Catherine N. Mulligan- Department Bldg, Civil and Environmental. Eng, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Global challenges are increasing for the design of sustainable infrastructure and buildings for engineers. These include resource constraints and limited availability of water. Climate change from increasing greenhouse gas emissions is changing precipitation patterns, putting further constraints on resources. Incorporating sustainable practices into infrastructure projects is becoming increasingly important. However, there are many challenges related to this. Tools and frameworks for sustainability impact assessments have been developed to assist in the decision-making process. Environmental and economic indicators are well developed but social aspects are more difficult to quantify. This paper examines selected tools and frameworks and the requirement for future developments. Sustainability in engineering design is essential for working towards the UN Sustainability Development Goals.
1 Introduction
The importance of sustainability has been highlighted by the established of the UN sustainability goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015) and the New Urban Agenda (UN, 2016). Water and soil pollution, higher energy needs, depletion of resources and climate change must be addressed to achieve the SDGs (Butchart et al., 2010). Implementation of sustainable engineering practices is, thus, increasingly important.
Sustainable engineering has been defined in Mulligan (2019) as “the process of designing or operating systems in a sustainable way that do not compromise the environment and the ability of the present and future generations to meet their own needs”. To arrive at new solutions, sustainability must be incorporated into engineering design as early as possible in the process. All aspects of the triple bottom line (environmental, economic and social) aspects must be included. The objective of this paper is to examine the tools and frameworks for assessing sustainability to enhance incorporation of sustainable practices in engineering design.
2 Frameworks for sustainability assessment
Various frameworks have been established. The Natural Step (https://thenaturalstep.org/) was established to address the impact of pollution on childhood cancers (Edwards, 2005). Four parameters for life sustenance in a sustainable society include CO2 from fossil fuels and minerals, endocrine disruptors and other components, degradation of groundwater and forests, and removal of obstacles for human equity (Nattrass and Altomare, 1999). The Awareness and visioning, Baseline mapping, Creative solutions and Decide on Priorities is the ABCD approach which various companies, engineering firms and universities, have used.
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), setup by the UNEP and CERES, has various principles and indicators for determining environmental, economic and social aspects and is widely employed and recognized by organizations to show impacts on the environment, economy and society. The standards are listed on their web site (www.globalreporting.org). Reports according to GRI Standards are comprised of three series (GRI 1, 2 and 3, 2021, for universal, sectorial (40 sectors) and topical standards, respectively). Qualitative and quantitative indicators are included. GR1 is the first step where key concepts are defined. GR2 helps to identify and assess impacts in the sector and then GR3 goes through the step-by-step process. GR2 and GR3 aid in structuring the reporting. Criticisms are that the standards are voluntary and that organizations cannot be penalized for not completing the reports according to the guidelines. Reporting can be complex and trained individuals are required to complete the reports.
The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS™) is a framework developed by the Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) for higher education (colleges to universities) to track sustainability (https://stars.aashe.org/about-stars/). It is undergoing continual development to enhance sustainability on campuses. STARS 3.0 was released in 2024. For example, Concordia University (Montreal, Canada) has received gold status until 2028 with high marks in innovation, research, public and campus engagement and curriculum.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, formerly the Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2005) was initiated in 1992 to enhance the sustainability of companies. Recent tools are for avoiding emissions to mitigate climate change, regenerative agriculture and developing roadmaps for nature-based solutions (https://www.wbcsd.org/tools-and-materials/).
2.1 Sustainability indicators
Wackernagel and Rees (1995) developed the concept of the Ecological Footprint (EF) in the 1990s to indicate the impact of humans on the earth in land and sea area as a 2D approach. It calculates the land and sea area for the resources consumed (food, wood, energy, space) and to dispose of the wastes and sequester carbon dioxide emissions (Ewing et al., 2010). The energy footprint is the land area requirement for absorption of carbon dioxide emissions from due to energy use by a process. This type of footprint is frequently used. The Water Footprint (WF) is the water consumed in direct or indirect use or polluted is determined for a product or process. Businesses and industries have used this footprint as a sustainability indicator but mainly in the food and agro-industrial sectors (Chapagain and Orr, 2009). Blue, gray and green water uses comprise the total WF (Hoekstra, 2013). More recently, a 3D approach was developed where footprint area and depth are included to assist in the evaluation of the impact of human activities on resources and the environment (Niccolucci et al., 2011). According to Jin et al. (2023), most research has focused on municipal, provincial and national levels, using one footprint at a time.
