Green Web Meter: Structuring and Implementing a Real-Time Digital Sustainability Monitoring System
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- i.
- How did we select the basic framework and key aspects for structuring the Green Web Meter?
- ii.
- Which specific KPIs were selected for monitoring purposes?
- iii.
- How does the Green Web Meter keep track of the KPIs and compute scores for each one of the sustainability pillars?
2. Literature Review
3. Results
- -
- The efficiency and satisfaction aspects from the E-S-QUAL model are the most critical factors in determining a website’s service level as they exhibit strong correlations not only with the overall quality construct but also with user loyalty.
- -
- The SITEQUAL model’s usability and security indicators emerged as the most impactful criteria on consumer perceptions and attitudes.
- -
- The information quality index of the WebQual 4.0 model does not significantly affect the user satisfaction levels when interacting with a website.
- -
- performance efficiency;
- -
- usability; and
- -
- security and interaction quality.
- -
- Identifying the individual components of the “overall quality” construct that are transversal in nature, meaning they are not exclusively applicable to the e-commerce context (e.g., reliability and timeliness of on-site transactions).
- -
- Integrating these components with the UNI PdR 147 guidelines applicable to the development of websites and web apps.
- -
- Reordering all the various components, aligning them with the reference points identified through the analysis of the contributions mentioned previously (E-S QUAL, SITEQUAL, and WebQual 4.0) and the digital sustainability targets set by the UNI guidelines.
- -
- The evaluation of the main Core Web Vitals parameters—namely the Largest Contentful Paint and Total Blocking Time—related to the loading performance and fluidity of interactions with digital elements (reference KPIs: speed and fluidity).
- -
- The measurement of the size of the digital resources integrated into the pages (reference KPIs: efficiency in the use of digital resources).
- -
- The estimation of the electricity consumption per page view, on the end-user side, and verification of any support for green hosting services, powered by renewable energy (reference KPIs: energy efficiency).
- -
- The estimation of the scope 3 emissions (related to the use phase of products and services as established by the GHG Protocol) based on the electricity consumption data and subsequent calculation of the carbon footprint (reference KPI: carbon efficiency).
- -
- Accessibility compliance and best practice checks based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. In particular, these guidelines include specific measures aimed at users with visual disabilities, such as the inclusion of alternative text for images that enable screen readers to provide proper information about the visual asset content (reference KPI: accessibility).
- -
- The verification of the adoption of the HTTPS protocol, the identification of common vulnerabilities—such as the presence of mixed content, i.e., HTTP resources within HTTPS pages and cross-origin links, i.e., hyperlinks that point to resources located on a different domain from the one of the web page that contains them—and any critical errors in the development of the website, such as the visibility of the server’s data in header responses, i.e., specific pieces of metadata sent along with an HTTP response from a web server to a client, and email privacy misconfigurations (reference KPI: security).
- -
- The identification of the visit tracking systems integrated into the website or web app, such as Google Analytics or Matomo (reference KPI: privacy).
- -
- Checking the main components of web reputation [13], which include the search engine optimisation (SEO) operations and social media presence, with the relative integration of social channels within the website or web app (reference KPI: reputation).
4. Material and Methods
- identifying the site map and extracting the URLs that make up the website or web app, thanks to a specific anti-ban script simulating web browsers’ operations and performing nearly simultaneous crawling activities, on the order of milliseconds, from different IPs;
- direct call to our proprietary script, simulating a browser’s activity, and subsequent retrieval of the digital assets for each page, such as JavaScript and CSS files, images, videos, fonts, and so on;
- analysis of the digital resources aimed at evaluating each page’s performance; and
- data aggregation, score calculation, and final report generation.
4.1. Green Web Meter Score (E): Environmental Criterion Assessment and Evaluation
- -
- The total amount of data transferred during a page view (in GB), detected in real time by the Green Web Meter software.
- -
- The ratio between the electricity consumption attributed to network operation in 2023 (hosting, servers, network nodes, and content delivery networks) and the consumption attributed to end-user devices, estimated at 0.81 kWh/GB [18]. It is worth noting that the data considered—also validated by Bonetti [19]—are variable over time due to technological evolution of the network infrastructure, efficiency improvements in the design of websites and web apps, and client-side devices.
- -
- The ratio between the energy consumption of new visitors and returning visitors, with an attributed modifier of 0.7 (own estimate), which, according to Andrae (2020), respectively, account for 75% and 25% shares.
