Integrating Sustainability in Engineering: A Global Review

Abstract

Sustainability has emerged as a prominent concern globally, extending its influence into various domains, including education. It is recognized as of utmost importance to address global environmental challenges. However, there is a critical gap in the perception of innovative teaching strategies, i.e., interdisciplinary collaboration, experiential learning, and targeted approaches, to improve sustainability literacy and its applications. This review analyzes existing environmental and sustainability education frameworks and approaches to determine desired learning outcomes and challenges associated with sustainability education. Also, it explores and identifies concepts, theories, and assumptions found within the literature review, promoting sustainability integration within engineering education. The review was conducted to facilitate the development and improvement of sustainability education within the Architectural Engineering discipline, a field known for emphasizing educational innovation and technical excellence. By synthesizing existing ideas related to sustainability and sustainable development, this work aims to guide curriculum designers and educators in fostering sustainability competencies among engineering students within the built environment.

1. Introduction

The integration of sustainability within engineering education has increased attention across various countries [1]. This growing emphasis highlights the need for sustainability-oriented practices (covering environmental, economic, and social considerations) within engineering disciplines. It reflects the need to equip future engineers with the knowledge and skill set required to respond to global sustainability challenges. For the past two decades, sustainability challenges have influenced and driven substantial shifts in engineering curricula and practices [2]. However, as the curriculum changes, the ultimate goal remains to ensure that engineering students acquire not only theoretical knowledge but also the skills and critical values necessary for sustainable practices. Future engineers must be taught sustainability principles and concepts in a way that allows them to learn what they need to know during their professional careers to remain relevant in society.

Sustainability is broadly conceptualized through the most distinct yet interrelated components, including environmental, economic, and social sustainability. It is a critical engineering topic that has attracted more attention recently [3]. This calls for a more systematic and organized integration of sustainable design principles within the engineering curricula, especially during the early stages of the design and decision-making process [4,5]. Engineers who are knowledgeable or know how their activities influence the environment, economy, and global society contribute to making sustainability the norm [6].

As engineers play a critical role in contributing to sustainable systems and infrastructure, they must be equipped with robust sustainability competencies. Further, integrating sustainability topics within the curricula should not be just surface-level, but should go beyond to incorporate the transformative shift in pedagogical strategies, curriculum design, and institutional priorities. This review focuses on improving the engineering curriculum’s structure and delivery while ensuring that student learning is deep, critical, and action-oriented. The work shared in this review highlights the need for embedding sustainability into the engineering curriculum, ensuring that future engineers address the global challenges of sustainability through innovative and critical thinking.

Background Context

Sustainability has emerged as a potential approach to address the pressing challenges of population growth, resource consumption, poverty, and environmental deterioration, which endanger society’s long-term existence. The United Nations (UN) World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) issued the most commonly used definition of sustainable development in 1987, stating that “it is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” [7], a definition that remains widely in use to this day. Although economic development, social development, and environmental preservation are the pillars that promote sustainable development [8,9], these pillars are interconnected with the environment, providing the foundation for economic and social activities. While being influenced by environmental factors [10], this interconnectedness necessitates a balanced approach to development, considering all three pillars for sustainable progress [11].

Innovative and collaborative teaching approaches have gained attention to bridge the gap between academic theory and practical application by incorporating practical educational modules [12]. This approach not only fosters the development of engineering knowledge in students but also equips them with real-world operational skills. These practice-oriented teaching methodologies, combined with targeted educational modules, help students better adapt to future work environments [13]. The integration of sustainability education into the undergraduate curriculum not only strengthens conceptual understanding but also enables engineers to comprehend and effectively manage the implications of any action on social, economic, and environmental factors that could affect or promote sustainability [14]. Through sustainable design principles or concepts, sustainable engineering plays a crucial role in creating, putting, and enforcing sustainable development objectives that embrace holistic environmental stewardship. In other words, engineers must be aware of and care for the environment and act consistently with this awareness and consideration. Thus, understanding how sustainability could affect the design process is necessary [15].

Sustainable design is frequently addressed as the new paradigm that encourages consideration of and balance between the three sustainability pillars. It necessitates the incorporation of sustainability concepts into the decision-making process, as Avsec and Jagiełło-Kowalczyk [16] argue that educators should provide students with the information and abilities they need to develop socially and ecologically responsible architectural solutions by including sustainability in the course structure. Sustainability is also considered and identified as a fundamental attribute and ethical obligation of an engineer by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and various engineering organizations, including the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) [17,18,19]. They emphasize the importance of sustainability, defining it as the balance of environmental, social, and economic components known as ‘The Triple Bottom Line’. This approach recognizes the importance of the sustainable design paradigm in advancing global sustainability and addressing engineering problems with environmental considerations. However, studies have revealed that engineering students often exhibit limited sustainability knowledge and understanding of long-term environmental impact, decision-making, and balancing sustainability trade-offs, despite the high emphasis on sustainability design principles [20,21,22].

