0% found this document useful (0 votes)
12 views18 pages

Resilient Sustainability Assessment Framework From A Transdisciplinary System-Of-Systems Perspective

Uploaded by

mostafashami15
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
12 views18 pages

Resilient Sustainability Assessment Framework From A Transdisciplinary System-Of-Systems Perspective

Uploaded by

mostafashami15
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

sustainability

Article
Resilient Sustainability Assessment Framework from a
Transdisciplinary System-of-Systems Perspective
Ali Asghar Bataleblu 1, * , Erwin Rauch 1 and David S. Cochran 2

1 Sustainable Manufacturing Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, Institute for Industrial and Energy
Engineering, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
2 Center of Excellence in Systems Engineering, Entrepreneurship and Innovative Design Accelerator,
Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0471016000

Abstract: The vital role of extensive information exchange among stakeholders across diverse sectors
and the interconnection of various scientific fields with nonhomogeneous technology readiness levels
has created a new form of a complex engineering problem in the climate change era. Comprehensive
sustainability assessment to enable the realization of needs requires transdisciplinary thinking to
achieve systematic solutions that bridge the gap between multiple collaborative systems in a portfolio.
Although the principal aim of dedicated sustainability regulations is to force companies to move
toward sustainability development, general and non-engineered metrics that have not defined
clear thresholds for evaluation have encountered severe challenges regarding implementation and
economic viability. Therefore, adopting a transdisciplinary systems engineering approach can address
multifaceted challenges like sustainability by overcoming collaboration barriers, and traditional
disciplinary limits. This paper systematically reviews sustainability-dictated regulations from a
transdisciplinary perspective. Different standards are compared, raised opportunities and challenges
are discussed, and future remarks are highlighted. The sustainability problem is analyzed from
a transdisciplinary systems engineering lens. Finally, a two-level resilient system sustainability
assessment framework is proposed to effectively handle and enhance the resilience of companies’
sustainability development roadmaps by enabling decision makers to find robust and highly reliable
Citation: Bataleblu, A.A.; Rauch, E.; solutions regarding sustainable system design. The impact of this research is to create a new insight
Cochran, D.S. Resilient Sustainability into addressing climate change which not only assesses the current situation but also considers
Assessment Framework from a uncertainty sources that affect decision making for the future.
Transdisciplinary System-of-Systems
Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, Keywords: sustainability assessment; sustainability development; resilience approach; system of
9400. https://doi.org/10.3390/ systems; systems engineering; transdisciplinarity methodology; systems thinking; uncertainty-based
su16219400
design; multidisciplinary design optimization; many-objective decision making
Academic Editors: Yoshiki
Shimomura and Shigeru Hosono

Received: 20 September 2024


1. Introduction
Revised: 22 October 2024
Accepted: 27 October 2024 The increasing governmental pressure through approving new policies and regulations
Published: 29 October 2024 on sustainability development rushes companies toward hasty unilateral decisions without
considering interactions between different pillars of sustainability [1,2]. The hypothesis
is that this coercive pressure pushes companies to assess the environmental impact and
commitments to eco-innovation [3]. With authority and clarity of governmental coercion,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. companies must disclose their sustainability targets, impacts, risks, opportunities, and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
strategies leading to clarification of their approach to achieving sustainability [2]. The
This article is an open access article
delegation of different standards one after the other, which do overlap in terms of content
distributed under the terms and
and the achievement of desired goals, increases the ambiguities and concerns in adopting
conditions of the Creative Commons
them [4]. The consequence of a lack of an integrated, transdisciplinary framework was
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
highlighted in an experimental study by Stechemesser et al. that highlighted that the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
most effective strategies to address the climate change problem result from thoughtful
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219400 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability


Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 2 of 18

combinations of policies rather than isolated initiatives [5]. Governmental policies highlight
the climate change crisis and the need for long-term human sustainability. However, the
generic sustainability metrics proposed in governmental policies and regulations, in many
cases, do not have clear thresholds and targets for evaluation [6]. These indicators mitigate
the usefulness and clarity in purpose and the achievement of sustainability objectives.
Effective measures of performance are not possible when threshold values of achievement
are not defined that are consistent with the achievement of the desired system functions for
sustainability [7,8].
An important factor to consider in the development of performance threshold mea-
sures is the traditional viewpoint of cost held by most businesses. This viewpoint which
presents a higher return on investment to improve business competitiveness, may work
at odds with the desire to simultaneously reduce environmental impacts when selecting
available solution options [9,10]. Recognizing the interconnectedness of the sustainability
pillars, some efforts have been undertaken to develop integrated frameworks to pursue
sustainability effectively at the product, process, and plant levels [11–17]. Ziout et al. have
investigated the advantages of reusing manufacturing systems considering sustainability
aspects using a multi-criteria decision-making approach [11]. An integrated method to
create sustainable manufacturing mapping relying on value stream mapping, LCA, and
discrete event simulation has been proposed by Paju et al. [12]. Yusof et al. have proposed a
conceptual framework by connecting the value stream mapping tool and the concept of the
6R method (reduce, reuse, recycle, refuse, rethink, and repair) for assessing sustainability
at the process and or plant level [13]. Krajnc and Glavic have developed a model for
tracking integrated information regarding different aspects of sustainability through a
normalized composite sustainable development index [14]. A framework for collecting
data from machined products and machining processes to extract the sustainability metrics
is proposed by Lu et al., which highlights the need for data sharing between product and
process metrics [15]. Focusing on remanufacturing for sustainable manufacturing, Fatimah
et al. have proposed an assessment framework based on existing criteria for sustainable
remanufactured products [16]. Chen et al. have presented a quantitative tool for assess-
ing factories’ sustainability progress based on key performance indicators at the factory
level [17]. Despite the clarity of the challenge and progress in this field, the sustainability
assessment community is still inconclusive about its evaluation results and some deficien-
cies need to be addressed [1]. However, it is essential to acknowledge that a universal best
practice for achieving sustainability in organizations does not exist. Each organization is
distinct in terms of technology and manufacturing readiness levels, organizational culture,
and financial conditions, and requires a tailored approach to choose the best solution in
moving toward sustainability. An essential success factor in sustainability realization is the
management of the interdependencies within the disciplines involved [6,18].
In systems engineering, it is known that applying a new requirement to an existing
one increases risk in one of the network nodes. The increased risk is analogous to creating
delays in deliverables that affect the entire network [19]. Therefore, a transdisciplinary
system-of-systems (TSoS) approach that considers higher-level requirements and mod-
els interactions is needed to avoid temporary, impromptu solutions to poorly conceived
sustainability measures [20]. Transdisciplinary systems engineering (TSE) relies on transdis-
ciplinary thinking skills which consider visible thinking, systemic thinking, computational
thinking, and critical/creative skills in dealing with complex problems [21]. TSE addresses
multifaceted challenges like sustainability by overcoming collaboration and cooperation
barriers between multiple stakeholders and systems while considering interdisciplinary
connections of the organization network, and challenging traditional framework limits [22].
The TSoS nature of the climate change problem is illustrated in Figure 1. As presented
in Figure 1, a systematic decomposition of the sustainability problem starting from the
SoS level to the product and service level plays a key role in mitigating the root causes of
climate change. The TSoS framework creates a practical platform for rethinking, redeciding
on required solutions, and finally re-seeding toward a sustainable future.
also raises concerns about making critical decisions for the organizations’ roadmap
relying on the presented results. Some of the consequences of this approach are the lack
of consistency in sustainability reporting, damage to the company’s credibility and
reputation in the market, and misjudgment about the company’s management body and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 3 of 18
roadmaps [28].

Figure 1. Transdisciplinary system-of-systems nature of sustainability problem.