- -
- The global average of carbon intensity—i.e., grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour—estimated at 442 g/kWh [18]. Again, it is noted that the data vary over time and by geographical area, as clearly indicated by the Electricity Maps’ data visualisation project.
- -
- A green hosting factor—detected through API call to the Green Web Data Set and applied in case the website or web app relies on servers powered by renewable energies, whose production determines lesser environmental impact compared to non-renewables (fossil fuels, carbon, etc.)—equal to 0.85 (own estimate).
- -
- The median global emissions per page view of 0.6 g (own estimate).
4.2. Social Score (S): Social Criterion Assessment and Evaluation
4.3. Governance Score (G): Governance Criterion Assessment and Evaluation
5. Discussion and Conclusions
- -
- Provide snapshots of ESG performances, as highlighted in (Figure 3), which features the environmental criterion evaluation dashboard;
- -
- Support companies with actionable insights for improving the website or web app’s quality and sustainability, with complete and accessible reports, which include specific and customised suggestions for implementing modifications (Figure 4);
- -
- Assist the management operations in a complex and fast-evolving context by helping professionals to cope with the increasing regulatory constraints in sustainability compliance and reporting (e.g., CSRD);
- -
- Reward sustainable websites and raise awareness among end-users through the issuance of NFT badges—tracked on the Arbitrum blockchain—capable of providing feedback about the compliance with the main digital sustainability guidelines, such as the UNI PdR 147 standard.
- -
- the adherence to the OWASP security standards;
- -
- the platform’s backing on Digital Ocean servers certified with SOC 2 (Type II) and SOC 3 (Type II) certifications, granting cloud infrastructure reliance on recognised information security control frameworks;
- -
- modular development practices with the related possibility to integrate new APIs and screening mechanisms, such as Google’s Page Speed Insights as an alternative to Google Lighthouse for detecting parameters like Core Web Vitals, Accessibility, SEO practices, and so on;
- -
- the continuous monitoring of the Green Web Meter screening data and scientific contributions to the digital sustainability topic for eventual updates as we hold that the data we used as a starting point for calculating the scores, i.e., the average global carbon intensity and median page weight, are subject to variations in time as the web technologies and electricity consumption patterns—just to mention a few—evolve.
- -
- specifically, for the sake of providing even more accurate information to the Green Web Meter’s end-users and overcoming the limitations due to the adoption of cross-country references, we plan to adapt the carbon footprint calculation to the specific regional energy’s carbon intensity factor. For example, retracing the website’s (or web app’s) ccTLD—which is an Internet top-level domain generally used or reserved for a specific country, such as .eu, .it, .de, .fr, .es, and so on—and combining it with the related regional carbon intensity data, the Green Web Meter would be able to produce even more relevant results.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement; UNFCCC: Paris, France, 2015; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- Ferreboeuf, H.; Efoui-Hess, M.; Kahraman, Z.; The Shift Project. Lean ICT: Towards Digital Sobriety—Report of the Working Group Directed by Hugues Ferreboeuf for the Think Tank. The Shift Project. March 2019. Available online: https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Lean-ICT-Report_The-Shift-Project_2019.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2024).
- Bradley, K. Defining Digital Sustainability. Libr. Trends 2007, 56, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dapp, M. Open Government Data and Free Software—Cornerstones of a Digital Sustainability Agenda. In The 2013 Open Reader—Stories and Articles Inspired by OKCon2013: Open Data, Broad, Deep, Connected; Buch & Netz: Kölliken, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Konys, A. How to support digital sustainability assessment? An attempt to knowledge systematization. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 176, 2297–2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparviero, S.; Ragnedda, M. Towards digital sustainability: The long journey to the sustainable development goals 2030. Digit. Policy Regul. Gov. 2021, 23, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G.; Merrill, R.K.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital Sustainability and Entrepreneurship: How Digital Innovations Are Helping Tackle Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2020, 45, 999–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epifani, S. Digital Sustainability: Why Sustainability Cannot do without Digital Transformation (In Italian); Digital Transformation Institute: Rome, Italy, 2020; p. 380. [Google Scholar]
- de Souza, V.H.; Satyro, W.; Contador, J.C.; Pinto, L.F.; Mitidiero, M.C. The Technology Analysis model—TAM 4.0 for implementation of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2023, 14, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinuesa, R.; Azizpour, H.; Leite, I.; Balaam, M.; Dignum, V.; Domisch, S.; Felländer, A.; Langhans, S.D.; Tegmark, M.; Fuso Nerini, F. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wasilewski, A.; Kołaczek, G. Sustainability in the Digital Age: Assessing the Carbon Footprint of E-commerce Platforms. In Proceedings of the Computational Science—ICCS 2024, Malaga, Spain, 2–4 July 2024; pp. 154–161. [Google Scholar]
- UNI PDR 147:2023; Digital Sustainability—Requirements and Indicators for Innovation Processes. UNI (Italian Standards Body): Milan, Italy, 2023.
