Exploring Design Thinking Methodologies: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Literature, Outstanding Practices, and Their Linkage to Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

Design Thinking (DT) has emerged as a relevant methodology for addressing global challenges aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study presents a systematic literature review, conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, which analyzes 42 peer-reviewed publications from 2013 to 2023. Through inductive content analysis, 10 core DT principles—such as empathy, iteration, user-centeredness, and systems thinking—I identified and thematically mapped to specific SDGs, including goals related to health, education, innovation, and climate action. The study also presents five real-world cases from diverse sectors such as technology, healthcare, and urban planning, illustrating how DT has been applied to address practical challenges aligned with the SDGs. However, the review identifies persistent gaps in the field: the lack of standardized evaluation frameworks, limited integration across SDG domains, and weak adaptation of ethical and contextual considerations, particularly in vulnerable communities. As a response, this paper recommends the adoption of structured impact assessment tools (e.g., Cities2030, Responsible Design Thinking), integration of design justice principles, and the development of participatory, iterative ecosystems for innovation. By offering both conceptual synthesis and applied insights, this article positions Design Thinking as a strategic and systemic approach for driving sustainable transformation aligned with the 2030 Agenda.

1. Introduction

In today’s interconnected world, global challenges ranging from poverty and inequality to climate change demand innovative solutions. The United Nations’ SDGs serve as a blueprint for addressing these pressing issues, aiming for a more sustainable, inclusive, and prosperous future by 2030. However, achieving these ambitious goals requires more than traditional problem-solving techniques; it necessitates a deep understanding, a holistic perspective, and a collaborative approach.

Design Thinking has emerged as a promising methodology in this context. Emphasizing empathy, creativity, and collaboration, this human-centered approach seeks not only to understand specific user needs, but also to address broader social and environmental challenges. Brown [1] describes Design Thinking as a combination of empathy, creativity, and analysis to solve complex problems innovatively. Liedtka [2] defines it as a mindset open to learning through experimentation and collaboration. Kelly & Kelly [3] argue that Design Thinking enables teams to deal with uncertainty by exploring multiple options and learning through action.

In the context of the SDGs, Design Thinking’s tenets align seamlessly with the ethos of these global objectives, making it a potent tool in the quest for sustainable solutions. This article aims to synthesize the key findings and best practices identified in the existing literature on Design Thinking, with a particular focus on its application in relation to the SDGs.

Although a growing number of empirical applications of Design Thinking exist in sustainability contexts, these remain largely scattered and are rarely integrated into a unified analytical framework—further justifying the need for a structured synthesis like the one this study proposes. Prior works such as Buhl et al. [4], Fischer [5], and Shapira et al. [6] offer valuable conceptual insights into the potential of Design Thinking for sustainability, including early applications in public innovation, systems transformation, and collaborative learning. More recent contributions, such as those by Baldassarre et al. [7], Mohamed et al. [8], and Jones and Kijima [9], have begun to explore applied frameworks for responsible design and sustainability-oriented innovation. However, these efforts often remain sector-specific and do not operationalize the relationship between core DT principles and individual SDG targets in a structured way. This study builds on these foundational and contemporary works to propose an integrative framework that systematically maps Design Thinking principles to the 17 SDGs. This paper seeks to address this gap by exploring how Design Thinking can effectively contribute to the SDGs, offering a novel perspective on sustainable solutions. By synthesizing key findings from the existing literature and identifying best practices in Design Thinking, this study highlights its potential to foster impactful change across various industries. Building upon the conceptual groundwork laid by previous scholars, this paper advances a unified framework that systematically maps DT principles to SDG targets, bridging theory and practical application.

Conclusively, this article aims to enhance the understanding of Design Thinking’s role in advancing the SDGs, proposing practical recommendations and showcasing real-life examples where Design Thinking methodologies have been effectively applied. By addressing the identified research gap, this study contributes to the body of knowledge, offering insights for academics, practitioners, and policymakers involved in sustainability efforts, and underlines the significance of integrating innovative problem-solving approaches such as Design Thinking in the pursuit of global well-being, equality, and sustainability.

This review goes beyond prior fragmented approaches by proposing a structured conceptual framework that systematically maps core Design Thinking principles to the Sustainable Development Goals. Unlike previous studies focused on isolated cases or sectors, this work offers an integrative synthesis and a typology that positions Design Thinking as a strategic methodology for advancing sustainable innovation across domains.

Research Gap and Contributions

Despite the growing adoption of Design Thinking (DT) methodologies in various sectors, their systematic application toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains underexplored. Existing research predominantly addresses either the theoretical underpinnings of Design Thinking or isolated case studies on sustainability initiatives without establishing a comprehensive linkage between Design Thinking principles and the broader SDG framework.

