Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainability in the Digital Product Lifecycle: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

This article presents a systematic literature review aimed at identifying challenges and opportunities for integrating sustainability into the digital product lifecycle. The review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and involved a comprehensive search across three databases—Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect—using structured Boolean queries. A total of 377 records were retrieved, and after duplicate removal and a multi-stage screening process based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 56 peer-reviewed studies were selected for analysis. These studies were examined in relation to how they addressed environmental, social, and economic dimensions throughout the digital product lifecycle and UX/UI design. Key challenges identified include high energy consumption, limited user awareness of environmental impacts, and the exclusion of vulnerable populations from digital solutions. Opportunities include the adoption of sustainable design strategies, the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), co-design practices, and data-driven decision-making tools. The findings were synthesized into a conceptual framework structured across three lifecycle stages—pre-development, development, and post-development—and mapped to six sustainability requirements. This study contributes to the field by aligning digital innovation with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and offering a theoretical foundation for the development of practical frameworks and indicators that support sustainable digital product development.

1. Introduction

The environmental, social, and economic impacts of digital products and their development processes have intensified in recent years due to the growing demand for innovation—particularly in fields such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). Among the most significant concerns are the high energy consumption and carbon emissions associated with training large-scale AI models, including natural language processing systems, which can emit hundreds of tons of CO₂ [1,2,3,4]. These systems also place pressure on local resources, such as water used to cool data centers, especially in vulnerable regions [5].

If considered as a country, the Information Technology (IT) sector would rank as the third-largest global energy consumer. Approximately 31% of its emissions are attributed to end-user devices, while 69% stem from technological infrastructure [6]. Beyond environmental impacts, digital products have also contributed to a rise in social issues, including data privacy violations, online fraud, and the spread of misinformation [6,7,8]. Additionally, the concentration of digital infrastructure often affects surrounding communities, leading to increased digital inequalities, water scarcity, and opaque governance of environmental impacts [9].

Despite these challenges, most users remain unaware of the environmental and social consequences associated with digital technologies and are unlikely to adjust their behaviors even when informed [10,11]. This lack of awareness extends to organizations and developers, indicating a broader need to embed sustainability principles into the full lifecycle of digital products—from design and development to post-deployment. In response to this issue, initiatives such as the DIMPACT tool have emerged to make the environmental impacts of digital services more tangible and measurable for stakeholders [12].

Although some studies address sustainability in digital systems from managerial or technical perspectives [13,14,15], there is a lack of comprehensive approaches that incorporate sustainability into the digital product lifecycle in an integrated, multidisciplinary, and systematic way. Agile methodologies and user-centered approaches, such as those proposed by Wilson et al. [16], have shown promise by emphasizing continuous delivery, evaluation, and adaptability. Furthermore, UX and UI design play a strategic role in shaping user interaction and engagement, offering designers an opportunity to influence sustainability outcomes directly [17,18,19,20].

Given the convergence of environmental degradation, social risk, and economic uncertainty driven by digital transformation, the integration of sustainability into digital product development emerges as a critical necessity. Environmentally, it is imperative to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Socially, accessibility, inclusion, and digital well-being must be prioritized. Economically, the challenge lies in delivering innovation while ensuring long-term viability, cost-efficiency, and sustainable value creation.

While individual studies have addressed sustainability through technical, design, or managerial lenses, few have attempted to consolidate these perspectives into a unified, lifecycle-based framework. This review seeks to fill that gap by offering a multidisciplinary synthesis that connects sustainability dimensions across all development stages of digital products.

This systematic literature review aims to identify the key elements, challenges, and approaches related to sustainability in the digital product lifecycle. In line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, the study systematically collects, selects, and synthesizes evidence from the literature across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The findings offer a theoretical foundation for future research efforts aimed at developing practical methods, tools, and indicators to support sustainable digital product development.

In this study, we adopt the widely accepted triple-bottom-line perspective to define sustainability, encompassing environmental, social, and economic dimensions [21]. We explore how each of these dimensions is addressed across the digital product lifecycle, considering their intersection with technological development, user engagement, and business practices.

