The current study investigates factors influencing sustainable software practices due to the growing concern for environmental desolation in software sustenance among software practitioners in the electronic industry. It validates the GREEN SOFT Reference Model in the Malaysian context by conducting a study in Selangor, Malaysia, using non-probability sampling techniques. The research involved 250 employees from various software departments. Partial least square via SmartPLS3.3 examined the constructs of governance, software strategy, knowledge accessibility, software practitioners, sustainable environmental practices and sustainable software practices. Empirical results show that the GREEN SOFT Reference Model positively and directly influenced software practices, including software strategy, software practitioners, sustainable environmental practices and knowledge accessibility. However, knowledge accessibility moderated the link between software strategy and sustainable software practices. The other factors did not indicate the moderating effect. The research shows that knowledge accessibility has the most substantial impact compared to the other factors. Therefore, the study suggests that practitioners should pursue sustainable software practices to enhance effectiveness in the workplace. The study presents the theoretical and practical implications for future consideration.
AbdullahR., AbdullahS., DinJ., & TeeM. (2015). A systematic literature review of green software development in a collaborative knowledge management environment. International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology (IJACT), 9, 136.
2.
AmriR., & SaoudN. B. B. (2014). Towards a generic sustainable software model. In 2014 Fourth International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications, IEEE, 231–234.
3.
AnderssonM., & KarlssonC. (2007). Knowledge in the regional economic growth-the role of knowledge accessibility. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 129–149.
4.
ArditoL., ProcacciantiG., TorchianoM., & VetroA. (2015). Understanding green software development: A conceptual framework. IT Professional, 17(1), 44–50.
5.
BaronR. M., & KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
6.
Ben AmaraD., & ChenH. (2020). A mediation-moderation model of environmental and eco-innovation orientation for sustainable business growth. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(14), 16916–16928.
7.
BerkhoutF., & HertinJ. (2001). Impacts of information and communication technologies on environmental sustainability: Speculations and evidence. Report to the OECD, Brighton, 21.
8.
BörgerE., & RaschkeA. (2018). Modelling companion for software practitioners. Springer.
9.
Ch’ngP. C., CheahJ., & AmranA. (2021). Eco-innovation practices and sustainable business performance: The moderating effect of market turbulence in the Malaysian technology industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124556.
10.
CohenP. (1989). The structure and regulation of protein phosphatases. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 58(1), 453–508.
11.
Condori-FernandezN., & LagoP. (2018). Characterizing the contribution of quality requirements to software sustainability. Journal of Systems and Software, 137, 289–305.
12.
Condori-FernandezN., & LagoP. (2019). Towards a software sustainability-quality model: Insights from a multi-case study. 2019 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), IEEE, 1–11.
13.
CoroamaV. C., & HiltyL. M. (2009). Energy consumed vs. energy saved by ICT-A closer look. In EnviroInfo, (2), 347–355.
14.
DengX., & JiangW. (2019). Evaluating green supply chain management practices under fuzzy environment: A novel method based on D number theory. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(5), 1389–1402.
15.
DickM., NaumannS., & KuhnN. (2010). A model and selected instance of green and sustainable software. In What kind of information society? Governance, virtuality, surveillance, sustainability, resilience (pp. 248–259). Springer.
16.
DustdarS., LiF., TruongH. L., SehicS., NasticS., QanbariS., & ClaeßensM. (2013). Green software services: From requirements to business models. In 2013 2nd International Workshop on Green and Sustainable Software GREENS, IEEE, 1–7.
17.
FernandoY., JabbourC. J. C., & WahW. X. (2019). Pursuing green growth in technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter?Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 8–20.
18.
FoxW., & BayatM. S. (2008). A guide to managing research. Juta and Company Ltd.
19.
García-MirelesG. A., MoragaM. Á., GarcíaF., CaleroC., & PiattiniM. (2018). Interactions between environmental sustainability goals and software product quality: A mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 95, 108–129.
20.
GablerC. B., PanagopoulosN., VlachosP. A., & RappA. (2017). Developing an environmentally sustainable business plan: An international B2B case study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(4), 261–272.
21.
GIIG. I. I. (2019). Global innovation index rankings. https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator.
22.
GöhringW. (2004). The Memorandum “Sustainable Information Society”. In EnviroInfo, (2), 278–286.
23.
GonzálezA. H. (2018). Sustainability and software. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valore, (2).
24.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., & AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education.
25.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC., & SarstedtM. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. SAGE Publications.
26.
HenselerJ., & FassottG. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 713–735). Springer.
27.
HenselerJ., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
28.
HoF. H., Abdul-RashidS. H., & Raja GhazillaR. A. (2016). Analytic hierarchy process-based analysis to determine the barriers to implementing a material efficiency strategy: Electrical and electronics companies in the Malaysian context. Sustainability, 8(10), 1035.
29.
IbrahimS. R. A., YahayaJ., SalehudinH., & BakarN. H. (2019). Towards green software process: A review on integration of sustainability dimensions and waste management. In 2019 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI) (pp. 128–133). IEEE.
30.
JnrB. A., MajidM. A., & RomliA. (2018). An empirical study on predictors of green sustainable software practices in Malaysian electronic industries. Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 17(2), 347–391.
31.
JnrB. A., & PaN. C. (2015). A framework for adoption and implementation of green IT/IS practice in IT governance. In the Third International Conference on Green Computing, Technology and Innovation, 38.
32.
KernE., GuldnerA., & NaumannS. (2019). Including software aspects in green IT: How to create awareness for green software issues. In Green IT engineering: Social, business and industrial applications, (pp. 3–20). Springer.
33.
KernE., HiltyL. M., GuldnerA., MaksimovY. V., FillerA., GrögerJ., & NaumannS. (2018). Sustainable software products—Towards assessment criteria for resource and energy efficiency. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 199–210.