Greenhouse gas emissions and embodied energy in terms of land required for sequestration are determined for the carbon footprint. GHG estimates can be determined according to ISO 14097:2021 (ISO, 2021). Other ISO standards are related to specific industries. Many calculators are also available and may be part of other frameworks. Companies have used material footprints to determine consumption of materials and waste over a product life. Selection of indicators depends on the purpose of the analyses. The indicators should be well balanced over environmental, economic and social aspects. Indicators should be easily determined and can be quantitative or qualitative and relevant to the process.
3 Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA)
3.1 LCA
The concept of life cycle assessment (LCA) can also be useful in sustainable engineering practices. International Standards Organization (ISO14040 and ISO14044) have been developed for the LCA process (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). ISO14074: 2022 (ISO, 2022) provides guidance on normalization, weighting and interpretation.
Environmental impact is the major focus of LCA. However, sustainability assessment tools must also include social and economic aspects. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessments (LCSA) (Equation 1) are “the evaluation of all environmental, social and economic negative impacts and benefits in decision-making processes towards more sustainable products throughout their life-cycle” (UNEP/SETAC, 2011). According to Klöppfler (2008):
where LCC is life-cycle cost assessment and S-LCA is social life cycle assessment.
3.2 LCC
The first international standard for LCC was ISO 15685-g (ISO, 2008) that was for buildings only. The updated version for buildings is ISO 15686-5:2017 (ISO, 2017). Hunkeler et al. (2008) divided LCC into three components: conventional, environmental and societal. Costs over the life cycle of the product are included. One of the challenges is that social and environmental costs can be difficult to determine. Other guidelines and code of practice for LCC have been established (Swarr et al., 2011). The four steps of LCC are similar to LCA. Due to the amount of data requirements for LCC, it is frequently simplified (Neugeberger et al., 2015). To improve the economic aspect of sustainability analysis, indicators need to be defined better. Data availability and quality are other issues that need improvement.
3.3 Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)
Guidelines were developed by UNEP/UNEP/SETAC (2013) and updated in 2020 (UNEP, 2020) for Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) which is the social and socio-economic impact assessment over the life cycle of products and processes. Guidance, however, is lacking on selection of indicators, methodologies, communicating with stakeholders and assessing social impacts. In addition, there are fewer case studies than for LCA. S-LCA has four steps also, similar to LCA: goal and scope determination, inventory, impact assessment and interpretation of the results. Indicators can be qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative.
3.4 LCSA
LCSA has not been used extensively and indicator sets are not well established. Shrivastava and Unnikrishnan (2021) have provided an evolution of the LCSA process. 2010-2020 was indicated as the decade of LSCA. They have also indicated that while LCA has progressed rapidly in recent decades and are widely adapted by industry, while LCC and S-LCA have not. Some papers were reviewed on LCSA but they indicate only certain sectors were covered. A three-tier approach to LCSA (Neugebauer et al., 2015) includes the Sustainability Footprint best practice LSCA, and highly advanced impact assessment comprises the water footprint, land use, cultural heritage, human rights and environmental damage costs. Case studies are limited. Weighting of the dimensions will help with trade-offs with social risk.
LCSA has significant potential to assist in decision-making but more research is needed. According to Costa et al. (2019) improvement is needed for the economic and social aspects such as more accurate databases and improving the linkages to the three dimensions of sustainability. To conduct a LCSA, the steps in ISO 14040 can be followed: definition of the goal and scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation of results. In the first step, as LCA, LCC and S-LCA have different purposes, a common goal and scope should be defined when these steps are to be combined. The functional unit should be related to the technical and social uses of a project, for example,. For the impact categories, those that are applicable across the life cycle and across the three dimensions should be chosen. For example, global warming, costs of materials and disposal, and wages of workers. Challenges for combining the environmental, economic and social LCAs are that the time horizon is usually different and stakeholders are of less importance for LCA and LCC than for the S-LCA. LCA, LCC and S-LCA can be coordinated for LCSA, in an integrated manner for decision-making for the triple bottom line (UNEP/SETAC, 2011).