Figure 1. Transdisciplinary system-of-systems nature of sustainability problem.
Nowadays, companies are trying to calculate different metrics related to sustainability
Some
based organizations
on one have
of the delegated been trying
standards totheir
to report evaluate
currentenvironmental
situation [23–26].impact
Most by
requested and disclosed indicators focus on external reporting while lacking
calculating the carbon footprint, especially greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), throughout usable in-
formation for organizations’ internal decision makers [27]. To facilitate the
the entire supply chain using lifecycle assessment (LCA) tools [29–34]. Most of these toolssustainability
assessment
have focusedprocess,
on oneconsultancy enterprises
or two of the help prepare
sustainability pillarscompanies’ sustainabilityeconomics,
(i.e., environmental, state-
ments using the information received. Therefore, sustainability reports depict a glossy
social, and governance), the environmental pillar and the economics pillar, and lack a
bunch of data without any consideration of the companies’ internal and external challenges
holistic approach to accomplishing a comprehensive analysis [27]. Since it is vital to assess
and business models. This approach not only complicates the evaluation of sustainabil-
allity
aspects
reportsofregarding
sustainability simultaneously
the accuracy in sustainability
of the reported informationdevelopment,
but also raisesdeveloping
concerns a
is proposed focusing on both deterministic and non-deterministic
about making critical decisions for the organizations’ roadmap relying on the presented aspects. Finally,
the paper
results. Someis of
closed by concluding
the consequences of thisremarks
approachand envisioning
are the future insustainability
lack of consistency sustain-
assessment tools from a transdisciplinary viewpoint.
ability reporting, damage to the company’s credibility and reputation in the market, and
misjudgment about the company’s management body and roadmaps [28].
Some organizations have been trying to evaluate environmental impact by calculating
the carbon footprint, especially greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), throughout the entire
supply chain using lifecycle assessment (LCA) tools [29–34]. Most of these tools have fo-
cused on one or two of the sustainability pillars (i.e., environmental, economics, social, and
governance), the environmental pillar and the economics pillar, and lack a holistic approach
to accomplishing a comprehensive analysis [27]. Since it is vital to assess all aspects of
sustainability simultaneously in sustainability development, developing a comprehensive
sustainability assessment tool to consider the unique naturewww.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219400 of the organizations seems
obligatory [1]. Besides, capabilities such as continuously monitoring and notifying the
changes, finding the root causes of climate change, suggesting solutions, and adjusting
processes are essential to create a targeted approach to address sustainability [6].
In addition, TSoS should consider the inevitable uncertainties that play a key role
in realizing sustainability objectives. Uncertainties can be of internal and external origin,
which can affect the realization of goals by increasing the risk in different sectors. The
multidisciplinary nature of the sustainability problem significantly increases the sensitivity
of addressing uncertainty sources [35–38]. The impact of the various uncertainty sources
on the interdisciplinary interactions and the whole system performance can be analyzed
by incorporating them into the multidisciplinary modeling through an uncertainty-based
multidisciplinary design optimization (UMDO). To trace the impact of uncertainties on
needs and requirements throughout the portfolio network, the UMDO approach can be
implemented through model-based systems engineering (MBSE) tools to create an inte-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 4 of 18

grated analysis environment. Therefore, developing a new framework across enterprises


by integrating UMDO and MBSE relying on the concept of TSoS is required to have a
targeted sustainability assessment [39,40]. In this respect, this paper proposes an inte-
grated framework that creates an uncertainty-based transdisciplinary systems optimization
(UTSO) approach to enhance synergy among different systems involved in the sustain-
ability problem. The UTSO makes this synergy through providing online traceability and
communication which is crucial in making better holistic decisions in the presence of uncer-
tainties. The UTSO approach, covering both deterministic and non-deterministic insights,
can enable organizations to achieve a set of resilient and sustainable solutions.
This study will address four main questions that shape the research methodology to
achieve a targeted framework for sustainability assessment (see Figure 2). These ques-
tions encompass, “Why have different standards been enacted for sustainability devel-
opment?”, “What is sustainability statement and what awaits companies?”, “Why do
we need a systems engineering lens for sustainability realization?”, “How to create a
resilient roadmap toward sustainability?”. In this regard, the continuation of the paper
is structured as follows. First, the sustainability development background is presented,
outlining some of the regulations, standards, impacts, and challenges of reporting. Second,
the research that sees sustainability from a transdisciplinary systems engineering lens
is provided. Third, a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework is proposed
focusing on both deterministic and non-deterministic aspects. Finally, the paper is closed
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 by concluding remarks and envisioning future sustainability assessment tools from 2 of a8
transdisciplinary viewpoint.

Figure
Figure2.2.Research
Researchmethodology
methodologyof
ofthis
thisstudy.
study.

2.2.Sustainability
SustainabilityDevelopment
Development
Despite more
Despite more than
thantwo
twodecades of experience
decades with different
of experience regulations
with different and standards
regulations and
regarding climate change agreed upon around the world, there is neither
standards regarding climate change agreed upon around the world, there is neither consensus in
science nor policy on establishing one comprehensive and integrated
consensus in science nor policy on establishing one comprehensive and integrated regulation on sus-
tainability development [4]. Within this period, which started with the development of the
regulation on sustainability development [4]. Within this period, which started with the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997, other frameworks encompass the United Nations
development of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997, other frameworks
Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), the European Union Corporate Sustainability
encompass the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), the European
Reporting Directive (EU CSRD), European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and
Union Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (EU CSRD), European Sustainability
the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, (CS3D or CSDDD) have been devel-
Reporting Standards (ESRS), and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive,
oped (see Figure 3). Companies often use some of these frameworks in tandem and align
(CS3D or CSDDD)
their reports withhave been
several developed
standards (see Figure
to show 3). Companies
their contribution often useglobal
to broader some sustain-
of these
frameworks in tandem and align their reports with several standards to show
ability objectives [2]. However, according to the Global Risks Report 2024, misinformation their
contribution to broader global sustainability objectives [2]. However, according
and disinformation can be the main drivers of misleading sustainability goals, potentially to the
Global Risks Report 2024, misinformation and disinformation can be the main
resulting in societal polarization and an economic downturn [41]. Although companies drivers of
misleading sustainability goals, potentially resulting in societal polarization and an
economic downturn [41]. Although companies have been forced to report their
sustainability statement in certain timeframes starting from January 2024, scheduled
based on the company’s size, balance sheet, and net turnover, the unclear consequences
of missing milestones, non-measurable thresholds, and uncertain targets have turned
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 5 of 18

have been forced to report their sustainability statement in certain timeframes starting from
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 3 of 8
January 2024, scheduled based on the company’s size, balance sheet, and net turnover, the
unclear consequences of missing milestones, non-measurable thresholds, and uncertain
targets have turned reporting into a non-transparent and ambiguous issue [2].

Figure 3. Sustainability framework’s development highway.


Figure 3. Sustainability framework’s development highway.
2.1. Frameworks and Standards
2.1. Frameworks and Standards
Understanding the differences and overlaps between various sustainability regula-
tionsUnderstanding the differences
is crucial to achieving and overlaps
principal sustainability between
goals. various
By presenting sustainability
guidelines and
regulations
frameworks,isregulations
crucial to achieving principal
and standards sustainability
provide companies goals. By presenting
with instruction guidelines
and structure
and
for aframeworks, regulations
holistic sustainability and standards
assessment. provide
Nowadays, the companies with instruction
European Parliament’s CSRD,and stru
ESRS,
and CS3D frameworks emphasize and follow the GRI and SDGs for addressing sustainabil-
ity and corporate responsibility [2]. Aiming to form a comprehensive corporate reporting
regime for sustainability reporting, released standards have been making collaboration
agreements and can be viewed as interconnected reporting pillars that address distinct
perspectives. According to the EFRAG-GRI MoU, a GRI-ESRS Interoperability Index has
been developed to align the ESRS and GRI as much as possible. Therefore, companies
that report under ESRS will be considered as reporting “with reference” to the GRI stan-
dards, and current GRI reporters will be able to utilize their existing reporting processes to
compile their ESRS sustainability statement [42]. However, some key differences require
attention. When preparing for sustainability reporting, companies need to understand the
intersection, scope, and relationship between existing frameworks. Table 1 summarizes
the comparison between these frameworks from six different points of view encompass-
ing geographical focus, regulatory framework, legal compliance, scope and applicability,
xtensive process,
development data points required
and content tostructure.
and be reported, automation of data collection and
development of digital dashboard tools should be considered to streamline the
sustainability reporting process and accelerate evaluation and action procedures. After
understanding the current situation of the company, it is essential to look for robust and
reliable solutions by monitoring and reviewing the results to create a resilient roadmap in
the presence of core uncertainties like political shifts.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 6 of 18

Table 1. Comparison between GRI, SDGs, ESRS, and CS3D.