It is important to note that this study focuses specifically on software-based digital products—such as applications, platforms, and digital services—rather than physical electronic devices. This distinction is essential to properly scope the literature and ensure conceptual consistency throughout the review.

This manuscript is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the materials and methods, detailing the systematic review protocol. Section 3 discusses the main findings and synthesizes the results. Section 4 concludes the article, highlighting the implications for research and practice.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [22]. The review protocol was not registered. A PRISMA flow diagram is included to illustrate the article selection process.

2.1. Objective and Review Scope

The objective of this review was to identify the main elements, challenges, and approaches related to sustainability in the digital product lifecycle, with a focus on the environmental, social, and economic dimensions embedded in digital design, software development, and UX/UI practices.

In this study, we define digital products as intangible, software-based solutions such as applications, platforms, systems, and digital services designed for user interaction. This review does not include physical electronic devices, embedded systems, or hardware-focused products, which were excluded from the scope.

2.2. Search Strategy

The literature search was carried out using three electronic databases: ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science. These sources were selected due to their scientific relevance and comprehensive coverage of interdisciplinary studies. The literature search was conducted on 23 July 2024.

Three search queries were defined to capture different perspectives of the topic:

• Query I—Digital Design and Sustainability:
  (“digital media” OR “digital design”) AND (“sustainability” OR “sustainable development”) AND (“triple bottom line” OR “social” OR “financial” OR “environmental”);
• Query II—Software Development and Sustainability:
  “software development” AND (“frontend” OR “front-end” OR “front end”) AND (“sustainability” OR “sustainable development” OR “social” OR “financial” OR “environmental”);
• Query III—UX, UI, and the Triple Bottom Line:
  (“user experience design” OR “UX”) AND (“user interface design” OR “UI”) AND (“triple bottom line” OR “social” OR “financial” OR “environmental”).

Searches were limited to titles, abstracts, and keywords. No date or publication type filters were applied. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, books, and book chapters that discussed sustainability in digital product development. Exclusion criteria eliminated studies focused solely on physical products (e.g., mechatronics, automotive), and those exclusively addressing PLM systems without direct sustainability implications.

The Boolean search terms were developed through iterative refinement, informed by exploratory searches conducted in each database to capture the most relevant literature. The selected keywords reflect interdisciplinary perspective, spanning digital design, software development, and UX/UI, and are aligned with the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability.

2.3. Selection Process

The study selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was organized into four structured phases, as illustrated in Figure 1.

In the first phase, eligibility criteria were established. Studies were considered eligible if they addressed sustainability in the context of digital product development, UX/UI design, or software engineering, focusing on environmental, social, or economic aspects. Studies focused solely on the lifecycle of physical, mechanical, or mechatronic products, as well as those addressing product lifecycle management (PLM) systems without a sustainability perspective, were excluded. Although PLM systems can support sustainable practices, we excluded those that focused solely on product data management or lifecycle coordination without addressing sustainability outcomes, in order to maintain alignment with the objectives of this review.

The second phase involved defining search strategies and selecting databases. Three structured queries were applied to the ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, targeting different thematic focuses: digital design, software development, and UX/UI in relation to the triple bottom line.

The third phase encompassed the identification, screening, and filtering of records. A total of 377 documents were initially retrieved: 251 from Query I, 16 from Query II, and 110 from Query III. After the removal of duplicates, 279 records remained. These were screened based on title and abstract. Records misaligned with the research scope were excluded in two stages. No additional records were excluded after full-text reading. The final portfolio included 56 studies, distributed as follows: 31 from Query I, 5 from Query II, and 20 from Query III.

Figure 1 presents the full PRISMA 2020 flow diagram with the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage of the process.

2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis

The selected studies were documented in a structured spreadsheet, capturing metadata such as title, citation, year, objective, method, and findings. A qualitative and inductive content analysis was then conducted, guided by the sustainability dimensions described below.

The analysis process involved multiple reviewers who independently extracted key insights from each study. Initial themes were identified from patterns in the findings and organized into broader categories aligned with the environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The reviewers used a shared spreadsheet to support the coding process, and discrepancies in interpretation were discussed collectively until consensus was reached. No qualitative analysis software was used, as the dataset was manageable and fully reviewed manually.