Padilla-Rivera et al. (2025) demonstrated that a new framework incorporating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors could help improve reporting of ESG performance. Application to the oil and gas sector in Canada was shown theoretically. Integration of ESG with 10 SDGs and LSCA aims to enhance sustainability reporting. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment seeks to determine sustainability over a product or process life cycle (UNEP, 2011). However, assessment of ESG with LCSA was not evaluated extensively.
4 Tools for sustainability assessments
4.1 Building rating systems
The UN established the sustainability goals (UN, 2015) and the New Urban Agenda (UN, 2016). The World Bank has developed the Urban Sustainability Framework (WBG, 2018). These highlight the needs for sustainability in the urban environment. Buildings, in particular, have high impacts on energy, water and GHG emissions (Edwards, 2014). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) frameworks have been developed to help companies evaluate sustainability to address sustainability goals. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) frameworks have been developed to help companies evaluate sustainability to address sustainability goals. ASTM International (2023) has established and updated the ASTM E917-17 (2023) “Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems”.
Building rating systems have been developed to incorporate sustainability in to building construction and assess design alternatives. BREEAM and LEED were developed in the UK and US, respectively (Bernier et al., 2010). For both certifications, gold, silver and platinum levels can be obtained based on points obtained (Atlee and Roberts, 2007). They encourage the use of environmentally friendly products. Both qualitative and quantitative data are obtained for the evaluation. CEEQUAL (now known as BREEAM Infrastructure) was launched in the UK in 2003 for evaluation of the environmental and social components of infrastructure projects and is applicable to other infrastructure than buildings. Various stakeholders including building owners, architects, construction companies are encouraged. Inputs/outputs are classified and placed into the impact categories and then weighted. The rating systems are employed for the project design phase. Weighting can be adjusted for regional characteristics. There have been various criticisms on the use of such tools such as point chasing.
4.2 Infrastructure rating systems
Infrastructure development can impact SDGs 2, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 14, in particular. Therefore, various tools have been developed to reduce impacts. Envision (ISI, 2025) is a rating system to evaluate the sustainability of infrastructure projects in the US and CEEQUAL was launched in the UK. Silver, gold, and platinum levels are obtained based on points. Envision is employed to plan for projects related to transport, waste and water treatment and control infrastructure systems. A checklist can be downloaded for a quick assessment, usually in the early stage of a project. They are used for environmental and social performance evaluations for infrastructure projects including landscaping. CEEQUAL is available for the UK, Ireland and international projects. Resources and materials used are inputted, impacts are assessed and weighted for each category. Higher certifications can improve market values.
The Envision rating system has 64 indicators covering environmental, social, and economic impacts to sustainability in all phases of the project from planning to construction. The five categories are Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate and Risk. Envision aims to help stakeholders understand project sustainability.
BREEAM Infrastructure and Envision have similarities. The sections for BREEAM Infrastructure are divided into Project Strategy, Project Management, People and Communities, Use of Land, Historic Environment, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment and Physical Resources and Transport. The questions for sustainable engineering are covered. However, issues related to local law and custom are not dealt with.
Srivastava et al. (2024) developed a comprehensive method for evaluating and reporting of civil infrastructure. Two steps were involved: the development of a matrix from various rating tools, SDGs and GRI standards and a composite indicator called the Sustainability Alignment Index (SAI). Two sub-indices are included: the TBL Sustainability Coverage Index (TSCI) and the TBL Sustainability Disclosure Quality Index (TSDQI). The information from companies in Asia and Europe was evaluated but was insufficient in many cases.