Criteria GRI [23] and SDGs [24] ESRS [25] CS3D [26]
Geographical Focus Worldwide EU EU
Regulatory
Independent EU directives EU directives
Framework
Large EU companies, EU companies
Legal Compliance 1 Voluntary
listed SMEs, non-EU companies Non-EU companies
Mitigation of negative risks to
A general set of standards that Sustainability reporting within
Scope and the environment and human
cover a broad range of the European context, covering
Applicability rights in a narrower “chain of
sustainability topics the entire “value chain”
activities” of a company
GRI: Global Sustainability European Commission and its
European authorities and
Development Standards Board (GSSB) Corporate Sustainability Due
EU stakeholders
SDGs: United Nations Diligence Directive (CSDDD)
Content and Structure Materiality of impact Dual materiality Materiality of impact
1 Companies that fall under the scope of both ESRS and CS3D are distinguished based on their number of
employees, balance sheet, and net turnover and must report in different timeframes.

2.2. Sustainability Statement


Given the diversity in sustainability reporting frameworks coupled with the varied
perspectives of stakeholders, there is no unique and globally accepted process for sus-
tainability statements [43]. Figure 4 provides a schematic representation of the necessary
steps for creating a sustainability statement. Since sustainability reporting structure is
the core of sustainability assessment, an inconclusive understanding of frameworks mis-
leads the organizations to capture all required metrics for sustainability assessment [44].
Therefore, localizing the sustainability reporting frameworks as a first step would be a
game changer and alleviate most of the concerns raised in the sustainability development
journey. Therefore, localizing the sustainability reporting frameworks as a first step would
be a game changer and alleviate most of the concerns raised in the sustainability devel-
opment journey. Companies must clarify their situation concerning global and regional
sustainability regulations. It includes identifying company scope and category (based on
industry, location, size and impact, and net turnover), extracting relevant deadliness (based
on regulatory or voluntary standards), and identifying relevant metrics and customizing
them (core metrics and sector-specific indicators). This information will be transferred to
the company’s strategy and operations plan to make decisions and adjust timelines on
the roadmap.
The localization of standards should be based on the company’s technology and
manufacturing readiness levels to set practical and achievable short- and long-term plans.
Moreover, it is crucial to thoroughly comprehend the requirements and application of
each company at this step. Setting up managerial and technical teams is essential to
identify subsidiaries that fall under the reporting scope. Since targeted sustainability
assessment encompasses disclosures throughout the entire value chain, the localization
step also requires mapping the value chain. After gaining a thorough understanding of the
utilized framework and scoping the requirements, the next crucial step is double materiality
assessment (DMA) through the identification of impacts, risks, and opportunities that are
material to the company [45]. DMA involves a dual perspective, the effects of the company
on the environment and society, and individuals’ influence on the company’s economic
position. The outcome of this step indicates which materials should be considered in
sustainability reporting. The third step involves the gap analysis to evaluate the availability
of the data related to materials and to identify the sources of required data. This step
streamlines the data collection process. Conduction of the gap analysis in parallel with
DMA can significantly save reporting time by eliminating the waiting time for materiality
assessment results. In addition, a detailed and comprehensive review in this loop can
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 7 of 18

effectively realize sustainability development goals while keeping continued progress


in financial turnover by highlighting the company’s main cores and making resilient
decisions. After completion of the gap analysis and materiality assessment, companies
are then equipped with the necessary structured information to initiate the reporting
process. Therefore, the company is able to organize the data collection and establish
actions to address the identified gaps. Due to the extensive data points required to be
reported, automation of data collection and development of digital dashboard tools should
be considered to streamline the sustainability reporting process and accelerate evaluation
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 and action procedures. After understanding the current situation of the company,4 itofis8
essential to look for robust and reliable solutions by monitoring and reviewing the results
to create a resilient roadmap in the presence of core uncertainties like political shifts.

4. Sustainability statement process.


Figure 4. process.

2.3.
2.3. Opportunities,
Opportunities, Challenges,
Challenges, and
and Needs
Needs
Disclosing sustainability indicators
Disclosing sustainability indicators alonealone falls
falls short
short of
of reducing
reducing the
the acceleration
acceleration of
of
climate
climate change [46]. The main roots need to be identified, the main arteries must
change [46]. The main roots need to be identified, the main arteries must be
be
introduced, and incorrect and correct actions must be explained by setting boundaries.
introduced, and incorrect and correct actions must be explained by setting boundaries.
Identifying correct actions from falsehoods in the presence of unevaluatable amounts
Identifying correct actions from falsehoods in the presence of unevaluatable amounts of
of sustainability information has become increasingly difficult and delays sustainability
sustainability information has become increasingly difficult and delays sustainability
action [47]. Despite significant efforts in dedicating regulations and developing standards,
action [47]. Despite significant efforts in dedicating regulations and developing standards,
the current political paradigm has failed to achieve sustainability goals [48]. Partly, it is
the current political paradigm has failed to achieve sustainability goals [48]. Partly, it is
due to the failure to create a culture and business model of sustainability, which takes a
due to the failure to create a culture and business model of sustainability, which takes a
long time. In addition, inadequate maturity in sustainability science has also not been
long time. In addition, inadequate maturity in sustainability science has also not been
ineffective in delaying the realization of sustainability [49]. Lack of understanding of the
ineffective in delaying the realization of sustainability [49]. Lack of understanding of the
fundamentals, and limited skills with which to implement these fundamentals are common
fundamentals, and limited skills with which to implement these fundamentals are
causes of stress and even crisis in sustainability development. How to select between
common sustainability
different causes of stress and even
strategies, the crisis
scope in
of sustainability development.
and relationships How toscience,
between different select
between different
technology, sustainability
and engineering strategies,
activities, why andthehowscope of and
to perform keyrelationships between
action plans, and even
different science, technology, and engineering activities, why and how to perform
the ability to adapt knowledge to different contexts and scenarios—these are all serious key
action plans, and even the ability to adapt knowledge to different contexts and
issues. This multi-sector problem with a complex network and the centrality of humans is scenarios—
beyond all the engineering problems that humanity has faced so far. This problem is created
because of the actions of humanity and the way to deal with it is completely different from
other problems that humanity has defined and then solved. From the engineering point of
view, humans and the economy in this problem play both design variable and objective
function roles at the same time, which has created a new form of a highly chaotic and
heterogeneous problem. This new problem requires transdisciplinary thinking to meet
holistic feasible solutions.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 8 of 18

The pursuit of company-specific solutions for attaining net-zero emissions, zero waste,
and sustainable production has created a competitive landscape unique to each business,
fostering a new era of innovation [2]. The new Eco-friendly solutions will push the technol-
ogy edges which affect current infrastructure. Comprehensive evaluations are needed so
that the pressure on the infrastructure does not create new springs to sustainability issues.
Since in complex multidisciplinary problems deciding on one disciplinary objective directly
or indirectly influences other disciplines, a holistic model considering all interactions is
mandatory. Therefore, investment in developing multidisciplinary analysis software in
each company could be a game changer. Furthermore, sustainability assessment requires
dealing with massive repositories of unstructured data. Collecting, classifying, analyzing,
and visualizing data has created both a challenge and an opportunity. In this way, moving
toward digitalization, big data-driven, and artificial intelligence-driven methodologies
seem to be mandatory and should be one of the goals of each company. Accelerating the
implementation of concepts such as Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 along with the continuous
development of advanced sensors will also lead to technological innovation [2]. In the
meantime, many business spaces are being created and many startups are emerging to
facilitate sustainability reporting by developing various integrated software. It is evident
that the development of sustainability-driven self-optimization tools, which address all
aspects of sustainability at once, is a hierarchical process. This path will inevitably face
challenges, and new issues will arise with the implementation of innovative technologies.

3. Sustainability from Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering Lens


For the first time in 1985, Basarab Nicolescu proposed the inclusion of the “beyond
disciplines” concept which led to the emergence of transdisciplinarity methodology [50].
In 1995, Ervin Laszlo laid the foundation of the “transdisciplinary unified theory” relying
on the interconnected universe concept and human desire to develop complex systems [51].
While the multidisciplinary perspective is concerned with studying the interdisciplinary in-
teractions between several disciplines simultaneously, the transdisciplinarity approach not
only considers interdisciplinary interactions but also goes beyond all disciplinary bound-
aries concerning their external interactions [50]. The need to look at the climate change
problem from beyond systems, multi-networking, and interdisciplinary perspectives has
steered us to employ a meta-systemic mode of thought relying on systems theory [52].
Capra et al. have highlighted that the economy must operate with, rather than dominate
the environment, society, and culture, and achieving this requires connecting the terms
“ecological” and “economics” by creating systemic principles of life [53]. Although the
systems theory is concerned with the study of complex systems, considering all sustain-
ability aspects simultaneously has created a new level of complexity or a mess (hint at
the mess management concept of Russell L. Ackoff [52]). Sustainability has become a
multifaceted ever-increasing complex problem exacerbated by the hyper-connectivity and
interdependence of technologies, sectors, systems, and disciplines which could not be
addressed with single-disciplinary and anthropocentric thinking. Today’s systems have
been transforming into a composition of cyber, physical, and human parts with intelligent
and smart features, making their understanding extremely complicated [54]. All these
systems are also embedded in larger systems which creates a complex network of system-
of-systems (SoS) problems. To understand the situations and the interlinkages that generate
and propagate sustainability issues transdisciplinary systems thinking is vital to move
away from reductionist approaches and define preventive actions [55]. Indeed, these kinds
of problems are resistant to a global solution. Each company can choose one of the locally
feasible optimal solutions from the design space that fulfills the constraints without paying
attention to its robustness and reliability. Occasionally, with new regulations and policies,
new disciplines and requirements will emerge. Although systems try to converge and
adapt to these conditions, the interdisciplinary knowledge gap complicates sustainability
realization. Therefore, transdisciplinary thinking strives to harmonize multidisciplinary
interactions by reaching beyond system boundaries to identify and fill gaps and overcome
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 9 of 18

incompatibilities with the SoS network [56]. In this respect, the focus of today’s research
and science is on tackling sustainability challenges through developing and implementing
systems thinking approaches to create more integrated decision-making tools and trade-offs
on all sustainability pillars simultaneously [22,35,57–59].

3.1. Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering


According to the 2019 INCOSE definitions [60], “transdisciplinarity” is introduced
as an approach that “crosses many disciplinary boundaries to create a holistic approach.”
This holistic view feature distinguishes it from the multidisciplinary approach, which
mainly emphasizes the interdisciplinary interaction of a system. Transdisciplinary systems
engineering (TSE) as a meta-discipline has both transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary,
not only considering systems interdisciplinary interactions but also extending beyond to
contemplate the system’s interactions and impacts on the system’s environment [56,61].
Since the sustainability problem deals with a network of systems, this concept should be
extended to the TSoS to cover interactions among a wide range of nodes in the climate
change network. Since the sustainability problem deals with a network of systems, this
concept should be extended to the TSoS to cover interactions among a wide range of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 5 of 8
nodes in the climate change network. Figure 5 presents sustainability in the frame of
transdisciplinary engineering.

Figure 5.
Figure Sustainabilityin
5. Sustainability inthe
theframe
frameof
of transdisciplinary
transdisciplinary engineering.
engineering.

As depicted in Figure 5, this framework considers the TSoS development as the core
element of the system which connects needs with manufacturing systems. A comprehen-
sive system decomposition will be conducted in the TSoS process which covers many
different needs coming from outside of the boundary, such as stakeholders, society, market,
and the climate crisis. These sources of needs may often not be directly involved and
contain a set of quantitative and qualitative concerns. By translating needs into a set of
functional requirements (FRs), TSoS is looking for robust and reliable solutions to realize
the sustainability that companies with innovative and technological plans offer [62] The
TSoS development is performed in collaboration and cooperation with experts from dif-
ferent disciplines involving information exchange with people from the solution system.
Furthermore, the physical solutions (PSs) suggested by manufacturing- or service-based
systems to fulfill the functional requirements extracted from decomposition in the TSoS

y research integration; (5) transdisciplinary engineering; and (6) transdisciplinary


Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 10 of 18

development system can be a transdisciplinary system, but there is no need for a unique
solution. On the contrary, in higher layers, more alternative solutions need to be available
so that the hands of decision makers are not tied to making the right decision. The TSoS
process may also identify the need for new technologies that must be developed elsewhere
outside the system boundary. In addition to meeting upstream needs, companies always
try to meet customers’ wishes through continuous communication with the supply chain.
The technologies and processes adapted in each step are often different than each other
because of the different knowledge required. What is necessary is the online connection of
this whole collection with each other.

3.2. Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering for Sustainability


After the definition of TSE and explaining how sustainability can be considered in the
frame of transdisciplinary engineering, this section will present TSE implementation steps
for addressing the sustainability problem. The six main steps of TSE [55] which can lead
companies systematically from sustainability drivers to a targeted sustainability plan are
(see Figure 6): (1) disciplinary convergence; (2) transdisciplinary collaboration; (3) collective
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 intelligence; (4) transdisciplinary research integration; (5) transdisciplinary engineering;6 of 8
and (6) transdisciplinary analysis and assessment. These steps are described in detail in the
continuation of this section.

Figure 6. From sustainability needs to sustainability assessment using transdisciplinary systems


Figure 6. From
engineering sustainability needs to sustainability assessment using transdisciplinary systems
steps.
engineering steps.
3.2.1. Disciplinary Convergence
3.2.1.Disciplinary
Disciplinaryconvergence
Convergenceserves as the first step in transdisciplinary systems engineer-
Disciplinary
ing [56]. TSE creates convergence
a meaningful serves as the for
grounding first step collaboration
a wide in transdisciplinary
betweensystems
subject
engineering
matter experts[56].
byTSE creates a meaningful
simultaneously engaginggrounding
all actors inforthea wide collaboration
unstructured between
sustainability
issue.
subjectThese actors
matter can be
experts byfrom industry, academia,
simultaneously engaging regulatory,
all actorsandin funding bodies. A 3.2.5.
the unstructured com-
prehensive disciplinary
Transdisciplinary convergence provides a structured and well-planned sustainability
Engineering
journey so that
After stakeholders
identifying and and managers
defining can make
the key informed
attributes throughdecisions.
interactive collective
This stepmanagement,
intelligence starts with thea identification of the needs, which
contextual relationships matrixisusing
essential
thefor thoroughly
interpretative
understanding the problem domain and building a research team. Then,
structural modeling (ISM) technique will develop in this step [55]. The interrelationships stakeholders
and customers
of the must be
key attributes willidentified to consider
be extracted utilizingtheir viewpoints
a structural while addressing
self-interaction matrixthe main
(SSIM),
problem.
which is Disciplinary
the first stepconvergence
of ISM [64]. creates a communication
The results will pass substrate on how for
to ISM analysis internal
level
and external and
partitioning actors
to may assist
propose in harmonizing
a digraph or flow disciplines to improve
of factors. Then, sustainability
the driving power and de-
velopment.
dependencies Forofinstance, if the management
the highlighted key attributes groupwillrecommends
be identifiedswitching
using matrixfromimpact
fossil
fuels to wind energy,
cross-reference the engineering
multiplication group would
methodology [65].outline infrastructure
The result restrictions,
will assist managerswhileand
the finance group would address the issue of investment, and the
stakeholders in creating the highest value proposition in sustainability realization other groups wouldby
provide feedback
identifying similarly.
the most By considering
impressive interactions
attributes. The schematicbetween conflictingof
illustration objectives from
this process,
different
includingdisciplines,
developing a convergence in decision-making
different matrixes, is presented bodies
in Figuremay7.occur.
Following the steps
outlined in Figure 7, the key attributes will be systematically prioritized [61]. First, the
contextual relationship between attributes and the relation direction will be determined.
Then, an adjacency matrix will be developed by translating the SSIM matrix to binary
numbers. Third, the reachability matrix is created by applying the transitive rule which
states “If A has a relationship to B and B has a relationship to C, then A has a relationship
to C”. Using the reachability matrix data, the attributes’ driving power and dependence
will be calculated. Finally, the information collected in all steps will be put together to
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 11 of 18

3.2.2. Transdisciplinary Collaboration


The transdisciplinary team collaboration is the heart of TSE to identify various angles
of a complex problem [61]. To address the sustainability problem, a transdisciplinary collab-
oration is imperative to finding social–technical solutions [63]. Relying on a collaborative
thinking approach, the information and knowledge from different disciplinary groups will
be exchanged and possible solutions will be discussed. The structured discussions will
continue to discover and classify the main functional requirements of the problem while
strategically thinking about their independence to decrease the problem’s complexity level.
Since the interdependency of adopted solutions to satisfy FRs determines the independence
of FRs, collaborative thinking based on the axiomatic design theory could revolutionize
not only the system-level sustainability solutions but also the system-of-systems level ap-
proaches toward sustainability by decreasing the level of the system complexity. This kind
of collaborative thinking systematizes the swap between different solutions and accelerates
achieving holistic solutions.

3.2.3. Collective Intelligence


Collective intelligence, rooted in interactive management, is a structured approach to
managing complex problems by gaining knowledge from diverse viewpoints [64]. Diversity
of thoughts creates a brainstorming environment that leads to innovative solutions. To
this end, the critical issues will be identified and a group of skillful experts in the field will
be invited to participate in interactive workshops. A new set of functional requirements
will be derived accordingly, providing the fundamentals for the next level of system
decomposition. New functional requirements resulting from this step will be satisfied with
creative solutions and their alternatives through a recursive process to ensure the autonomy
of functions and solutions.

3.2.4. Transdisciplinary Research Integration


The result of the collective intelligence step will be assessed in the transdisciplinary
research integration step [64]. To ensure compatibility and alignment with the main
problem, the collective intelligence results will be compared with the upper levels of
the system decomposition. This step will create a database of approaches and involved
disciplines and highlight and introduce nonordered key attributes. For each attribute,
the feedback of the knowledgeable disciplinary leaders will be recorded in a structured
form [55].

3.2.5. Transdisciplinary Engineering


After identifying and defining the key attributes through interactive collective intelli-
gence management, a contextual relationships matrix using the interpretative structural
modeling (ISM) technique will develop in this step [55]. The interrelationships of the
key attributes will be extracted utilizing a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM), which
is the first step of ISM [64]. The results will pass to ISM analysis for level partitioning
and to propose a digraph or flow of factors. Then, the driving power and dependencies
of the highlighted key attributes will be identified using matrix impact cross-reference
multiplication methodology [65]. The result will assist managers and stakeholders in
creating the highest value proposition in sustainability realization by identifying the most
impressive attributes. The schematic illustration of this process, including developing
different matrixes, is presented in Figure 7. Following the steps outlined in Figure 7, the key
attributes will be systematically prioritized [61]. First, the contextual relationship between
attributes and the relation direction will be determined. Then, an adjacency matrix will be
developed by translating the SSIM matrix to binary numbers. Third, the reachability matrix
is created by applying the transitive rule which states “If A has a relationship to B and B
has a relationship to C, then A has a relationship to C”. Using the reachability matrix data,
the attributes’ driving power and dependence will be calculated. Finally, the information
collected in all steps will be put together to partition the level of attributes and form the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 12 of 18

Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 7 of 8


prioritization digraph. A deeper explanation of the indicated steps in Figure 7 can be found
in [61].

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Transdisciplinary systems engineering
Transdisciplinary systems engineering for
for sustainability.
sustainability.

3.2.6. Transdisciplinary Analysis


3.2.6. Transdisciplinary Analysis and
and Assessment
Assessment
The last step in TSE is analysis
The last step in TSE is analysis and and transdisciplinary
transdisciplinaryassessment to highlight
assessment the critical
to highlight the
disciplines and extract the gaps in addressing the key attributes [55]. Therefore,
critical disciplines and extract the gaps in addressing the key attributes [55]. Therefore, first, the
current
first, thesituation of disciplines
current situation concerning
of disciplines the key attributes
concerning should beshould
the key attributes assessed.
be Then, the
assessed.
responsibility of different disciplines
Then, the responsibility of different fordisciplines
each attribute
for will
eachbeattribute
checked to identify
will gaps. For
be checked to
the identified gap, the system will look for a responsible discipline and will
identify gaps. For the identified gap, the system will look for a responsible discipline and check whether
the
willexisting modules
check whether theare capable
existing of filling
modules areit.capable
Otherwise, newit.modules
of filling willnew
Otherwise, be proposed
modules
to
will be proposed to address the gap. Afterward, a quantitative analysis of theofmaturity
address the gap. Afterward, a quantitative analysis of the maturity level current
disciplines per each attribute is required by scoring their level in
level of current disciplines per each attribute is required by scoring their level in addressing different
issues. Finally,
addressing a qualitative
different issues. analysis
Finally, aofqualitative
the feedback received
analysis of from each discipline
the feedback received will
frombe
performed, which will determine the interactions of the disciplines in closing
each discipline will be performed, which will determine the interactions of the disciplines the gaps.
Prioritizing the key attributes, identifying the responsible disciplines, and required
in closing the gaps.
interactions to fill the gaps enable organizations to recognize responsible parts in an organi-
Since MBSE tools relying on cloud-based information exchange have all the
zation for providing essential information for key sustainability metrics. In addition, the
necessary features in one place, it is better to advance both sides of the analysis together
maturity level, strengths, and weaknesses of the various organization’s parts in responding
within the context of an MBSE tool. The decisions resulting from such an integrated
to the sustainability criteria requested to be disclosed in the standards will be determined,
framework, considering both deterministic and non-deterministic sustainability analysis,
which streamlines the sustainability assessment procedure.
enhance the resilience of organizations’ roadmaps and close the gap between
sustainability
4. in research and
Resilient Sustainability what it is in
Assessment practice.
Framework
Uncertainty is an inevitable part of any system, whether with direct or indirect im-
pacts [66]. Uncertainty is one of the most important factors that challenges the performance
of solutions to complex problems and diverts organizations from accomplishing the strate-
gic roadmap [67]. Therefore, understanding uncertainty sources is crucial for creating a
resilient strategic roadmap, since making decisions within the sustainability development
roadmap without considering uncertainty will only provide a temporary solution [36].
This section proposes a two-level framework to streamline the way to achieve resilient
sustainable solutions.

4.1. Uncertainty Sources in Sustainability Problem


The hotbed of uncertainty lies in the lack of knowledge/information and the imprecise
and incompleteness of data [68]. These fountains can grow inside a system and during the
product development process or can have an external origin that penetrates the system from
outside the system boundary and puts it under the influence. Looking at the big picture of
the sustainability problem, the SoS-level uncertainties can arise from, “Mother Companies
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 13 of 18

Needs and Requirements, Regulatory Bodies, Standards, Customers Demand, Market


Intentions and Power, Inflation, Environmental Conditions, Science and Technology, and
Political and Cultural Situations”. These higher-level sources, as external uncertainties, in-
fluence the development of systems and emergent creative solutions. In addition, there are
also internal uncertainty sources encompassing system complexity, systems departments,
SMEs, subsidiaries, manufacturers, operations, human error, machinery tolerance, models
simplification, ignorance and assumptions, programming, computational implementa-
tions, and information exchange that affect the efficiency of the sustainability solutions.
Considering all these sources of uncertainty, making resilient and reliable decisions for
an enterprise’s sustainability journey requires adopting a systematic non-deterministic
approach like uncertainty-based design methodologies.

4.2. Uncertainty-Based Transdisciplinary Systems Optimization


The uncertainty-based systems design (UBSD) approach aims at addressing two issues
encountering uncertainty from various sources: (1) to increase resilience by decreasing the
system’s sensitivity to static and dynamic variations (robust design optimization (RDO)
methods); (2) to enhance a system’s stability with a certain level of likelihood in the presence
of extreme events increasing reliability and decreasing the probability of failure (reliability-
based design optimization (RBDO) methods) [66]. These two perspectives can also be
considered simultaneously in system design and development to improve performance in
terms of robustness and reliability [68].
Considering the multidisciplinary nature of real-world problems and the role of inter-
disciplinary interaction in uncertainty analysis, a UMDO approach has been developed [68].
In the multidisciplinary problems, the impact of the uncertainties can be cross-propagated
leading to unpredictable situations and activating new failure modes. Furthermore, global
real-world issues like climate change inherently have many conflicting objectives and
constraints, and the potential synergistic impact of the interconnected disciplines plays an
important role in reaching a holistic, practical, and at the same time optimal solution to
sustainability [36]. The UMDO approach organizes systematic communication between all
the disciplines involved in a system by arranging them through a hierarchical sequence or a
distributed concurrent network. Due to the sustainability problem’s wide network beyond
the boundaries of several connected systems, extending the UMDO from system-level
design to the SoS level relying on TSE is vital to identify the challenging nodes and hotspots
in the presence of uncertainties. Furthermore, the effect of changes and uncertainties on
the higher-level needs and functional requirements must be traceable online. The online
traceability of the impacts throughout the supply chain reveals the need for tools with cloud
communication and simultaneous analysis of the entire life cycle which can be found in
MBSE tools. The integration of UMDO, transdisciplinary engineering, and MBSE creates a
UTSO approach which increases synergy in the sustainability network of each organization.
UTSO can cover all steps of the product life cycle from needs and requirements to product
disposal while simulating the system behavior in both deterministic and non-deterministic
ways. Based on the UTSO approach, a sustainability assessment framework is proposed
in the next section of the paper that enables organizations to draw a targeted resilient
sustainability roadmap.

4.3. Two-Level Resilient Sustainable Framework


Despite significant efforts made in life cycle assessment focusing on sustainability,
sustainable development is still in its infancy. On the one hand, ongoing assessments cover
a few objectives such as carbon footprint, energy consumption, and waste management
which have been done separately and in a deterministic form. On the other hand, assess-
ments are general and not targeted without considering interconnections and uncertainties.
In addition, although deterministic evaluations will present a snapshot of an organiza-
tion toward some sustainability target, uncertainties and unclear/hidden interactions can
change the derived results and analyses of what is reported.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 14 of 18

To clarify the interactions among portfolio systems, involved disciplines must cooper-
ate while following distinct or threshold-based targets. These communications must go
broader than organizational internal interactions and should include the entire external
network of the system. Implementing the UTSO approach offers detailed information on
climate change issues across the entire portfolio. UTSO helps to perform the sustainability
assessment in a targeted way and to consider resilience as a game changer for unpredictable
future circumstances. In the UTSO approach, both deterministic and non-deterministic
analyses should be considered in parallel. These two analyses are like two powerful arms
for building a wing to fly over the sustainability tree and enable organizations to look at
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400
the big picture of this issue and cultivate strong roots by making resilient solutions.8This
of 8
concept is proposed through a two-level Resilient Sustainable Framework illustrated in
Figure 8.

Figure
Figure 8. Two-level resilient
8. Two-level resilient sustainable
sustainable framework.
framework.

Figure 8 presents the sustainability development in a W form including two Vs for


sustainability assessment (SA) and sustainability resilience (SR). Starting at the top-left
(indicated by 1 in Figure 8) with sustainability standards localization and scoping, the
SA begins to lay the groundwork for evaluation on the left-hand part of the V by doing
DMA, gap analysis, and collecting the required data. Then, this information transfers
to modeling and simulation by going up from the right-hand part of the V to assess the
chosen sustainability metrics. In contrast and starting at the top-right (indicated by 2 in
Figure 8), the SR starts with identifying the uncertainty sources and proceeds by going
down the right-hand side of the V to uncertainty modeling and analysis. Afterward, the
sustainability modeling will carry over to the optimization by going up from the right-hand
part of the V to look for robust and reliable solutions in the presence of uncertainties. In
each V, continuous monitoring and technical review will be done through exchanging
information and communication with responsible disciplines. The information and data
exchange can be conducted through a secure cloud to accelerate the procedure. In addition,
to identify, categorize, and analyze extracted data and transfer them to related parts,
process automation relying on AI and data mining tools can be applied. To ensure the
consistency between SA and SR, an online interface management process is required. Since
MBSE tools relying on cloud-based information exchange have all the necessary features in
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 15 of 18

one place, it is better to advance both sides of the analysis together within the context of
an MBSE tool. The decisions resulting from such an integrated framework, considering
both deterministic and non-deterministic sustainability analysis, enhance the resilience of
organizations’ roadmaps and close the gap between sustainability in research and what it
is in practice.

5. Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives


As indicated by Capra et al. [53] “We never will find solutions to our current challenges
using the old maps and to do more than reducing negative symptoms we have to change
our worldview”. To comprehend the complex interconnectedness of complex real-world
problems developing comprehensive analysis models using a transdisciplinarity approach
is vital [50–53]. Since sustainability is a complex multi-agent multidisciplinary SoS problem
with the potential for disaster in the presence of inevitable uncertainties, we argue that
deterministic analysis will provide us with temporary solutions, and moving towards non-
deterministic systemic analysis is a must to achieve optimal, feasible, and, at the same time,
resilient solutions. To build a targeted sustainability assessment along the transdisciplinary
approach discussed in this paper the principles of systems thinking, system-of-systems
engineering, and uncertainty-based design must be perceived. The following subsections
explain the main contribution of this study and limitations and future needs for research.

5.1. Study Contribution


Since in sustainability development, a desired or unwilling tendency towards each
of the pillars due to uncertainties takes us away from its main objectives, sustainability
assessment practices require a resilient framework. This paper looks at the sustainability
problem from a transdisciplinary system-of-systems perspective focusing on developing
a comprehensive robust sustainability assessment framework. To this end, first, the sus-
tainability regulations are reviewed, and challenges and needs are highlighted. Then,
the concept of transdisciplinary systems engineering and its application for sustainability
analysis is introduced. The steps required to be followed for prioritizing the key attributes
and their related disciplines are explained. In realizing sustainability in the true sense, a
comprehensive analysis is required that considers the uncertainties that may arise from
various sources. In addition, in the portfolio of the climate change problem, many actors
are involved. These actors are guided by humans and their interactions with technology
and science. Therefore, a two-level resilient sustainable framework covering both deter-
ministic and non-deterministic sustainability assessment is proposed in this study. This
framework requires an online technical review for both sustainability assessment and sus-
tainability resilience sides to review and confirm data and metrics interactions based on the
experts’ knowledge. Model-based systems engineering tools can facilitate and accelerate
the framework’s implementation.

5.2. Limitations and Future Needs


Although different life-cycle assessment tools and integrated frameworks have been
developed for addressing and facilitating sustainability reporting, none of the existing
tools are adequate to provide a holistic deterministic sustainability assessment and do
not consider uncertainties in the assessment process. Sustainability development needs
new uncertainty-based sustainability assessment tools to visualize a realistic view of the
companies’ situation towards sustainability. The proposed systematic framework presented
in this research is an initiative toward tackling climate change issues by finding resilient
sustainability solutions. Despite the holisticity of the presented framework, the accuracy of
data, unclear quantitative impact of metrics on each other, and quantifying the uncertainties
are some of the leading limitations in its implementation. These limitations play key roles
in assessments and influence the final feasible set of solutions resulting from applying the
framework. By moving toward Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, some companies already
have collected a lot of data. Most of this data is unstructured and overlaps with others
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 16 of 18

that cannot be used for evaluating sustainability metrics accurately. Unstructured data
itself is a source of uncertainty and creates ambiguities in result interpretation which could
mislead the organizations from the correct orientation. Therefore, clarifying the inter-related
interactions between disciplines as well as the collected data is crucial in achieving correct
basic data for assessment and preventing the creation of further uncertainties. However,
identifying the key attributes in the presence of uncertainties and making solid decisions
through assessment tools is a challenging problem because of the multifunctional nature
and direct and indirect impacts sustainability decisions have on other disciplines. New non-
deterministic many-criteria decision-making and many-optimization methods approaches
should be developed to address the sustainability optimization problem. Therefore, in
envisioning future sustainability assessment tools from a transdisciplinary viewpoint,
emerging new MBSE tools that rely on cloud communication to facilitate the sustainability
indicators’ traceability and online decision making could be a game changer.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.B.; methodology, A.A.B.; visualization, A.A.B.;


writing—original draft preparation, A.A.B.; writing—review and editing, A.A.B., E.R. and D.S.C.; su-
pervision, E.R. and D.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is part of the “SFDD—Sustainable Factory Design Decomposition” project
and has received funding from the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, (grant number TN221R).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Moldavska, A.; Welo, T. A Holistic Approach to Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Incorporating Sustainable Development
Goals into Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Evaluation. J. Manuf. Syst. 2019, 50, 53–68. [CrossRef]
2. Bataleblu, A.A.; Rauch, E.; Cochran, D.S.; Matt, D.T. Impact of European Sustainability Reporting Standards Guidelines on the
Design of Sustainable Factories and Manufacturing Systems. In Proceedings of the Advances in Manufacturing IV; Hamrol, A.,
Grabowska, M., Hinz, M., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 237–253.
3. Jin, S.; Wang, J.; Zhu, P. The Impact of Regulatory Pressure on Eco-Innovation: The Role of Eco-Motivation and Network
Embeddedness. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 466, 142749. [CrossRef]
4. Bataleblu, A.A.; Rauch, E.; Fitch, J.; Cochran, D.S. Model-Based Systems Engineering for Sustainable Factory Design. Procedia
CIRP 2024, 122, 748–753. [CrossRef]
5. Stechemesser, A.; Koch, N.; Mark, E.; Dilger, E.; Klösel, P.; Menicacci, L.; Nachtigall, D.; Pretis, F.; Ritter, N.; Schwarz, M.; et al.
Climate Policies That Achieved Major Emission Reductions: Global Evidence from Two Decades. Science 2024, 385, 884–892.
[CrossRef]
6. Ahmad, S.; Wong, K.Y.; Rajoo, S. Sustainability Indicators for Manufacturing Sectors. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 312–334.
[CrossRef]
7. Singh, S.; Olugu, E.U.; Fallahpour, A. Fuzzy-Based Sustainable Manufacturing Assessment Model for SMEs. Clean Technol.
Environ. Policy 2014, 16, 847–860. [CrossRef]
8. Rosen, M.A.; Kishawy, H.A. Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, Practices and Needs. Sustainability 2012, 4,
154–174. [CrossRef]
9. Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Vervoort, J.; Berthelsen, C.; Mangnus, A.; Osborne, N.; Thompson, K.; Urushima, A.Y.F.; Kóvskaya, M.;
Spiegelberg, M.; Cristiano, S.; et al. Multispecies Sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 2020, 3, e34. [CrossRef]
10. Acerbi, F.; Taisch, M. A Literature Review on Circular Economy Adoption in the Manufacturing Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273,
123086. [CrossRef]
11. Ziout, A.; Azab, A.; Altarazi, S.; ElMaraghy, W.H. Multi-Criteria Decision Support for Sustainability Assessment of Manufacturing
System Reuse. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 6, 59–69. [CrossRef]
12. Paju, M.; Heilala, J.; Hentula, M.; Heikkilä, A.; Johansson, B.; Leong, S.; Lyons, K. Framework and Indicators for a Sustainable
Manufacturing Mapping Methodology. In Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5–8
December 2010; pp. 3411–3422.
13. Yusof, N.M.; Saman, M.Z.M.; Kasava, N.K. A conceptual sustainable domain value stream mapping framework for manufacturing.
In Proceedings of the 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Berlin, Germany, 23–25 September 2013.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 17 of 18