To overcome the educational gap, engineering programs must integrate sustainability concepts more comprehensively and thoroughly. The transformative nature of engineering curricula requires reiterating and rethinking sustainability teaching strategies for future engineers to integrate within the courses and projects. Thürer et al. [23] conducted an in-depth analysis to incorporate sustainability within engineering courses, highlighting the importance of higher education’s role in promoting sustainability. Similarly, Hamón et al. [24] indicated the importance of sustainable practices and their impact on students’ awareness of sustainability and in advancing sustainable solutions. These insights highlight a critical imperative, raising a central question: how can sustainability be incorporated into engineering education, creating a more responsible and student-driven culture? Addressing this question is essential, especially as demand grows for engineers who can design with social equity, ecological resilience, and economic viability in mind. In this context, sustainability education is not simply a thematic focus but a transformative pedagogical approach—one that fosters systems thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continuous learning [13,25,26].

2. Methodology

This study conducted a structured literature review to explore how sustainability is implemented and discussed within engineering education. It aims to identify emerging approaches, ongoing challenges, opportunities, and areas where further pedagogical development is needed. “Google Scholar” was used as a primary search engine in addition to “Web of Science”, “Academia”, “ResearchGate”, and “Semantic Scholar” to search and scrape relevant articles, theses, reports, and conference papers, particularly related to sustainability education, pedagogical strategies, and sustainability literacy among students. These platforms were particularly useful for retrieving interdisciplinary topics such as sustainability education in engineering contexts. The search targeted publications containing keyword combinations such as “sustainability education”, “engineering curriculum”, “sustainability literacy”, “experiential learning in engineering”, and “interdisciplinary teaching methods”.

Given these platforms’ breadth and unstructured nature (particularly Google Scholar), a multi-stage screening process was conducted to ensure relevance to the research’s scope. First, the article’s title and abstract were reviewed to assess their conceptual alignment with study aims. Second, a quality check was conducted to exclude articles that lack peer review and methodological clarity. The initial search yielded over 1000 records. After removing duplicates and reviewing titles and abstracts for relevance, 400 articles were selected for full-text review. Finally, a set of 152 articles was kept based on $\left(1\right)$ conceptual alignment– the extent to which articles explicitly addressed sustainability integration in engineering education, its frameworks and strategies, and $\left(2\right)$ thematic richness– the depth and clarity of the studies that contribute to the ongoing trends, teaching strategies, and interdisciplinary approaches. This approach ensured the finalized articles provided meaningful insights into educational practices.

Table 1. Summary of the literature (N = 152 articles) including publication overview and thematic categorization.

Publications Overview
Scale	Subject Matter
Time Period	2005–2025
Number of Publications	152
Number of Authors	436
Thematic Analysis of Articles
Themes	Sub-themes	References
Sustainability Integration and Frameworks	Systems Thinking and Complexity	[3,5,10,21,27,28,29]
	Ethics, Values, and Responsibility	[2,12,16,17,18,19,21,30]
	Learning and Adaptation	[3,5,10,24,31,32]
	Assessment and Competence Development	[33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]
	Curriculum and Pedagogical Strategies	[1,8,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]
	Conceptual and Cognitive Foundations	[63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]
	Institutional and Policy Frameworks	[7,30,51,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88]
	Sustainability Awareness and Thinking	[2,31,89,90,91,92,93,94]
	Implementation and Barriers	[9,17,18,19,95,96,97,98]
Interdisciplinary and Engineering Education	Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Learning Environments	[3,4,13,23,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108]
	Values, Ethics, and Leadership in Sustainability	[26,52,64,70,79,106,109,110,111]
	Active and Experiential Learning Models	[112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126]
	Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Instructional Design	[25,26,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134]
	Competences and Learning Outcomes	[53,65,66,68,83,84,129,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143]
	Problem Solving and Decision-Making Skills	[2,4,13,15,20,21,22,34]
	Teamwork, Communication, and Collaboration	[4,12,14,20,22,24,88,111,144,145,146,147]
	Inclusive and Cross-Level Education	[6,11,86,148,149,150,151,152]

provides a breakdown of the final set of articles, including the publication time period, count, and the number of contributing authors. The inclusion criteria focused on English-language, peer-reviewed articles categorized into two primary thematic areas based on keyword analysis and clustering. $\left(1\right)$ Sustainability Integration and Frameworks—articles that focused on embedding sustainability principles into engineering education, including curricular reforms, policy implications, or frameworks, and $\left(2\right)$ Interdisciplinary and Engineering Education—articles exploring cross-disciplinary teaching approaches, collaborative project-based learning, and pedagogical models promoting sustainability competencies and collaboration. This approach enabled a comprehensive understanding of how sustainability is embedded in engineering education and highlighted gaps and opportunities for future pedagogical development and reforms.

3. Conceptual Frameworks for Sustainability

To ensure the quality of sustainability, robust frameworks and standards that can be applied in a global economy are required. These different frameworks can assist organizations in leveraging and developing their sustainability strategies and guiding them toward sustainable development. This review discusses the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the leading sustainability frameworks (Triple Bottom Line and Head, Heart, and Hands). The “Triple Bottom Line" framework’s objective emphasizes balancing economic, social, and environmental goals, considering broader impacts on society and the environment to achieve long-term sustainable development [35,45,46,61,62]. Similarly, the “Head, Heart and Hands" is an educational framework used in sustainability education, promoting transformative learning by integrating different motor areas, which aligns well with the SDGs.