The classification was structured around the following sustainability dimensions:

-

Environmental: energy efficiency, carbon emissions, use of resources;

-

Social: inclusion, accessibility, digital well-being, ethical design;

-

Economic: cost-effectiveness, innovation, long-term viability.

2.5. Critical Appraisal of Included Studies

To enhance the reliability of the synthesis, a basic critical appraisal was conducted for the included sources using adapted criteria inspired by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). The appraisal focused on three main aspects: (i) clarity of research objectives; (ii) methodological transparency; and (iii) relevance to the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability.

This process was carried out independently by the authors during the data extraction phase, with results used to support the interpretation and synthesis of findings. Importantly, no study was excluded based on this appraisal; rather, it was employed to qualify the consistency, conceptual alignment, and practical contributions of the evidence included in the review.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Conceptual Models of Product Lifecycles and PLM Integration

The lifecycle of a product can be understood from various perspectives. Kotler and Armstrong [23] present four classic stages: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. Boone and Kurtz [24] add that there is no fixed duration for each stage, as products evolve differently depending on the market context.

Expanding on these perspectives, Rozenfeld et al. [25] propose a model comprising five stages, preceded by an innovation phase. This model highlights the critical role of planning and investment during the development phase, which is followed sequentially by launch, growth, maturity, and decline. Additionally, it acknowledges that the lifecycle trajectory may vary according to the type of product, production scale, maintenance services, and market withdrawal strategies. The initial innovation phase is emphasized as a decisive step for ensuring successful product development.

From an integrated management perspective, Gecevska et al. [26] introduced the concept of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), a system that organizes and integrates information and processes across all stages of product development. PLM acts as a strategic information management tool, coordinating technical specifications, design activities, manufacturing processes, supply chains, documentation, and customer support, with the goal of enhancing efficiency and collaboration throughout the product’s useful life.

While PLM emphasizes the technical and informational management of product data throughout development and operations, environmental lifecycle approaches, such as those based on ISO 14001 [27], focus on assessing ecological impacts across all stages, from raw material extraction to final disposal. These perspectives are conceptually complementary: integrating PLM with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies enables more sustainable decision-making by aligning technical processes with environmental performance indicators and long-term impact reduction. This convergence is increasingly relevant for companies seeking to embed sustainability principles from the earliest stages of digital product design and to align their practices with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [28].

Conversely, when considering the lifecycle from an environmental sustainability standpoint, reference is often made to the concept of the “product life cycle” as defined by ISO 14001 [27]. This approach covers all phases, from raw material extraction to final disposal, commonly described as “cradle to grave” or, under circular economy principles, “cradle to cradle.” Environmental life cycle assessment evaluates the impacts generated during design, production, transportation, use, and post-use stages, serving as the basis for methodologies such as LCA.

3.2. Sustainability Demands in Digital Product Development

The literature demonstrates growing attention to sustainability in the context of digital product development, addressing concerns across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The discussion highlights the need to mitigate negative impacts of growing technological use and digital service expansion.

Schien et al. [12] argue that a sustainable society requires companies and consumers to acknowledge the environmental impacts of their digital activities. The authors highlight tools such as LCA and the development of specific metrics to measure digital emissions—such as DIMPACT, an instrument designed to analyze carbon emissions from digital media services.

Casado-Molina et al. [29] reinforce the growing demand from stakeholders for transparency in digital operations. They suggest that companies adopting digital sustainability practices, including clear communication of their actions, build relational capital and institutional trust. Their study proposes an integrated communication and sustainability approach for the energy sector, which may also be applied to other digital contexts.

Wood et al. [30] address the environmental impacts of digital media, such as GHG emissions resulting from the electricity consumption involved in the production, distribution, and consumption of digital content. The article advocates for the inclusion of environmental metrics in journalistic and media decision-making processes, contributing to an ethical and operational approach to digital sustainability.

Friedlander and Riedy [31] explore the role of communication, celebrity influence, and social campaigns in digital media as tools for raising public awareness about sustainability. Their contribution lies in showing how well-structured digital campaigns can shape public discourse and influence consumer behavior.