Reddy et al. (2024) presented frameworks for evaluating and implementing sustainability and resilience in to geoenvironmental projects. Case studies were also presented. The frameworks include the Quantitative Assessment of Life Cycle Sustainability (QUALICS) and the Tiered Quantitative Assessment of Life Cycle Sustainability and Resilience (TQUALICSR). Nature-based alternatives are beneficial to improve sustainability and resilience. Design concepts are developed and compared. Then measures for environmental, social and economic aspects are identified. Weights are then provided to each variable. Values are then assigned to the indicators. QUALICS incorporates LCA as per ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006b), and tools for environmental footprint analyses (SEFA and SiteWise™). Direct and indirect costs are included in the economic indicators. Tools such as Life-cycle cost assessments (LCCA) and cost-benefit analyses (CBA) can be employed. Surveys or the Social Sustainability Evaluation method (SSEM) of Reddy et al. (2014) can be used for social assessment. The values are then normalized for 0 to 1. Sensitivity analyses can be performed for impact of various variables. An integrated sustainability index can then be determined from multicriteria decision analysis tools such as the Integrated Value Model for Sustainability Assessment (MIVES) (Lombera and Aprea, 2010). The last step is the comparison of the design alternatives. However, improvements to MIVES have been suggested including incorporation of multiple stakeholders, understanding the effects of uncertainty, how to improve sustainability based on the assessment and development of improved sustainability indicators (Boix-Cots et al., 2022).
Resilience is also an increasing concern, particularly due to climate change. Designing systems for resilience to climate change is challenging. The sustainability and resilience assessment frameworks are integrated in TQUALICSR (Reddy et al., 2024). The first phase is the determination of potential hazards due to climate changes for various alternatives and then the sustainability of each alternative measures to ensure resilience and then the ability to ability to adapt to the hazards. Resilient sustainability index (RSI) is obtained for each alternative and design based on the indices for each alternative can be made.
5 Discussion
Life cycle sustainability tools are needed to evaluate sustainability over the life cycle of a product or process. Life cycle assessments (LCA) are well-established and ISO standards have been developed. Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) has not been well adopted for sustainability assessments and social life cycle (S-LCA) is developing. UNEP/SETAC are developing guidelines (UNEP, 2020) but more applications in a diverse range of sectors are needed.
LCSA has been indicated as a critical tool for evaluation of the sustainability of options (UNEP/SETAC, 2011). There is a requirement in the European Union (European Commission, 2024) for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). This requires reliable sustainability data and the need for new frameworks based on integrated life-cycle-ESG. User friendly ESG and LSCA data is needed and guidance on how to score and rate social indicators, in particular, as many are quantitative. Engagement from a wide ranges of stakeholders is also key to improving social indicators.
A comparison of the rating systems can be seen in Table 1. BREEAM Infrastructure and Envision focus on a sustainable outcome without needing to integrate sustainable operations into the design. Adewumi et al. (2024) evaluated the BREEAM framework and found that environmental issues can be improved by employing BREEAM. However, social and governance aspects should also be improved. Indicators for education, elimination of corruption, planning of emergency responses and ethical behaviour enforcement are not included. In addition, there are also Green Star Certification (South Africa) and CASBE (Japan), Building and Construction Authority Green Mark (Singapore) and Infrastructure Sustainability (Australiasia). GOLDSET is a commercial multicriteria decision analysis tool that has environmental, social and economic indicators for comparison of remediation alternatives (Mulligan et al., 2013). Graphics have been incorporated that allow visualization of the strengths and weaknesses of the options, thus assisting in the improvement of the sustainability of the process.
Table 1. Comparison of rating systems (adapted from Mulligan, 2019).
6 Conclusion
Approaches exist to assist in the movement towards sustainability. The process involves planning, developing a vision, setting goals, and developing the methodologies to implement the vision. To aid in the implementation process, various frameworks have been developed to assist in the decision-making process. A flowsheet of the sustainability assessment process is shown in Figure 1. The selection of the framework must be appropriate for the application. For example, the GRI is most often used by organizations. Commonly used frameworks can provide more credibility since the methodology is well known. Continuous improvements, however, are being made to the frameworks to enhance their applicability.