The frameworks mentioned above serve as a foreground and provide the basis for organizations or designers to develop and refine sustainability strategies. They focus on measuring and minimizing damage to ecosystem services. Each framework investigates different features while ensuring its contribution to the best sustainability practices. To summarize, many research works insisted on the importance of overall sustainability in organizations or designs, highlighting the need for formal structures to integrate sustainable practices effectively [47].

3.1. UN Sustainability Development Goals

The United Nations SDGs have 17 goals and 169 targets, all of which aim to address global challenges by 2030 as part of their ‘Transform Our World’ agenda [80]. These SDGs cover all the topics and a range of issues, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, prosperity, and peace. They provide a framework for collaboration and apply to all UN member states, including the public, private, and civil sectors [81]. Engineers and architects have a big responsibility, as per the UN SDG program [87,88] (see Figure 1 for UN sustainability goals), which includes the following goals and objectives: (1) No poverty, (2) Zero hunger, (3) Good health and well-being, (4) Quality education, (5) Gender equality, (6) Clean water and sanitation, (7) Affordable and clean energy, (8) Decent work and economic growth, (9) Industry, innovation, and infrastructure, (10) Reducing inequalities, (11) Sustainable cities and communities, (12) Responsible consumption and production, (13) Climate action, (14) Life below water, (15) Life on land, (16) Peace, justice, and strong institutions, and (17) Partnerships for the goals.

The UN’s sustainability objectives have great potential to promote environmentally conscious engineers and architects who are knowledgeable about sustainable design methods and principles in education. This explains the importance of being implemented and aligned with international sustainability goals after evolving from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to SDGs, broadening the focus of education systems [82,86]. Further, these aim to prepare students to understand and address complex global challenges, equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to the SDGs. Crespo’s work [83] highlighted the importance of education as crucial, as it provides students with the information and abilities they require to enhance and further the SDGs. The combination of the SDGs with the necessary knowledge guarantees students a thorough grasp of sustainability concepts and how they must be applied in their design. Additionally, Ceylan [127] highlighted the importance of integrating sustainability concepts and goals into architecture and engineering programs to transfer information and skills, which could help students be aware of such concepts while they design a project.

To summarize, educational programs need to consider the latest developments and challenges in the discipline, including environmental considerations and sustainability. Moreover, according to the UN SDG program, engineers and architects have a big responsibility. Thus, the needs of contemporary, global society must be addressed in developing architectural and engineering solutions, where students may create design concepts and finished products by applying their theoretical and technical knowledge. The design iterations must be structured sequentially to be updated and improved with appropriate revisions towards the needs of society and the profession as they emerge, such as the adaptation of sustainability principles, to reflect the dynamic nature of architectural engineering within the built environment [127].

3.2. Triple Bottom Line

The triple bottom line framework, as introduced earlier [44,67], is depicted as a foundational model for integrating sustainability within engineering curricula. Instead of treating the environmental, social, and economic dimensions disjointedly, they should be combined into a holistic educational model reflecting the interconnectedness of sustainability [33,63,64]. Each dimension represents its part in achieving sustainable development goals, and by utilizing the triple bottom line framework, instructors can design a course curriculum not only to raise awareness among students but also provide an in-depth knowledge and comprehension of the sustainability pillars (economic, social, and environmental).

The economic dimension commonly represents the system of creating, distributing, and consuming wealth. It is seen as meeting people’s material needs through money, property, or ownership. The social dimension emphasizes the value of improving, maintaining, and raising human living standards, which is represented through a system of living or community. To attain sustainability, this integrated strategy supports social justice, environmental preservation, and financial gains in decision-making processes. It is consistent with the Triple Bottom Line paradigm [68]. The social dimension suggests fair treatment regardless of gender or race. It suggests primary health care, workplace safety, food standards, exposure to the arts and humanities, recreational opportunities, and more. It does not define wealth in terms of material possessions that can be purchased, traded, or stored for the future. The emphasis is shifted from individual rights and financial success to community rights and the social welfare of all people as a result of the social dimension.

The environmental component is concerned with ecosystems and their ongoing production, operation, and functioning and serves as a mechanism for maintaining ecosystem integrity and preservation [27], which is an effort focused on ecological engineering and ecosystem health to achieve desirable environmental endpoints and support sustainable ecosystem management [28]. Two aspects of the environmental dimension make it comparable to the social dimension. First, it does not define wealth in terms of things that have solely market worth. Second, the diverse stakeholder group’s value systems determine the benefits’ worth or value, assigning different environmental elements to various values. As a result, the advantages of robust and healthy ecosystems will be described in terms of improved human well-being for each individual [29].

Significant and considerable discussion has been on the three sustainability pillars since they serve as broad principles for facilitating sustainable development. Although environmental sustainability mandates resource conservation, economic sustainability calls for growth that upholds or enhances economic welfare; if a project enhances social equity [48], it is categorized as socially sustainable. The concept of sustainability, as defined by Kuhlman and Farrington [65], is rooted in the well-being of future generations and the conservation of natural resources. The pillars help define sustainability and clarify its notion, yet pursuing sustainable development is difficult and more challenging since protecting one dimension’s interests may inevitably come at the expense of another. Therefore, a balance must be found between them, but not by assuming they are the three sides of the same coin. The integration of sustainability, global citizenship, and interdisciplinary approaches in education is crucial for preparing students to address complex global challenges [84]. People are more likely to behave sustainably and responsibly if they are aware of environmental challenges and how to address them using a practical approach that considers environmental, social, and economic aspects [26].