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Malhotra, A. E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality. J. Serv. Res. 2005, 7, 213–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. Developing a Scale to Measure the Perceived Quality of an Internet Shopping Site (PQISS). In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 24–27 May 2020; p. 471. [Google Scholar]
- Napitupulu, D. Analysis of Factors Affecting The Website Quality (Study Case: XYZ University). Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2017, 7, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive (EU) 2022/2464. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (Text with EEA relevance). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2464 (accessed on 24 July 2024).
- Sanchez-Cuadrado, S.; Morato, J. The Carbon Footprint of Spanish University Websites. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ember. Global Electricity Review; Ember: Fife, UK, 2023; p. 163. [Google Scholar]
- Bonetti, S. Could Video Streaming Be as Bad for the Climate as Driving a Car? Calculating Internet’s Hidden Carbon Footprint. 2022. Available online: https://theconversation.com/could-video-streaming-be-as-bad-for-the-climate-as-driving-a-car-calculating-internets-hidden-carbon-footprint-194558 (accessed on 30 May 2024).
- Web Almanac. HTTP Archive’s Annual State of the Web Report. 2022. Available online: https://almanac.httparchive.org/ (accessed on 30 May 2024).
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
Efficiency | Ease of use and speed of the website (e.g., information organisation, ease of finding information, page loading speed, and transaction completion speed). |
Satisfaction | Truthfulness of statements about order delivery times and availability of items. |
System availability | Correct functioning of the website (e.g., functional fluidity, absence of crashes and system blocks). |
Privacy | Security and protection of consumers’ privacy. |
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
Ease of use | Usability of the site and ease of access to relevant information. |
Design aesthetics | Creativity, use of colour, and visual quality of multimedia assets. |
Process speed | Speed, interactivity, and responsiveness. |
Security | Security of personal and financial data. |
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
Usability | Ease of use, clarity and comprehensibility of interactions, navigability, attractiveness of display, appropriateness of graphic layout, clarity in layout and information hierarchy, ease of finding the website address, and completeness of information on the website. |
Information quality | Reliability of information, ability to provide updated information, comprehensibility and readability of information, ability to provide detailed information, relevance of information, accuracy of information, and presentation of information in the appropriate format. |
Interaction quality | Website reputation, transaction security, perception of security in providing personal data, sense of community, ability to attract interest, openness to feedback from users, and reliability in transactions of goods or services. |
Parameter | Description | Related UNI PdR 147:2023 Target(s) |
---|---|---|
Performance efficiency | Speed and fluidity; digital resources’ use efficiency (asset sizing); energy efficiency and carbon efficiency (principles of sustainable web design) | 7.2: Develop software with a reduced energy impact |
Usability | Accessibility | 10.1: Develop inclusive, accessible, and usable digital services |
Security and interaction quality | Security; privacy; reputation | 9.2: Create secure and resilient digital infrastructures 10.2: Develop digital services that respect users |
ESG Criterium | KPI | Derived Scores |
---|---|---|
Environment (E) | Speed and fluidity | UX score |
Digital resources’ use efficiency (asset sizing) | Page weight optimisation score | |
Energy efficiency | Green hosting | |
Carbon efficiency | Carbon footprint mitigation score | |
Society (S) | Accessibility | Accessibility score |
Best practice score | ||
Reputation | SEO score | |
Social media presence | ||
Governance (G) | Security | HTTPS encryption |
Mixed content | ||
Unsafe cross-origin links | ||
Public server visibility | ||
Email privacy | ||
Privacy | Visitor tracking |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sala, A.; Barbetti, L.; Rosini, A. Green Web Meter: Structuring and Implementing a Real-Time Digital Sustainability Monitoring System. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177627
Sala A, Barbetti L, Rosini A. Green Web Meter: Structuring and Implementing a Real-Time Digital Sustainability Monitoring System. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177627
Chicago/Turabian StyleSala, Antonello, Lorenzo Barbetti, and Andrea Rosini. 2024. "Green Web Meter: Structuring and Implementing a Real-Time Digital Sustainability Monitoring System" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177627