Figure 1. General framework for sustainability assessments.
Data availability, uncertainty, balancing environmental, social and economic aspects and complexity are challenges to adopting sustainability assessments. Improvements in methods for stakeholder engagement are needed. More research and case studies are needed to reduce the challenges, provide more data and enable better decision making for achieving sustainability goals. New technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) could improve data analysis. Due to the sustainability challenges worldwide of increasing importance, engineers must adopt new ways of designing engineering projects to address the needs of future generations. Standardization of the frameworks will be beneficial to improve acceptability and reliability.
Author contributions
CM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author CM declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adewumi, A. S., Opoku, A., and Dangana, Z. (2024). Sustainability assessment frameworks for delivering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) targets: a case of building research establishment environmental assessment method (BREEAM) UK new construction. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 31, 3779–3791. doi:10.1002/csr.2768
ASTM International (2023). ASTME917-17 “standard practice for measuring life-cycle costs of buildings and building systems. 2017 Edition. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 23.
Atlee, J., and Roberts, T. (2007). Cradle to cradle certification: a peek inside MBDC`s black box. Environ. Build. News, Feb. 1 Available online at: https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/cradle-cradle-certification-peek-inside-mbdcs-black-box.
Bernier, P., Fenner, R. A., and Ainger, C. (2010). “Assessing the sustainability merits of retrofitting existing houses”. in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability. 163, (4): 197–207. doi:10.1680/ensu.2010.163.4.197
Boix-Cots, D., Pardo-Bosch, F., Blanco, A., Aguado, A., and Pujadas, P. (2022). A systematic review on MIVES: a sustainability-oriented multi-criteria decision-making method. Build. Environ. 223, 109515. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109515
Butchart, S. H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P., Almond, R. E. A., et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328 (5982), 1164–1168. doi:10.1126/science.1187512
Chapagain, A. K., and Orr, S. (2009). An improved water footprint methodology linking global consumption to local water resources: a case of Spanish tomatoes. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1219–1228. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.06.006
Costa, D., Quinteiro, P., and Dias, A. C. (2019). A systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment: current state, methodological challenges, and implementation issues. Sci. Total Environ. 686, 774–787. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.435
Edwards, A. R. (2005). The sustainability revolution: portrait of a paradigm shift. Gabriola Island: BC New Society Publishers.
Edwards, B. (2014). Rough guide to sustainability: a design primer. 4th edition. London, United Kingdom: RIBA Publications.
European Commission (2024). Corporate sustainability reporting. Available online at: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en (Accessed December 9, 2025).
Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., and Wackernagel, M. (2010). The ecological footprint atlas 2010. Oakland, CA global footprint network.
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2013). The water footprint of modern consumer society. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Hunkeler, D., Lichetenvort, K., and Rebitzer, G. (2008). Environmental life cycle costing. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
ISI (2025). About envision. Available online at: https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision/about/(Accessed July 3, 2025).
ISO (2006a). ISO/DIS4040. Environmental management-life cycle Assessment- principles and framework. Geneva: ISO.
ISO (2006b). ISO/DIS 14044. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guideline. Geneva: ISO.
ISO (2008). ISO 15686-5:2008. Buildings and constructed assets-service-life planning- life cycle costing. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO.
ISO (2017). ISO15686-5:2017Buildings and constructed assets — service life planning part 5: life-Cycle costing. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO.
ISO (2021). ISO 14097:2021 Greenhouse gas management and related activities — framework including principles and requirements for assessing and reporting investments and financing activities related to climate changePublished. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO.
ISO (2022). ISO/TS 14074:2022 environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles, requirements and guidelines for normalization, weighting and interpretation. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO.
Jin, K., Zhang, S., Yang, Y., Chen, X., Wang, S., Li, T., et al. (2023). Evaluation of water-carbon-ecological footprints and its spatial–temporal pattern in the central plains urban agglomeration. Ecol. Indic. 155, 110982. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110982
Klöppfler, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (2), 89–95. doi:10.1065/lca2008.02.376
Lombera, J.-T. S. J., and Aprea, I. G. (2010). A system approach to the environmental analysis of industrial buildings. Build. Environ. 45 (3), 673–683. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.012
Mulligan, C. N. (2019). Sustainable engineering, principles and implementation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Mulligan, C. N., Dumais, S., and Noel-de-Tilly, R. (2013). “Sustainable remediation of contaminated sites,” in Coupled phenomena in environmental geotechnics: from theoretical and experimental research to practical applications, Torino, Italy (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 663–670.
Nattrass, B., and Altomare, M. (1999). The natural step for business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Neugebauer, S., Martinez-Blanco, J., Scheumann, R., and Finkbeiner, M. (2015). Enhancing the practical implementation of life cycle sustainability assessment –proposal of a tiered approach. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 165–176. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.053
Niccolucci, V., Galli, A., Reed, A., Neri, E., Wackernagel, M., and Bastianoni, S. (2011). Towards a 3D national ecological footprint geography. Ecol. Model. 222 (16), 2939–2944. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.04.020
Padilla-Rivera, A., Hannouf, M., Assefa, F., and Gates, I. (2025). Enhancing environmental, social and governance, performance and reporting through integration of life cycle sustainability assessment framework. Sustain. Dev. 33 (2), 2975–2995. doi:10.1002/sd.3265
Reddy, K. R., Sadasivam, B. Y., and Adams, J. A. (2014). “Social sustainability evaluation matrix (SSEM) to quantify social aspects of sustainable remediation,” in ICSI 2014: creating infrastructure for a sustainable world, 831–841.
Reddy, K. R., Janga, J. K., and Kumar, G. (2024). Sustainability and resilience: a new paradigm in geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. Indian Geotech. J. 55, 2510–2531. doi:10.1007/s40098-024-00899-5
Shrivastava, S., and Unnikrishnan, S. (2021). “Evolution of life cycle sustainability assessment, assessment,” in Life Cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), environmental footprints and eco-design of products and processes, 1–14. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4562-4_1
Srivastava, S., Iyer-Raniga, U., and Misra, S. (2024). Integrated approach for sustainability assessment and reporting for civil infrastructures projects: delivering the UN SDGs. J. Clean. Prod. 459, 142400. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142400
Swarr, T., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffler, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., et al. (2011). Environmental life cycle costing: a code of Practice Pensacola, FL. SETAC Press.
UN (United Nations) (2015). Transforming our world: 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sustain. Development Goals. Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (Accessed December 2025).
UN (United Nations) (2016). The new urban agenda: key commitments. Available online at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/10/newurbanagenda/(Accessed July 31, 2025).
UNEP (2020). in Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020. Editors C. Benoît Norris, M. Traverso, S. Neugebauer, E. Ekener, T. Schaubroeck, and S. Russo Garrido (United Nations Environment Programme UNEP). Available online at: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/guidelines-social-life-cycle-assessment-products (Accessed July 31, 2025).
UNEP/UNEP/SETAC (2013). The methodological sheets for subcategories in social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Paris: UNEP/SETAC.
Wackernagel, M., and Rees, W. (1995). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the Earth, BC. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) (2005). Business solutions for a sustainable world.
WBG (2018). New urban sustainability frameworks guides cities towards a greener future. Available online at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/02/10/new-urban-sustainability-framework-guides-cities-towards-a-greener-future (Accessed July 31, 2025).
Keywords: economic impacts, environmental impact assessment, frameworks, indicators, social impacts, sustainability, tools
Citation: Mulligan CN (2026) Sustainability impact assessment tools and frameworks. Front. Environ. Eng. 4:1677492. doi: 10.3389/fenve.2025.1677492
Received: 31 July 2025; Accepted: 16 December 2025;
Published: 21 January 2026.
Edited by:
Sandhya Patidar, Heriot-Watt University, United KingdomReviewed by:
Beatriz Belmonte, University of Santo Tomas, PhilippinesCopyright © 2026 Mulligan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Catherine N. Mulligan, Y2F0aGVyaW5lLm11bGxpZ2FuQGNvbmNvcmRpYS5jYQ==