3.3. Head, Heart, and Hands

The primary purpose of education is to assist people in developing the values, attitudes, behaviors, and environmental and ethical awareness necessary for sustainable development [26]. Higher education institutions play an important role in promoting professional and civic values through experiential learning, role modeling, and critical thinking [109]. A framework known as ‘Head, Heart, and Hands’ was developed by Sipos et al. [25] for sustainability education that emphasizes the development of students’ skills, critical and creative thinking, and active learning, focusing on students’ values and ethics.

This framework demonstrates how the participants may engage in the learning outcomes wanted by sustainability education, which allows them to enable sustainability through this transformational framework [25]. According to this framework, ‘head’ refers to engagement and using the cognitive domain through academic study, research, and comprehending ecological and sustainability principles. The ‘heart’ refers to enablement, which is the ability of the affective domain to establish beliefs, values, attitudes, and ideals that are then translated into behaviors and actions. Lastly, ‘hands’ refer to developing practical skills and enacting the psychomotor domain and physical tasks like constructing or building [25]. The three significant conclusions that can be deduced from this framework essentially involve the cognitive, emotional learning, and psychomotor domains. Learning outcomes include specific and general knowledge, attitudes, and abilities that participants develop in educational activities. However, when the learning outcomes are documented, effective outcomes should be provided and mentioned, showing their significance to the learning process.

In addition, the framework provided by Sipos et al. [25] argues that colleges and universities are more likely to generate global citizens if they include and incorporate sustainability education. Nevertheless, to sufficiently account for the head, heart, and hands model, it must completely integrate the reality of a resource-depleted school environment and limited resources into its conceptualization of the learning context. Moreover, the current frameworks do not explicitly state how to incorporate sustainability ideas and practices in academic and applied fields or define and clarify how to embody sustainability theories into disciplines of study [25].

4. Role of Interdisciplinary in Sustainability

Specific goals have emerged from multiple discourses, such as minimizing waste, increasing recycling, and providing a vision of what needs to be achieved. Multiple approaches and the development of new disciplines help to achieve these goals that consider the three dimensions of sustainability and integrate and balance social, environmental, and economic systems. Although these approaches align with the UN sustainable development goals, achieving these goals simultaneously may involve trade-offs, necessitating careful policy design to minimize negative impacts while maximizing positive outcomes across multiple sustainable development goals [85]. For example, Moradi-Aliabadi & Huang [34] explore the importance of incorporating sustainability into engineering study programs to train future engineers in creating innovative solutions aligned with the UN’s sustainable development goals.

To achieve these goals, sustainability education plays an important role in focusing on achieving and contributing to environmental sustainability and integrity while promoting economic viability. It aims to rebuild and transform societies, emphasizing the interconnectedness of social, economic, and ecological well-being and the need for a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and skills development [107]. A thorough framework is needed to model changes in the approach to sustainability and educational reforms. This framework can serve as a starting point for modeling changes that cannot be adequately understood through a single-discipline approach. While each discipline has something to offer, interdisciplinary collaboration can be particularly successful in contributing to and fostering sustainability education [102].

Interdisciplinary collaboration can help shift students’ environmental worldviews and values that could impact their green actions [103]. It also enhances environmental education programs and fosters innovative approaches within sustainability education, thereby contributing to the broader domain [104]. To this end, it allows learners to tackle practical challenges, emphasizing the importance of sustainability, empowering them to tact toward a more sustainable future, and highlighting the role of sustainability in promoting social, economic, and environmental integrity. It is an area with ambitious goals driven by fundamental knowledge, understanding, and consideration of developing sustainable solutions. It is a problem-driven, solutions-oriented field addressing complex challenges [105], integrating interdisciplinary approaches [106]. Moreover, it addresses global challenges and contributes to developing a sustainable future using sustainable solutions.

5. Integrating Sustainability in Education

Sustainability-integrated education has gathered significant attention due to its potential to address global challenges, particularly in engineering curricula. It highlights the importance of critical thinking, adopting system-based techniques, and promoting interdisciplinary learning that enhances students’ understanding, enthusiasm, and commitment to sustainable design [135]. Some studies [128,129] further highlight and emphasize these strategies’ importance in improving academic performance and promoting greater engagement with sustainability concepts. Likewise, project-based learning and hands-on techniques substantially improve knowledge, teamwork, and practical skills [130].

The use of student-centered approaches has demonstrated a vital role in teaching sustainable principles, enabling them to apply sustainable design practices effectively [128]. Several studies have discussed and supported this, as Ngo & Chase [22] highlight that active, experiential, and project-based learning strategies improve students’ grasp of sustainability knowledge and practices, fostering enhancement in engineering skills and community engagement. Tong et al. [136] further this approach by incorporating hands-on technologies, creating collaborative environments that enrich sustainability education. Similarly, Trindade and Fini [113,114] highlight the role of project-based learning in capstone projects, where students apply these sustainability principles in real-world challenges. These projects promote systems thinking, interdisciplinary teamwork, lifecycle thinking, and environmental trade-offs. A similar work by Watson et al. [112] reported that students participating in sustainability interventions gain more confidence in applying sustainability design principles. Naukkarinen & Jouhkimo [148] indicated the importance of inclusive educational strategies to cultivate sustainable mindsets and competencies. These works suggested that integrating sustainability within education is critical and could create lifelong impacts on students’ perspectives and future aspirations.