Moreover, prior literature reviews tend to focus on general design practices, innovation management, or isolated sectors (e.g., healthcare, education), lacking an integrated view that systematically correlates DT approaches with specific SDGs. Few works [4,5,6] have touched upon the sustainability potential of Design Thinking, yet a holistic synthesis bridging key DT principles and the 17 SDGs remains absent.

This study addresses this gap by:

• Conducting a structured and systematic literature review explicitly focused on the intersection of Design Thinking and the SDGs.
• Mapping Design Thinking core principles (e.g., empathy, iteration, collaboration) against specific SDGs, thus proposing an original analytical framework that systematically links Design Thinking principles to the 17 SDGs—an approach not yet developed in previous literature.
• Highlighting limitations and underexplored areas, proposing future research directions at the intersection of human-centered innovation and global sustainable development.

By synthesizing recent advances, real-world cases, and critical perspectives, this paper contributes to a deeper and actionable understanding of how Design Thinking can serve as a strategic methodology for achieving sustainable development objectives. Based on this identified gap, this study is guided by the following research questions:

• What are the shared methodological principles across leading Design Thinking frameworks applied to sustainability contexts?
• How do these principles align with specific targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
• What real-world cases demonstrate the effective application of Design Thinking in advancing sustainable development objectives?

2. Literature Review

Over the years, Design Thinking has transformed from a specialized discipline into a widely adopted methodology for creative problem solving across various fields. This evolution has been shaped by significant contributions from thought leaders and practitioners.

2.1. Historical Evolution of Design Thinking

The conceptual roots of Design Thinking trace back to the pioneering work of Herbert Simon, Donald Schön, and Richard Buchanan, who collectively shaped the intellectual foundation of this approach.

Herbert Simon [10], in his seminal work The Sciences of the Artificial, conceptualized design as a specific mode of problem solving distinct from scientific inquiry. Simon emphasized that design involves a goal-oriented process of shaping the environment to meet human needs, positioning it as a fundamental cognitive activity. His work introduced the notion that design problems are inherently ill-structured and require iterative processes of synthesis and evaluation.

Building upon Simon’s ideas, Donald Schön [11] expanded the understanding of design practice through his influential concept of “reflection-in-action” in The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Schön argued that professionals, including designers, engage in a dynamic process of framing and reframing problems while acting, highlighting the importance of experiential learning and improvisation. This reflective practice underpins much of the contemporary Design Thinking methodology, particularly its emphasis on iteration and learning through prototyping.

Richard Buchanan [12] further evolved the conceptual framework of Design Thinking by introducing the notion of “wicked problems” in his landmark article “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Buchanan proposed that many of the challenges faced by designers are complex, ambiguous, and resistant to definitive solutions. He positioned Design Thinking as a multidisciplinary and integrative approach capable of addressing such wicked problems by bridging diverse fields such as engineering, business, education, and social innovation.

Together, these foundational contributions established Design Thinking as a unique and essential approach to addressing complex, human-centered challenges, laying the groundwork for its subsequent evolution into a methodology for innovation across multiple sectors.

However, these foundational perspectives did not foresee the challenges of aligning Design Thinking with global sustainability frameworks such as the SDGs—highlighting the need for updated approaches that operationalize these principles in contemporary policy and innovation contexts.

2.2. Design Thinking and Creative Innovation

The consolidation of Design Thinking as a structured methodology for innovation gained momentum in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, driven by contributions from scholars and practitioners emphasizing creativity and user-centered approaches.

Teresa Amabile [13] introduced the Componential Theory of Creativity, underscoring creativity as a critical organizational resource. She argued that creativity emerges from the intersection of domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and intrinsic task motivation. Amabile’s framework laid the conceptual groundwork for understanding the role of creative processes in effective design practices, a principle that would later be deeply embedded in Design Thinking methodologies.

Simultaneously, practitioners began to operationalize these theories into tangible design approaches. Thomas Lockwood [14], particularly through his work at Apple, emphasized the integration of design as a strategic business tool, advocating for design-led innovation that prioritized user experience. His efforts contributed to a broader recognition of design as a core element of organizational strategy.

IDEO, under the leadership of David Kelley [15], played a pivotal role in mainstreaming Design Thinking as a replicable process for innovation. IDEO’s approach emphasized empathy, iterative prototyping, and multidisciplinary collaboration, establishing a flexible yet systematic framework that companies across industries could adopt to foster creativity and solve complex problems.