34.
KoçakS. A., AlptekinG. I., & BenerA. B. (2015). Integrating environmental sustainability in software product quality. In RE4SuSy, 17–24.
35.
LagoP., MeyerN., MorisioM., MüllerH. A., & ScannielloG. (2014). Leveraging “energy efficiency to software users” summary of the second GREENS workshop, at ICSE 2013. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 39(1), 36–38.
36.
LamiG., & BuglioneL. (2012). Measuring software sustainability from a process-centric perspective. In 2012 Joint Conference of the 22nd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 2012 Seventh International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, IEEE, 53–59.
37.
LeeJ. C. Y. (2018). Meaningful rebound for Malaysia’s tech sector. The Malaysian Reserve. https://themalaysianreserve.com/2018/07/16/meaningful-rebound-for-malaysias-tech-sector/.
38.
LeeK., AzmiN., HanayshaJ., AlzoubiH., & AlshuridehM. (2022). The effect of the digital supply chain on organizational performance: An empirical study in Malaysia manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(2), 495–510.
39.
MidhaV., & BhattacherjeeA. (2012). Governance practices and software maintenance: A study of open-source projects. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 23–32.
40.
MishraD., AkmanI., & MishraA. (2014). Theory of reasoned action application for green information technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behaviour, 36, 29–40.
41.
NaumannS., KernE., & DickM. (2013). Classifying green software engineering-The GREENSOFT model. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop Energy Aware Software-Engineering and Development, EASED-BUIS, 4, 13–14.
42.
NaumannS., KernE., DickM., & JohannT. (2015). Sustainable software engineering: Process and quality models, life cycle, and social aspects. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability (pp. 191–205). Springer.
43.
NaveA., LaurettR., & do PaçoA. (2021). Relation between antecedents, barriers and consequences of sustainable practices in the wine tourism sector. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 20, 100584.
44.
NunnallyJ. C. (1975). Psychometric theory—25 years ago and now. Educational Researcher, 4(10), 7–21.
45.
OgiemwonyiO. (2022). Factors influencing generation Y green behaviour on green products in Nigeria: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 13, 100164.
46.
OgiemwonyiO., & HarunA. (2018). The differences of attitude and behaviour of the generation Y in Malaysia and Nigeria. A cross-cultural study. Advance in Marketing Research Series: UTHM, 10(2), 101–110.
47.
OgiemwonyiO., & HarunA. B. (2020a). Green product awareness has the potential to promote green consumer behaviour: Evidence from Kuala-Lumpur. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 67(1–2), 39–50.
48.
OgiemwonyiO., & HarunA. B. (2020b). Consumption of green products as a means of expressing green behaviour in an emerging economy: With the case study of Malaysia. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 11(2), 297–312.
49.
OgiemwonyiO., HarunA. B., AlamM. N., KarimA. M., TabashM. I., HossainM. I., & OjuolapeM. A. (2020). Green product as a means of expressing green behaviour: A cross-cultural empirical evidence from Malaysia and Nigeria. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 20, 101055.
50.
OgiemwonyiO., HarunA. B., OthmanB. A., IsmaelA. D., & AliR. (2019). Key issues and challenges of the green consumer in consuming green product an insight from the emerging country: Malaysia. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 23(2), 514–528.
51.
OgiemwonyiO., & HarunA. B. (2021). Theory of planned behaviour approach to understanding pro-environmental behaviour among young green consumers in Malaysia. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 67(3–4), 168–181.
52.
OgiemwonyiO., HarunA., HossainM. I., & KarimA. M. (2022). The influence of green behaviour using the theory of planned behaviour approach: Evidence from Malaysia. Millennial Asia, 09763996221080508.
53.
OngE. C., & TanC. L. (2022). Soft TQM, agility, and knowledge management deliver organizational performance: A study of Malaysian manufacturing organizations in the electrical and electronics sector. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 41(4), 28–47.
54.
PaivaD. M. B., FreireA. P., & de Mattos FortesR. P. (2021). Accessibility and software engineering processes: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 171, 110819.
55.
PangM. S. (2014). IT governance and business value in the public sector organizations—The role of elected representatives in IT governance and its impact on IT value in US state governments. Decision Support Systems, 59, 274–285.
PieroniM. P., McAlooneT. C., & PigossoD. C. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 198–216.
58.
PogutzS., & WinnM. I. (2016). Cultivating ecological knowledge for corporate sustainability: Barilla’s innovative approach to sustainable farming. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(6), 435–448.
59.
PopliR., & ChauhanN. (2013). Agile software development. International Journal of Computer Science and Communication, 4(2), 153–156.
60.
RashidN., & KhanS. U. (2018). Agile practices for global software development vendors in the development of green and sustainable software. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 30(10), e1964.
61.
RayS. (2013). Green software engineering process: Moving towards sustainable software product design. Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4(1), 25–29.
62.
SalamM., & KhanS. U. (2018). Challenges in the development of green and sustainable software for software multi-sourcing vendors: Findings from a systematic literature review and industrial survey. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 30(8), e1939.
63.
Sánchez-GordónS., Sánchez-GordónM. L., & Luján-MoraS. (2016). Towards an engineering process for developing accessible software in small software enterprises. In ENASE, 241–246.
64.
SteigerwaldB., LuceroC. D., AkellaC., & AgrawalA. (2011). Impact of software on energy consumption. White paper, Intel Corp.
65.
TainaJ., & MäkinenS. (2015). Green software quality factors. In Green in software engineering (pp. 129–154). Springer.
66.
TsaiK. H., & LiaoY. C. (2017). Sustainability strategy and eco-innovation: A moderation model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 426–437.
67.
WetzelsM., Odekerken-SchröderG., & Van OppenC. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.