Interdisciplinary collaboration has proven to be a transformative approach to sustainability education. Integrated student teams create more innovative and comprehensive design solutions addressing sustainability challenges within the built environment [144]. These approaches improve engagement, creativity, and build strong team leadership, underscoring the value of collaborative learning. Moreover, sustainability-aligned program outcomes in engineering education frameworks (such as ABET) highlight ethical responsibility, understanding the impact of engineering solutions, and lifelong learning. They align directly with sustainability competencies [60,96], and recognizing this alignment, promote course design and learning outcomes towards sustainability goals. In addition, such approaches as highlighted by Landgren et al. [147] emphasize the importance of creativity in architecture and engineering, which also aligns with the interdisciplinary teamwork. A similar work by Cairns et al. [146] dwells on social dynamics and their role within multidisciplinary teams in facilitating a better understanding of sustainability concepts and knowledge within its context. Lastly, Vestal and Mesmer-Magnus [145] further underline the importance of integrating diverse sustainability knowledge to improve project success and creativity.

Despite these successes, integrating sustainability into engineering curricula remains a significant challenge. While Bechtel & Yan [116] highlighted the difficulty in integrating sustainability into engineering programs, yet it remains an essential task. Valderrama [149] further emphasizes the gaps between the learning objectives and students’ outcomes, underscoring the shortcomings of sustainability implementation. This highlights the need for transformative learning approaches [74], indicating the importance of effective pedagogical approaches and experiential learning, such as project-based methods, to promote effective sustainability understanding and competencies [113,114]. Furthermore, tailored interventions or interdisciplinary approaches are essential in bridging the gaps [133] and addressing the challenges to foster critical thinking and improved knowledge [110]. It benefits the long-term sustainability integration and literacy [110], improving overall sustainability education within engineering and architecture programs and enhancing students’ skills and outcomes.

5.1. Structured Curriculum and Learning Outcomes

For effective integration of sustainability within engineering curricula, it is imperative to establish structured curriculum that connect learning outcomes with instructional strategies and assessment methods.

Table 2. Integrated Curriculum Alignment for Sustainability Education.

Sustainability Competency	Cognitive Process	Learning Outcome	Assessment Indicator	Teaching Style	Learning Style
Systems Thinking & Complexity	Analyze/ Evaluate	Distinguish interrelated components of a complex system and evaluate trade-offs	Reflective writing, concept mapping, scenario analysis	Inductive, Visual, Reflective	Sensory, Holistic, Reflective
Problem Solving & Information Competency	Apply/ Analyze	Solve real-world sustainability problems using data and engineering knowledge	Case-based application, design tasks	Active, Concrete, Sequential	Inductive, Sequential, Active
Effective Decision-Making	Evaluate/ Apply	Identify, assess, and act upon sustainability-related decisions in ambiguous contexts	Decision logs, critical incident reports	Deductive, Verbal, Reflective	Intuitive, Reflective
Interdisciplinary Collaboration	Create/ Evaluate	Develop team-based solutions integrating diverse disciplinary knowledge	Team project deliverables, peer assessment	Active, Holistic, Collaborative	Active, Holistic, Sensory
Cultural Awareness & Regional Resilience	Understand/ Evaluate	Recognize and integrate multiple cultural perspectives in sustainable solutions	Value-based discussion, community reflections	Verbal, Inductive, Participatory	Auditory, Reflective
Ecological & Environmental Ethics	Understand/ Evaluate	Demonstrate ethical reasoning in relation to natural systems and resources	Ethical debates, position papers	Abstract, Reflective, Conceptual	Intuitive, Holistic
Teamwork & Communication	Apply/ Create	Collaborate effectively in teams, respecting roles and dynamics	Peer reviews, role-based group tasks	Active, Visual, Inductive	Sensory, Sequential, Active
Civic Engagement & Partnership	Understand/ Apply	Engage with local communities to co-create sustainability initiatives	Community-based service projects	Inductive, Experiential, Participatory	Auditory, Reflective
Responsibility & Ownership	Understand/ Apply	Accept accountability for design outcomes and sustainability decisions	Individual reports, project journals	Deductive, Reflective	Reflective, Holistic
Lifelong Learning	Remember/ Understand/ Apply	Identify future learning needs and strategies for continued engagement in sustainability	Learning portfolios, growth statements	Inductive, Open-ended, Self-directed	Intuitive, Sequential

presents an integrative framework aligning desired competencies with cognitive processes, measurable learning outcomes, assessment indicators, instructional methods, and learner preferences. This framework serves as practical guidance for curriculum designers seeking to embed sustainability within engineering education through clearly articulated, assessable strategies.

5.2. Sustainability and Knowledge Assessment

With the increase in sustainability awareness and its emphasis within colleges and universities, several initiatives have been taken, from recycling and transportation to energy efficiency and water conservation [90]. This uplift in sustainability through the curriculum has also focused on incorporating it within other disciplines, study majors, and coursework [38,49,150]. To further emphasize the value and importance of sustainability in education, new research has shown how important it is to integrate it within learning objectives and curricula [115]. The aim to improve participants’ learning experiences is sought through developing well-integrated programs that promote critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving capabilities [89]. These initiatives and curricular efforts seek to help students develop sustainability literacy and engage in sustainable activities.