14. Krajnc, D.; Glavič, P. A Model for Integrated Assessment of Sustainable Development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005, 43, 189–208.
[CrossRef]
15. Lu, T.; Gupta, A.; Jayal, A.D.; Badurdeen, F.; Feng, S.C.; Dillon, O.W., Jr.; Jawahir, I.S. A Framework of Product and Process
Metrics for Sustainable Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing; Seliger, G., Khraisheh,
M.M.K., Jawahir, I.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 333–338.
16. Fatimah, Y.A.; Biswas, W.; Mazhar, I.; Islam, M.N. Sustainable Manufacturing for Indonesian Small- and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (SMEs): The Case of Remanufactured Alternators. Jnl. Remanufactur. 2013, 3, 6. [CrossRef]
17. Chen, D.; Thiede, S.; Schudeleit, T.; Herrmann, C. A Holistic and Rapid Sustainability Assessment Tool for Manufacturing SMEs.
CIRP Ann. 2014, 63, 437–440. [CrossRef]
18. Bataleblu, A.A.; Rauch, E.; Cochran, D.S. Sustainable Manufacturing Design Decomposition Based on Axiomatic Design Theory.
In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Quality Innovation and Sustainability (ICQIS 2024), Lisbon, Portugal, 16–19
June 2024.
19. Arumuga, P.; Kavitha, G. Changing Requirements—Correlated to Risk or Quality? Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2011, 3, 22–25. [CrossRef]
20. Mesmer, B.; Mckinney, D.; Watson, M.; Madni, A.M. Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering Approaches. In Proceedings of the
Recent Trends and Advances in Model Based Systems Engineering; Madni, A.M., Boehm, B., Erwin, D., Moghaddam, M., Sievers,
M., Wheaton, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 579–590.
21. Ertas, A. Creating a Culture of Transdisciplinary Learning in STEAM Education for K-12 Students. Transdiscipl. J. Eng. Sci. 2022,
13, 233–244. [CrossRef]
22. Brook, P.; Madni, A.M.; Pennotti, M.; Rousseau, D.; Sillito, H. Five Perspectives on Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering.
INSIGHT 2024, 27, 21–26. [CrossRef]
23. GRI Universal Standards. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/universal-
standards/ (accessed on 17 October 2024).
24. United Nations. The 17 GOALS, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
(accessed on 17 October 2024).
25. European Union. Directive on Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464 (accessed on 17 October 2024).
26. European Union. Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and Amending Directive. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
eli/dir/2024/1760/oj (accessed on 17 October 2024).
27. Hasna, A. A Review of Sustainability Assessment Methods in Engineering. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 2009, 5,
161–176. [CrossRef]
28. Oprean-Stan, C.; Oncioiu, I.; Iuga, I.C.; Stan, S. Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors
on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8536. [CrossRef]
29. Troullaki, K.; Rozakis, S.; Kostakis, V. Bridging Barriers in Sustainability Research: A Review from Sustainability Science to Life
Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 184, 107007. [CrossRef]
30. Luthin, A.; Traverso, M.; Crawford, R.H. Circular Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: An Integrated Framework. J. Ind. Ecol.
2024, 28, 41–58. [CrossRef]
31. Hackenhaar, I.C.; Moraga, G.; Thomassen, G.; Taelman, S.E.; Dewulf, J.; Bachmann, T.M. A Comprehensive Framework Covering
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, Resource Circularity and Criticality. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 45, 509–524. [CrossRef]
32. Fauzi, R.T.; Lavoie, P.; Sorelli, L.; Heidari, M.D.; Amor, B. Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities of Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 636. [CrossRef]
33. Onat, N.C.; Kucukvar, M.; Halog, A.; Cloutier, S. Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent
Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 706. [CrossRef]
34. Hoogmartens, R.; Van Passel, S.; Van Acker, K.; Dubois, M. Bridging the Gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as Sustainability
Assessment Tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014, 48, 27–33. [CrossRef]
35. Sala, S.; Ciuffo, B.; Nijkamp, P. A Systemic Framework for Sustainability Assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 119, 314–325. [CrossRef]
36. Bataleblu, A.A.; Rauch, E.; Cochran, D.S. Sustainability Assessment: A Complex Many-Objective Multi-Agent Multidisciplinary
Problem. In Proceedings of the Latest Advancements in Mechanical Engineering; Concli, F., Maccioni, L., Vidoni, R., Matt, D.T.,
Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 209–220.
37. Xu, D.; Yuan, J. Proposal of a multi-expert multi-criteria model for the sustainability assessment of industrial systems under
uncertainty. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2024, 1–24. [CrossRef]
38. Ebrahimi, B.; Bataleblu, A.A.; Roshanian, J. Developing an intelligent systems design framework based on multidisciplinary
design analysis and multi-agent thinking integration. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 248, 123363. [CrossRef]
39. Delabeye, R.; Penas, O.; Ghienne, M.; Kosecki, A.; Dion, J.-L. MBSE Analysis for Energy Sustainability Improvement in
Manufacturing Industry. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Vienna,
Austria, 13 September–13 October 2021; pp. 1–8.
40. Bataleblu, A.A.; Rauch, E.; Cochran, D.S. Model-Based Systems Engineering in Smart Manufacturing—Future Trends Toward
Sustainability. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Axiomatic Design 2023; Puik, E., Cochran, D.S., Foley, J.T.,
Foith-Förster, P., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 298–311.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 9400 18 of 18

41. World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2024. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-
report-2024/ (accessed on 17 October 2024).
42. GRI News Center, EFRAG and GRI Enhance Collaboration with Deeper Ties. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.
org/news/news-center/efrag-and-gri-enhance-collaboration-with-deeper-ties/ (accessed on 17 October 2024).
43. Bond, A.; Pope, J.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Introducing the roots, evolution and effectiveness of sustainability assessment. In
Handbook of Sustainability Assessment; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 3–19.
44. Marsden, G.; Kimble, M.; Nellthorp, J.; Kelly, C. Sustainability Assessment: The Definition Deficit. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2010, 4,
189–211. [CrossRef]
45. Hennaux, Q. Double Materiality and its Implications for CSRD Reporting, Greenomy. Available online: https://greenomy.io/
blog/double-materiality-csrd-reporting (accessed on 17 October 2024).
46. Hummel, K.; Bauernhofer, K. Consequences of Sustainability Reporting Mandates: Evidence from the EU Taxonomy Regulation.
Account. Forum 2024, 48, 374–400. [CrossRef]
47. Fleming, M. Rampant Climate Disinformation Online Is Distorting Dangers, Delaying Climate Action. Available online:
https://medium.com/we-the-peoples/rampant-climate-disinformation-online-is-distorting-dangers-delaying-climate-
action-375b5b11cf9b (accessed on 17 October 2024).
48. Biermann, F. The Future of ‘Environmental’ Policy in the Anthropocene: Time for a Paradigm Shift. In Trajectories in Environmental
Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 58–77. ISBN 978-1-00-321332-1.
49. Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C.D.; Jager,
N.W.; et al. Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39. [CrossRef]
50. Nicolescu, B. Methodology of Transdisciplinarity–Levels of Reality, Logic of the Included Middle and Complexity. Transdiscipl. J.
Eng. Sci. 2010, 1. [CrossRef]
51. Laszlo, E. The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual Foundations of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory; World Scientific: Hyderabad,
India, 1995.
52. Ackoff, R.L. Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems; Ex-library edition; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York,
NY, USA, 1974.
53. Capra, F.; Jakobsen, O.D. A Conceptual Framework for Ecological Economics Based on Systemic Principles of Life. Int. J. Soc.
Econ. 2017, 44, 831–844. [CrossRef]
54. Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 64–88.
55. Ford, L.; Ertas, A. Utilizing a Transdisciplinary (TD) Systems Engineering (SE) Process Model in the Concept Stage: A Case Study
to Effectively Understand the Baseline Maturity for a TD SE Learning Program. Systems 2024, 12, 13. [CrossRef]
56. Madni, A.M. Transdisciplinary Systems Engineering: Exploiting Convergence in a Hyper-Connected World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-3-319-62184-5.
57. Funke, J. Complex Problem Solving: A Case for Complex Cognition? Cogn. Process. 2010, 11, 133–142. [CrossRef]
58. Mansoor, Z.; Williams, M.J. Systems Approaches to Public Service Delivery: Lessons from Health, Education, and Infrastructure; Systems
of Public Service Delivery in Developing Countries: Oxford, UK, 2018; Volume 6.
59. Voulvoulis, N.; Giakoumis, T.; Hunt, C.; Kioupi, V.; Petrou, N.; Souliotis, I.; Vaghela, C.; Binti Wan Rosely, W.I.H. Systems
Thinking as a Paradigm Shift for Sustainability Transformation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 75, 102544. [CrossRef]
60. INCOSE Fellows Systems Engineering Definition. Available online: https://www.incose.org/about-systems-engineering/
system-and-se-definitions/systems-engineering-definition#:~:text=Systems%20Engineering%20is%20a%20transdisciplinary,
,%20technological,%20and%20management%20methods (accessed on 17 October 2024).
61. Ford, L.; Ertas, A. Systems Engineering Transformation: Transdisciplinary Endeavor. Transdiscipl. J. Eng. Sci. 2024, 15. [CrossRef]
62. Cochran, D.S.; Smith, J.; Fitch, J. MSDD 10.0: A Design Pattern for Sustainable Manufacturing Systems. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2022, 10,
964–989. [CrossRef]
63. Ertas, A.; Rohman, J.; Chillakanti, P.; Baturalp, T. Transdisciplinary Collaboration as a Vehicle for Collective Intelligence: A Case
Study of Engineering Design Education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2015, 31, 1526–1536.
64. Ertas, A. Transdisciplinary Engineering Design Process; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-119-47475-3.
65. Mandal, A.; Deshmukh, S.G. Vendor Selection Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 1994, 14,
52–59. [CrossRef]
66. Ebrahimi, B.; Bataleblu, A.A. Intelligent reliability-based design optimization: Past and future research trends. In Developments in
Reliability Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 787–826. [CrossRef]
67. Roshanian, J.; Bataleblu, A.A.; Ebrahimi, M. A Novel Evolution Control Strategy for Surrogate-Assisted Design Optimization.
Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 2018, 58, 1255–1273. [CrossRef]
68. Yao, W.; Chen, X.; Luo, W.; Van Tooren, M.; Guo, J. Review of uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods
for aerospace vehicles. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2011, 47, 450–479. [CrossRef]

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.

You might also like