Matiolanska et al. [32] analyze how energy companies use Twitter to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. The authors conclude that although digital media has the potential to enhance engagement in sustainable practices, many messages still focus on marketing and corporate image, with little connection to clear metrics and tangible outcomes.

Taken together, these studies show that sustainability applied to digital products is an expanding field, but it still lacks standardization, clear metrics, and practical integration into development cycles. These gaps underscore the need for greater conceptual and methodological systematization, as proposed in the following sections of this article.

3.3. Development Models and Their Implications for Sustainability

In this study, the term “digital product lifecycle” specifically refers to the phases of digital product development, encompassing everything from initial conception to delivery and maintenance. Although the environmental lifecycle is also an important aspect of sustainability—and is discussed in other sections of this article—the emphasis here is on the operational and technical stages that comprise the development and management of digital products.

Three main approaches stand out in the literature. Barrett [13] divides the process into two fronts: management (planning and decision-making) and execution (technical development). Ghahramani [14] proposes the ADDM model (Analysis, Design, Development, Monitoring), structured into definition, development, and deployment stages. Wilson et al. [16], with a focus on pharmaceutical applications, adopt an agile model consisting of ideation, development, beta testing, clinical evaluation, and post-launch monitoring.

Figure 2 compares these three approaches and their respective stages, helping to identify both convergences and distinct characteristics. While variations exist in terminology and emphasis, all approaches include early planning activities (such as defining objectives, costs, and timelines), core technical development and testing phases, and a period of post-delivery monitoring or evaluation. While Barrett [13] adopts a more functional division between management and execution, Ghahramani [14] elaborates on the structural aspects of system development and validation, and Wilson et al. [16] enhance the model by incorporating agile practices and clinical validation processes.

This analysis demonstrates that there is a common foundation among the authors in recognizing key structuring moments within digital product development, which suggests opportunities for aligning and expanding these models into more integrated sustainability-oriented frameworks.

Despite their differences, these models share three overarching phases: pre-development, development, and post-development. This analysis highlights a common foundation among the authors in recognizing key structuring moments in digital product development, reinforcing the potential for future integration into more comprehensive frameworks.

Although these models primarily describe the structural flow of digital product development, they have direct implications for sustainability integration. Agile and iterative models, for example, facilitate continuous evaluation of environmental performance, accessibility, and ethical concerns during development. In contrast, linear or rigid models may limit the ability to revisit and adapt design choices once the product enters development. Understanding the flexibility and checkpoints within these models is essential for embedding sustainability practices in a timely and effective manner.

3.4. A Three-Phase Framework for Integrating Sustainability in Digital Products

The decision to adopt a three-phase structure, pre-development, development, and post-development, was based on convergence observed across the models analyzed in Section 3.3. This segmentation is commonly found in both agile and traditional product development frameworks and facilitates the identification of sustainability entry points across distinct project stages. Framing “development” as the central phase reflects its operational density and its strategic role in implementing sustainable design, coding practices, and technical decision-making.

In order to achieve the objective of this article—to propose the main elements, challenges, and approaches related to sustainability in the digital product lifecycle—it was necessary to structure a theoretical synthesis to serve as a foundation for the subsequent findings. This organization was essential to integrate the approaches identified in the literature and to establish a conceptual starting point for the sustainability requirements discussed in Section 3.5.

Based on the analyzed approaches, this study proposes a structure composed of three overarching phases: pre-development, development, and post-development. Each of these phases includes recurring sub processes found in the reviewed methodologies, consolidating an integrated and coherent view of the digital product lifecycle:

• Pre-development: problem definition, scoping, objectives, team setup, funding, and time and cost estimations;
• Development: includes UX design, usability testing (alpha and beta), front-end and back-end programming, and internal evaluation;
• Post-development: delivery to the client, systems integration, and ongoing monitoring with potential corrective maintenance.