With the increased focus on educational initiatives to promote sustainability across the curriculum, objective measures were needed to determine the efficacy of sustainability education, highlighting their efforts and gaining insight into those activities and initiatives [36]. This was indicated by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) [76]. However, many instructors still rely on subjective evaluations to assess students’ sustainability knowledge, which can result in inconsistencies and biases. While these methods may reflect an instructor’s perspective, they might not fully capture a student’s true understanding.

To enhance and improve the effectiveness of sustainability education, educators should incorporate more objective assessment alongside considering students’ perspectives, ensuring educational goals are met, and sustainability principles are applied. Current methods include self-reporting of the data to reflect students’ understanding; however, it can lead to inconsistencies due to incorrect reporting, overestimating or underestimating one’s understanding, and failing to apprehend the depth of knowledge and student understanding [39,50]. This self-reporting can also come at the cost of not knowing if the information was conveyed properly to students. Lastly, without the students’ feedback, it’s not possible to capture complete information, especially when they are unaware of students’ misconceptions or the areas where they struggle to grasp their understanding of sustainability concepts.

Similarly, several studies indicate a gap in how well sustainability knowledge was disseminated across all essential domains [40,111]. The evaluations do not immediately focus on environmental aspects and disregard critical areas of social equity and economic sustainability [52]. It was also found that general environmental knowledge among participants was below the passing criteria, requiring educational interventions [91,92,139]. These results underlined the need for an in-depth approach to implementing sustainability within programs and improving overall understanding and skills [78]. Further, addressing the fundamental sustainability principles in the environmental, economic, and social domains requires a methodical approach to track success, measure sustainability knowledge, and assess their effectiveness [37,75,93].

5.3. Innovative Teaching Methods

Emerging and innovative pedagogical methods have transformed education by focusing on experiential learning, critical thinking, and practical applications to meet students’ growing needs and sustainability goals [151]. These pedagogies support the objectives of sustainability education and promote critical thinking, decision-making, real-world problem-solving, practical knowledge, and skill sharing. Several learning strategies have common characteristics categorized as ‘experiential learning’ or ‘learning by doing’ [71], which is a central feature of field-based education, where students discover first-hand knowledge through observation and activity participation [72]. With limited time and increased curriculum expansion, students face difficulties acquiring knowledge and understanding within a fixed time frame. To foster critical and creative thinking, current teaching practices must adapt to more dynamic and interactive strategies going beyond traditional pedagogical methods [51], which depend on an instructor’s capacity to convey most material verbally [79]. Wankat & Oreovicz [134] argue for a shift toward more dynamic and interactive teaching methods to better support learning outcomes.

Despite the discrepancy and mismatch within traditional teaching practices, lecture-based learning remains the same and predominant method in education. To improve student learning and increase knowledge retention in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, there is a need to shift focus from developing new practices to improving adoption rates of existing promising practices [70]. Methodological challenges in measuring changes in students’ learning processes remain, as students’ skills and learning processes vary greatly, even within small groups [138]. To address these, innovative teaching strategies and new methods are needed [152]. A method involving ongoing, purposeful, responsive, and proactive learning enables students to build, rebuild, learn, relearn, and successfully rebuild their knowledge and skills effectively [4,69,77].

Zhou [53] emphasizes the importance of open-ended questions in obtaining rich, meaningful responses, making them a valuable tool in fostering critical thinking and deeper understanding. Ozis et al. [31] identified a gap in engineering education and found that while engineering students often discussed sustainability, they did not consider it in their design work. However, the benefits of such an approach or methods [73], for example, using open-ended questions within the engineering courses, are that they encourage students to think creatively and broadly about sustainability and how it can be applied. Additionally, the importance of hands-on methodologies in engineering education was emphasized [137], underscoring the importance of sustainability concepts through project-based learning, while also suggesting that diverse learning should be considered in the engineering classroom [140]. These approaches form the basis of active learning strategies by promoting reflective, collaborative, and practical hands-on approaches that emphasize student engagement, creativity, and critical thinking.

5.3.1. Active Learning

Active learning is an educational strategy focusing on student engagement and effective understanding in contrast to traditional lecture-based instruction [94,128]. It involves students in the learning process, emphasizing participation, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills [123,124]. Students from diverse backgrounds and with different learning styles may benefit from active learning strategies that effectively engage them in the classroom. These activities allow students to improve their understanding and engage them with the course material. Multiple studies [119,128] have highlighted and supported active learning environments to incorporate active teaching within the classroom.

While the improvement in the teaching strategy has been highlighted, some researchers doubt the efficacy of active learning [141]. Therefore, a deep understanding of values that demonstrate how active learning environments genuinely improve students’ academic performance is frequently challenging. One study found that students could not build on their knowledge as effectively from only active learning as they could when they were in a learning environment with both active learning and traditional instruction [132]. The effectiveness of active learning also depends on the teaching methods employed, with instructors using generative instruction showing better outcomes [142]. Therefore, active learning can create a more inclusive and effective teaching environment that supports diverse student needs when integrated with traditional teaching methods.

