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcorp/microsoft/msc/documents/presentations/CSR/2025-Microsoft-Environmental-Sustainability-Report.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Microsoft. (2025b, December 30). this.Just.in // What’s new in Green & Sustainable Software. https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/reactor/events/14597/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Microsoft. (2026, February 16). ESG value chain solution. Microsoft Learn. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/industry/sustainability/sustainability-manager-esg-value-chain-solution [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Moreira, A., Lago, P., Heldal, R., Betz, S., Brooks, I., Capilla, R., Coroamă, V. C., Duboc, L., Fernandes, J. P., Leifler, O., Nguyen, N.-T., Oyedeji, S., Penzenstadler, B., Peters, A.-K., Porras, J., & Venters, C. C. (2025). A roadmap for integrating sustainability into software engineering education. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 34(5), Article 139. https://doi.org/10.1145/3708526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Moyle, E. (2023). Advancing sustainability goals with DevOps. ISACA Journal, 3, 9–11. https://www.isaca.org/resources/isaca-journal/issues/2023/volume-3/advancing-sustainability-goals-with-devops [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Muranganwa, I., & Naidoo, R. (2023). Assessing organisations’ readiness to adopt green information technology: the case of a south african information technology services vendor. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 34(2), 79-91. 10.7166/34-2-2881 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Nasdaq. (2024). 2024 executive report: The ROI of ESG & sustainability software. https://nd.nasdaq.com/rs/303-QKM-463/images/Nasdaq-2024-Executive-Report-The-ROI-of-ESG-and-Sustainability-Software.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Nicoletti Junior, A., Oliveira, M. C. D., Helleno, A. L., Campos, L. M. D. S., & Alliprandini, D. H. (2022). The organization performance framework considering competitiveness and sustainability. Production Planning & Control, 33(13), 1215–1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1857873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. NITDA. (2025, May 29). On NITDA’s war against waste and weak systems. Vanguard News. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/05/on-nitdas-war-against-waste-and-weak-systems/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024a). OECD digital economy outlook 2024 (Volume 2). OECD iLibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Oyedeji, S., Khan, M. A., Puhtila, P., Weerakoon, O., Mäkilä, T., Adisa, M. O., Naqvi, B., & Auvinen, S. (2025). Green coding: State of practice. In 2025 11th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S) (pp. 91–99). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICT4S68164.2025.00018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Oyedeji, S., Seffah, A., & Penzenstadler, B. (2018). A catalogue supporting software sustainability design. Sustainability, 10(7), 2296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072296 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010.495581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Penzenstadler, B., Raturi, A., Richardson, D., Calero, C., Femmer, H., & Franch, X. (2014, May). Systematic mapping study on software engineering for sustainability (SE4S). In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601256 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Pirozzi, M., Quagliarini, A., Apponi, F., Brusciotti, F., Buzzi, C., Mendicino, A., Milani, C., & Raguso, D. (2023, June). Sustainable project management: A multidimensional value-based approach. PM World Journal, XII(VI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Piwowar-Sulej, K., & Iqbal, Q. (2024). The nexus of project management approaches in sustainable development. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 17(2), 338–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-09-2023-0219 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. PMI & GPM Global. (2024). Sustainable project management: The PMI-GPM practice guide (3rd ed.). Project Management Institute. https://www.gpm.org/standards-and-publications/sustainable-project-management-the-gpm-practice-guide [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Project Management Institute. (2025a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (8th ed.). https://www.pmi.org/standards/pmbok [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Project Management Institute. (2025b). Your guide to sustainability in project management. https://www.pmi.org/blog/guide-to-sustainability-in-project-management [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Reis, T., Araújo, A., Gusmão, R., Farias, A., Silva, J., & Silva, A. (2025). Are we building sustainable software? Adoption, challenges, and early-stage strategies. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - WEBIST (pp. 113–120). SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0013656100003985 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Sarker, M. R., Ali, S. M., Paul, S. K., & Munim, Z. H. (2021). Measuring sustainability performance using an integrated model. Measurement, 184, 109931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109931 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Shukla, S., & Gautam, M. H. (2025). A Case Study on Green Software Development Practices in the Industries and Organizations in Bangalore Region. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 10(6), 1289-1306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. SIDBI & Dun & Bradstreet. (2024). Lengthy timeframe and uncertain returns constrain sustainability adoption: SIDBI - D&B SPeX. PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/lengthy-timeframe-and-uncertain-returns-constrain-sustainability-adoption-sidbi--db-spex-302160440.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Silvius, A. G., Kampinga, M., Paniagua, S., & Mooi, H. (2017). Considering sustainability in project management decision making; An investigation using Q-methodology. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Silvius, A. G., & Schipper, R. P. (2014). Sustainability in project management competencies: Analyzing the competence gap of project managers. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2(2), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2014.22005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Soares, I., Fernandes, G., & Santos, J. M. (2024). Sustainability in project management practices. Sustainability, 16(10), 4275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104275 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Socialsuite. (2025). Materiality software for technology companies. https://www.socialsuitehq.com/technology [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co;2-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. United Nations. (2015). The 17 goals. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://sdgs.un.org/goals [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Venters, C. C., Capilla, R., Betz, S., Penzenstadler, B., Crick, T., Crouch, S., Nakagawa, E. Y., Becker, C., & Carrillo, C. (2018). Software sustainability: Research and practice from a software architecture viewpoint. Journal of Systems and Software, 138, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Venters, C. C., Capilla, R., Nakagawa, E. Y., Betz, S., Penzenstadler, B., Crick, T., & Brooks, I. (2023). Sustainable software engineering: Reflections on advances in research and practice. Information and Software Technology, 164, 107316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Verdecchia, R., Sallou, J., & Cruz, L. (2023). A systematic review of Green AI. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 13(4), e1507. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1507 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Wang, Q., Gu, X., & Pu, C. (2024, October). A study of response time instability of microservices at high resource utilization in the cloud. In 2024 IEEE 6th International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (CogMI) (pp. 111–116). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Weninger, C. (2012, July 15-18). Project initiation and sustainability principles [Paper presentation]. PMI® Research and Education Conference, Limerick, Munster, Ireland. Project Management Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Zakrzewska, M., Piwowar‐Sulej, K., Jarosz, S., Sagan, A., & Sołtysik, M. (2022). The linkage between Agile project management and sustainable development: A theoretical and empirical view. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2285 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria