Resilient Sustainability Assessment Framework From A Transdisciplinary System-Of-Systems Perspective
Resilient Sustainability Assessment Framework From A Transdisciplinary System-Of-Systems Perspective
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
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
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].
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.
2.3.
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.
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].
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
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.
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Transdisciplinary systems engineering
Transdisciplinary systems engineering for
for sustainability.
sustainability.
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.
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.
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.
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.