5.3.2. Situated Learning

Situated learning highlights the importance of knowledge acquisition in practical scenarios, where students apply what they learn directly to the real world [117]. By developing a situated learning environment, students can gain knowledge while applying it, moving them from peripheral roles to active participation in the discipline. This approach enhances knowledge acquisition and skill development in real-world, contextualized settings [118].

Previous research [120,121,122] indicates the effectiveness of such learning approaches that are better than conventional lecture-based approaches, yet they should not be replaced but supplemented. One aspect of future research related to teaching strategies, such as study and motivation, is considering how the students will be motivated to learn and how the learning environment will affect them [42,143]. Future research can also include dimensions related to testing anxiety and the impact of various teaching strategies and methodologies, such as collaborative or virtual environments [32,143].

While this review primarily focuses on current pedagogical strategies and curricular integration of sustainability within engineering education, it is important to note that future-oriented competencies—such as systems thinking in the context of artificial intelligence (AI), and familiarity with emerging technologies—are increasingly shaping expectations for future engineers and architects and highlighting the evolving demands for future curricular and pedagogical research.

6. Synthesizing Key Findings

Sustainability education is often considered a viable solution to many intricate challenges involving the environment, economy, and society; however, the present literature remains disjointed in explaining how sustainability principles are integrated across engineering disciplines. A comprehensive summary of the literature highlighting the key findings is tabulated in

Table 3. Summarized key findings and synthesis of the literature.

Description	Key Findings
Systems Thinking and Complexity	Emphasized as foundational for addressing complexity in design; supports evaluation of long-term sustainability trade-offs; highlights ecosystem services, health, and cultural values in sustainability.
Ethics, Values, and Responsibility	Reinforced through accreditation standards and course-based ethical frameworks focused on sustainability to reflect practices and self-directed learning in sustainability-focused design activities.
Learning and Adaptation	Viewed as essential for adaptability in evolving sustainability challenges and continuous skill development to enrich sustainability education and arts integration.
Assessment and Competence Development	Developed and assessed sustainability competences and literacy metrics; highlighted the role of assessment tools in higher education sustainability programs; assessment methods beyond grades enhance engagement and sustainable learning; identified sustainability-related teaching concerns and needs from faculty perspectives.
Curriculum and Pedagogical Strategies	Proposed strategies for embedding ESD in curricula using practical pedagogies and flexible curriculum models; emphasized challenges and trends in sustainability policy; curriculum reform showed varied integration of sustainability goals in higher education; sustainability must be structured into courses to be meaningfully embedded.
Conceptual and Cognitive Foundations	Discussed the triple bottom line, the historical origin of sustainability, and conceptual critiques; demonstrated use of cognitive and concept mapping tools to enhance understanding of sustainability; emphasized ecological footprint analysis and cognitive frameworks.
Institutional and Policy Frameworks	Reviewed institutional sustainability frameworks and reporting systems; highlighted policy-level integration in universities and international standards like SDGs and STARS; explored integration of SDGs in policy, higher education, and engineering competence development.
Sustainability Awareness and Thinking	Assessed literacy and awareness levels among students; revealed gaps in sustainability knowledge across different domains (social, environmental, economic) and students’ development of sustainability thinking and application in engineering contexts.
Implementation and Barriers	Institutional, pedagogical, and perceptual barriers hinder the integration of sustainability; sustainability education benefits from entrepreneurial teaching frameworks.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Learning Environments	Interdisciplinary environments and shared spaces encourage sustainability skills and practices; focused on interdisciplinary STEM and management curriculum; enabled cross-disciplinary teaching, project-based learning, and team-based instruction; helped students grasp complex urban sustainability issues.
Values, Ethics, and Leadership in Sustainability	Fostering professional and civic values is essential for effective sustainability education; introduced normative, ethical, and paradigm-related critiques in sustainability research; promoted student leadership and agency in sustainability; underlined challenges of managing complexity and fostering change through learner empowerment.
Active and Experiential Learning Models	Explored experiential and project-based approaches for teaching sustainability; showed improvements in self-efficacy, learning outcomes, and reporting skills; contextual learning improved sustainability competencies; active learning increased engagement and retention in STEM and sustainability education, and active methodologies and project-based learning foster sustainability competencies.
Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Instructional Design	Active learning, design studio integration, constructivism, and peer learning in sustainability education; theoretical models underpin the development of effective sustainability pedagogy; explored the use of architectural studios and peer design learning for sustainable competencies.
Competences and Learning Outcomes	Assessed sustainability learning outcomes and required competencies in higher education; cognitive mapping, constructivist learning, and informal reasoning foster critical thinking and effective decision-making.
Problem Solving and Decision-Making Skills	Cultivated through interdisciplinary design projects that simulate real-world sustainability challenges; enhanced through simulations, collaborative assessments, and real-world contextual scenarios.
Teamwork, Communication, and Collaboration	Widely implemented through group work, design studios, and collaborative field experiences; focused on collaboration, team characteristics, and interdisciplinary environments to promote sustainability education and innovation through teamwork.
Inclusive and Cross-Level Education	Highlighted inclusive education models and long-term impacts of ESD initiatives; emphasized cooperation between institutions and inclusive strategies for diverse learners; addressed in the context of global learning, regional studies, and culturally responsive project work.