Figure 3 presents this integrative structure, detailing the activities associated with each phase of the lifecycle. From a sustainability perspective, this structure enables the identification of entry points for sustainable practices at each stage. In the pre-development phase, impact assessments and eco-efficiency criteria can be embedded into planning. During development, good coding practices and minimalist design contribute to reducing energy consumption. In the post-development phase, continuous monitoring and responsible maintenance help mitigate impacts and extend the product’s lifespan.

This model is based on the consolidation of the theoretical approaches reviewed and provides a visualization of potential sustainability integration points, directly supporting the mapping of the requirements discussed in the next section.

The integrated analysis of the approaches and requirements identified in the literature allows for a clearer understanding of the key aspects that must be considered to incorporate sustainability into the digital product lifecycle. Although the presented structure does not constitute a new method, it provides a solid conceptual foundation for future investigations. The results indicate that integrating sustainability into digital development requires coordination between lifecycle phases and environmental, social, and economic requirements, which may guide the formulation of methods, tools, and best practices in subsequent research.

While the literature identifies various approaches to digital product development and highlights sustainability-related elements, there is a noticeable lack of consolidated frameworks that practically and operationally integrate the principles of sustainable development into lifecycle stages. Many studies address isolated aspects—such as environmental or social concerns—without offering clear articulation across dimensions or lifecycle phases.

3.5. Sustainability Requirements Across Lifecycle Phases

Based on the literature review and the structuring of the digital product lifecycle, we identified six key sustainability requirements that span the pre-development, development, and post-development phases. These requirements reflect how sustainability has been addressed across the digital lifecycle and are aligned with the widely recognized triple bottom line framework, which encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions. To improve conceptual clarity, we explicitly categorized each requirement according to these three dimensions and linked them directly to practical strategies and demands observed in the selected studies. The synthesis of these elements is presented in

Table 1. Requirements for the sustainable development of digital products according to the reviewed literature.

Requirement	Social	Environmental	Economic	Demand	References
R1: Inclusion of elderly people in development	✓			Ensure compliance with WCAG guidelines and test interfaces with diverse users	[33,34]
R2: Project impact information	✓	✓	✓	Ensure stakeholders are informed through sustainability reporting dashboards or design documentation	[31,35]
R3: Objective and lightweight products		✓	✓	Optimize code, image size, and data processing to reduce energy and bandwidth use	[36,37]
R4: Solution benchmarking			✓	Knowledge of similar existing applications	[38]
R5: Redesign and co-creation with users	✓		✓	Avoid dark patterns and ensure algorithmic transparency in user-facing systems	[39,40]

Source: Own authorship.

.

The analysis shows that the environmental dimension is the most frequently addressed across the literature, followed by social and, to a lesser extent, economic aspects. Environmental demands range from energy consumption in digital infrastructure (e.g., data centers) and physical devices to challenges associated with electronic waste and disposal. The social dimension includes issues such as accessibility, inclusive design, and usability, while the economic dimension is primarily associated with cost-efficiency, resource optimization, and sustainable value generation over time. Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of these requirements, their corresponding sustainability dimensions, and the practical demands associated with each category.

The requirements and demands listed in Table 1 were synthesized from patterns frequently observed in the reviewed studies. Each item reflects practical concerns raised across multiple sources and was categorized according to its alignment with the environmental, social, or economic sustainability dimension. The table includes direct references that support the empirical foundation of each requirement and illustrate its origin in the literature, improving the traceability and transparency of the synthesis.

From the categorization of the 56 studies analyzed, it was observed that most of the approaches are concentrated in the environmental and social dimensions, while the economic dimension is less explored. From an environmental standpoint, concerns include energy efficiency and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, through practices such as minimalist design, the use of more efficient servers, and tools like LCA, exemplified by initiatives such as DIMPACT [12].

Authors such as Zuniga [41] and Hawks [42] explore how digital platforms influence democratic participation and civic engagement. Zuniga [41] examines the potential of digital media to foster a European public sphere by enabling transnational communication, while Hawks [42] analyzes the tensions between governmental control and public expression in the context of new media in Turkey.

Expanding on the theme of digital participation, Hrckova [43] investigates the usability and sociability of online direct democracy initiatives, emphasizing the importance of user-centered design and accessible interfaces for inclusive civic engagement. Similarly, Görland and Kannengießer [44] highlight the temporal dimension of sustainable digital media use, arguing that excessive or uncritical digital consumption can undermine well-being and lead to negative psychosocial effects, reinforcing the need for mindful design and ethical media practices.

From an economic perspective, several studies emphasize the strategic role of digital media in promoting business sustainability and operational efficiency. Camilleri [45] analyzes how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adopt digital platforms for stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting, identifying technology acceptance as a key factor in value creation.

Ahmed et al. [46] provide empirical evidence from Pakistan’s service and FMCG sectors, demonstrating that online media advertising can significantly contribute to brand sustainability when aligned with long-term strategic goals. Complementing this perspective, Islami et al. [47] present national cancer statistics to illustrate the broader economic and public health implications of digital data management and analytics in health systems, emphasizing the importance of sustainable infrastructure.

Lastly, Horst and Hitters [48] examine the identity construction and knowledge-sharing processes of digital media entrepreneurs, revealing how early-stage ventures strategically navigate sustainability challenges while building economically viable digital businesses.

Studies such as [32,35,49,50,51,52] show how social media can act as platforms for social mobilization, environmental education, and the promotion of sustainable values. Authors like [53,54,55] highlight the social and cultural transformation triggered by digital media and its associated risks.

In relation to digital product design and its interface with sustainability, authors such as [56,57,58,59,60] discuss UX aspects and the cognitive, emotional, and social effects of interfaces. References [19,33,61,62] present solutions focused on accessibility for the elderly and children with ASD. References [17,63] emphasize user freedom and core UX principles, while [39,64] reinforce the use of design thinking and inclusive user-centered design.

From an environmental and economic perspective, ref. [35] warn about energy consumption caused by poor visual design choices. References [38,65] advocate for the use of data and benchmarks to reduce development risks and costs. References [39,65] relate agile cycles and financial impact to social benefits and improved accessibility.

These findings reinforce that digital design is a strategic area for embedding sustainable practices—going beyond aesthetics and usability to include concerns such as inclusion, ethics, environmental impact, and long-term value. The observed approaches also highlight the need for a systemic view of the digital lifecycle, since isolated sustainable practices in specific phases are insufficient to ensure effective impact reduction. An integrated understanding of the lifecycle and identification of critical points allow for design, development, release, and maintenance decisions to be aligned with sustainability criteria—emphasizing the importance of more structured methods, which remain scarce in the literature.

Drawing from academic and professional experience in technology innovation projects focused on sustainability, we propose the expansion of the requirements identified in the literature through four new points:

• Data governance and digital ethics: Promote responsible data usage, transparency in algorithmic processes, and compliance with privacy and security standards throughout the development cycle. This is especially relevant for products that process sensitive personal data or rely on AI-driven decision-making, where algorithmic bias and misuse of information can cause social harm.
• Impact management of AI infrastructure: Consider energy and water consumption indicators related to AI model training and deployment. For instance, large language models and machine learning systems consume massive resources, and measuring their footprint enables optimization strategies (e.g., model distillation, green AI practices).
• Continuous stakeholder education: Encourage sustainability training and awareness among multidisciplinary teams (developers, designers, product managers) and end users. This can include onboarding sessions, sustainability checklists, or feedback loops that promote long-term behavioral and design improvements.
• Post-use impact monitoring: Evaluate long-term or indirect environmental and social effects after a product’s deactivation, such as data storage waste, dark patterns left active, or resource load on abandoned systems. Monitoring these impacts supports continuous improvement and lifecycle responsibility.

These additions aim to strengthen the systemic approach to sustainability and expand the applicability of the proposed requirements in contemporary contexts—particularly in the face of rapidly advancing technologies.

Table 1 presented the relationship between the identified requirements and sustainability principles, highlighting the key focus areas and challenges addressed in the literature, as well as emerging practical opportunities. These findings provide valuable input for the development of a theoretical model and the future construction of an applicable framework for real-world digital product development contexts.

3.6. Contributions to Theory and Practice in Sustainable Digital Development

This scoping review reveals that sustainability in digital product development is approached primarily through environmental and social lenses, with fewer studies addressing the economic dimension in depth. Key concepts identified include energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, accessibility, inclusion, digital ethics, and long-term viability. These concepts were mapped across the lifecycle phases, pre-development, development, and post-development, resulting in six core sustainability requirements.

These findings directly respond to the study’s objectives by providing a structured overview of the challenges and approaches to integrating sustainability throughout the digital product lifecycle. They also highlight the fragmented nature of existing approaches and the need for more integrated, lifecycle-aware strategies.

The insights generated by this review offer a significant contribution to the theoretical field of digital sustainability by systematizing a set of requirements that integrate environmental, social, and economic concerns across all lifecycle stages. This theoretical organization serves as a solid foundation for the development of future frameworks, conceptual models, and methods applicable in both academic and professional contexts.

From a practical perspective, the identified requirements provide a strategic guide for professionals in design, technology, and product management. Applying these principles can lead to outcomes such as waste reduction, increased energy efficiency, enhanced accessibility, greater social engagement, and competitive advantage in sustainability-oriented markets.

In the social domain, this review reinforces the importance of inclusive, ethical, and transparent practices—particularly in a context of increasing artificial intelligence use and mass data collection. By recognizing the responsibility of actors involved in digital product design and maintenance, the study supports the development of solutions that promote well-being, equity, and digital safety.

Moreover, the findings offer relevant insights for public policy, emphasizing the need for regulatory frameworks that foster impact measurement, promote the adoption of sustainability standards, and encourage responsible practices in the digital sector. Collaboration between academia, industry, and government is essential to enhance the effectiveness of digital sustainability initiatives. In this way, the study not only maps the current state of the field but also outlines future pathways for sustainable digital innovation.

3.7. Limitations of the Scoping Review

This scoping review has some limitations. First, the search was limited to three major academic databases and excluded the gray literature, which may have resulted in the omission of relevant sources. Second, no critical appraisal of the included studies was performed, as is typical in scoping reviews, which limits the assessment of the strength of the evidence. Third, the review protocol was not pre-registered, which may affect replicability. Additionally, the qualitative synthesis does not allow for statistical generalization, and the thematic focus leaned toward UX/UI and digital product development, potentially overlooking broader strategic or policy-level sustainability frameworks.

4. Conclusions

This study aimed to identify the key elements, challenges, and approaches related to sustainability in the lifecycle of digital products, based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. The analysis of 56 studies made it possible to systematize the lifecycle into three macro phases—pre-development, development, and post-development—and to identify six fundamental sustainability requirements that span these phases, covering the environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

The evidence gathered highlights recurring challenges, such as the fragmentation of approaches, the lack of standardized metrics for impact measurement, low user awareness, and gaps in sustainable design practices—particularly in UX and UI. Critical concerns such as high energy consumption, intensive water use by data centers, and social and environmental risks associated with AI-based solutions also emerge as urgent issues in the current digital context.

At the same time, important opportunities were identified: the integration of tools such as LCA, the advancement of inclusive design practices, the adoption of data-driven benchmarks, and transparent communication of sustainability efforts as a strategic part of the digital product journey.

In this context, sustainability in digital product development still lacks systematized methods, consolidated frameworks, and clear indicators to effectively guide professional practice and business decisions. As a future development, this study provides a solid theoretical foundation for the creation of applicable methods that can support designers, developers, and managers in building sustainable digital solutions, from initial conception to discontinuation.

In particular, the economic dimension remains significantly underexplored in the reviewed literature. This may be due to the lack of standardized financial metrics adapted to the digital context, as well as the difficulty of capturing long-term value creation or cost–benefit impacts in sustainability terms. Future research could address this gap by developing novel economic frameworks and performance indicators that integrate financial, social, and environmental value—especially for software-based products and services.

Future research may benefit from interdisciplinary collaborations between software engineers, sustainability experts, and economists to co-develop metrics that assess lifecycle impacts. Empirical studies applying the proposed framework to real-world development teams or platforms could also validate its practical utility. Moreover, exploring regulatory and policy dimensions in digital sustainability governance presents a promising avenue.