. The studies [60,74] highlight the importance of embedding UN SDG and triple bottom line frameworks, indicating scarcity in the literature that discusses such integration in engineering curricula. Some studies [1,2,50] focus on early interventions during the course curriculum, while others are more inclined towards professional and institution-wide reforms [55,57,98]. These differences indicate that there is no one solution, and therefore, engineering curricula must be adaptive to embed sustainability meaningfully. While the literature provides invaluable insights into existing pedagogical methods, their diverse perspectives indicate the importance of synthesizing varied viewpoints, rather than a unified viewpoint [60].

Innovative teaching strategies, such as active learning, experiential learning, and situated learning, appear promising in enhancing sustainability education within the literature [15,50]. Yet, there is a difference in their fundamental definitions and applicability. For instance, Experiential learning, also known as ‘learning by doing,’ involves students in practical settings, showing it is beneficial in direct engagement with sustainability problems [16]. Despite its effectiveness, some studies suggest taking precautions without structured reflection or misalignment with assessment outcomes. Active learning received praise for promoting class participation, engagement, and long-term retention. Still, it can be seen as helpful to the extroverted learners and requires more faculty to implement active strategies effectively [15,24]. Similarly, Situated learning contextualizes sustainability within real-world scenarios, but not many studies have explored its long-term impact. Based on the current literature, there is a potential room for standardized frameworks that do not lack consistency and uniformity across institutional and interdisciplinary contexts.

Several challenges and gaps surface within the literature, highlighting the need for a sustainability-integrated curriculum. However, this remains an obstacle due to curriculum rigidity, resource constraints, and institution-wide reforms limiting students from realizing and transforming their full potential for sustainability education and how to apply knowledge in real-world contexts [54,57,125]. Several studies [98,101] underscored the challenges higher education faces in implementing sustainability education, including the lack of interdisciplinarity, essential for addressing the multifaceted nature of sustainability [99,100]. Similarly, the resource constraints and insufficient faculty training are potential barriers to implementing sustainability education [55]. Several institutions lack the funding to withstand or improve sustainability-focused programs to train and equip faculty with the skill set needed to promote student engagement and learning [43]. The lack of training is further augmented by the perception that sustainability concepts are too conceptual, making them challenging to teach, especially where direct connections to sustainability may not be immediately evident [58]. Therefore, integrating sustainability into non-environmental courses can promote interdisciplinary learning and collaboration [59].

Another important area of concern is the assessment of sustainability competencies that fail to present strategies or assess student understanding and values that they develop. It focused on investigating the knowledge acquired or memorization rather than applying knowledge in practical scenarios [39,50]. Moreover, grade importance and assessment procedures promote superficial and surface-level understanding, memorization, discouraging deep and critical engagement needed for thorough learning [41]. To address these limitations, an extended and comprehensive evaluation can be adopted to measure students’ ability and knowledge in applying these concepts across various disciplines and contexts [96]. Future work should focus on teaching strategies that are adaptive and flexible to institutional criteria, while ensuring consistent assessment strategies to measure student knowledge and comprehension. The reviewed literature emphasizes the importance of embedding sustainability as a foundational component of engineering curricula, supported by faculty development and improved interdisciplinary collaboration. By reflecting on the strengths and shortcomings of current literature, this synthesis highlights the need for curriculum redesign, institutional reforms, and inclusive teaching methods within engineering education.

7. Conclusions

This literature review evaluated how sustainability is integrated within engineering curricula, from its abstract definitions to exploring different sustainability frameworks, interdisciplinary strategies, and alignment with institutional goals. Expanding on the SDGs and triple bottom line framework, their impact and role on curricula and competency development were examined. Significant challenges exist in how sustainability is taught within engineering programs and higher education, as it focuses on building a foundation in a specific discipline before allowing students to explore interdisciplinary areas. This limits students’ engagement with complex sustainability issues within an interconnected context. Further, the university’s limited flexibility for cross-disciplinary work, strict and constrictive curriculum structure make it difficult for students to participate in meaningful interdisciplinary learning [43,59].

Assessing students’ sustainability competencies highlights the challenges, as traditional approaches often measure what students know. Yet, they are unable to grasp the in-depth understanding and ability of students to apply sustainability principles in practical scenarios. A better approach is needed in architecture and engineering programs, where critical thinking, decision-making, and practical applications are vital. These programs require a comprehensive assessment strategy to measure not only students’ knowledge but also their systems thinking and applied skills, and help educators understand the depth and breadth of students’ knowledge. For this, careful and thoughtful assessment strategies should be developed to ensure students receive a well-rounded sustainability education, which requires institutional support and coordination with other departments for such initiatives [39,50,131].

A recurring challenge across the literature is the instructors’ preparedness and support, which limit teaching sustainability education. They often overlook social and economic dimensions, focusing on environmental aspects [97]. The lack of training and proper resources constrains faculty efforts to meaningfully integrate sustainability principles within the course lectures, as some faculty feel unprepared to incorporate them in their teaching [95]. To equip instructors with appropriate strategies, tools, and interdisciplinary perspective, a well-designed faculty training program is essential [126]. This can enable more impactful, effective, and meaningful integration within the curriculum [43,56]. This review highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, hands-on learning, innovative assessment, and intervention within sustainability education [108]. With the right support for faculty and better assessment methods, universities can prepare students to engage critically and effectively with the world’s pressing sustainability challenges.