Nigel Cross [16] further legitimized Design Thinking as a distinct epistemological domain with his concept of Designerly Ways of Knowing. Cross demonstrated that designers engage in specific modes of thought, characterized by solution-focused strategies, abductive reasoning, and iterative exploration—cognitive patterns that differentiate design from scientific and artistic approaches.

Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt [17] extended these ideas by promoting Design Thinking as a driver for social innovation, advocating its use beyond business contexts to address societal challenges. Their work emphasized the human-centered nature of Design Thinking and its potential to foster sustainable, inclusive solutions.

Together, these contributions shaped a modern vision of Design Thinking as a creative, user-centered, and iterative methodology capable of driving both technological and social innovation.

These contributions laid the groundwork for Design Thinking’s later integration into social innovation and sustainability frameworks.

However, some scholars [15,16] have criticized the rise of DT as a managerial trend lacking methodological rigor and measurable outcomes.

These tensions highlight the need for methodological refinement and better integration of evaluative metrics in Design Thinking practice.

2.3. Design Thinking Methodologies

As Design Thinking matured from a cognitive and strategic concept into a practical methodology, several influential frameworks emerged to structure and guide the innovation process systematically.

Kelley [15] popularized one of the most widely adopted models in Design Thinking, structured around five iterative stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. This framework emphasizes a human-centered approach, iterative problem-solving, and early-stage experimentation to address complex challenges creatively. Its flexibility allows it to be applied across diverse domains, including product development, education, and public policy.

In the United Kingdom, the Design Council [18] introduced the Double Diamond model, representing the process of divergent and convergent thinking through four key phases: Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver. This framework visually maps the iterative exploration and refinement process, stressing the importance of deeply understanding problems before attempting to generate solutions. A later update further emphasized inclusive, interdisciplinary collaboration and the application of design processes to social and systemic challenges.

IDEO, under the guidance of David Kelley [15] and later expanded by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt [17], developed a slightly different but complementary framework structured around three key phases: Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation. IDEO’s approach places particular emphasis on deep user empathy, rapid prototyping, and interdisciplinary teamwork as central drivers of innovation. Its flexible application has made it highly influential in both corporate and social innovation settings.

Although these frameworks differ in their specific structures, they share foundational principles: a focus on user needs, iterative development, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a balance between divergent and convergent thinking. Their evolution reflects the growing recognition of Design Thinking as a robust methodology capable of addressing complex, “wicked” problems in a rapidly changing world.

2.4. Emerging Links Between Design Thinking and Sustainability

In recent years, the potential of Design Thinking (DT) to address complex global challenges has gained increasing academic attention, particularly in the context of sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As societies grapple with environmental degradation, inequality, and systemic socioeconomic issues, scholars have begun to explore Design Thinking as a human-centered, creative methodology capable of fostering sustainable innovation.

Fischer [5] was among the early proponents to explicitly link Design Thinking with sustainable development. He argued that the iterative, empathy-driven approach inherent to DT could facilitate the development of innovative solutions for sustainability challenges by incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives and emphasizing long-term systemic impacts.

Buhl et al. [4] expanded this view by conducting an empirical analysis of how Design Thinking contributes to sustainable innovation practices. Their study identified that DT methodologies, particularly through their emphasis on user-centricity and interdisciplinary collaboration, can enhance the generation of solutions aligned with social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

Similarly, Shapira, Ketchie, and Nehe [6] explored the application of Design Thinking in driving social innovation. They demonstrated that DT processes could be effectively leveraged to co-create interventions that advance SDG-related objectives, particularly in areas such as education, healthcare, and community development.

Additionally, Ezio Manzini [19] has significantly contributed to framing Design Thinking within the broader paradigm of social innovation. He emphasizes the role of design in enabling communities to co-create sustainable solutions, focusing on collaborative processes that empower local actors and build social resilience. His work reinforces the idea that design is not merely a technical tool but a cultural and strategic approach to fostering systemic transitions toward sustainability.

Despite these promising developments, the literature remains fragmented. Most studies focus on isolated sectors or specific SDGs rather than offering a comprehensive view of how DT principles systematically align with the broader SDG framework. Furthermore, there is a lack of synthesized frameworks that explicitly map Design Thinking principles to sustainable development outcomes, leaving a significant gap in both theory and practice.

This review seeks to address this gap by systematically analyzing how core Design Thinking principles relate to the SDGs, identifying best practices, and highlighting opportunities for future research and practical application.

A synthesized framework connecting DT principles with SDG outcomes remains an unmet need in the literature.

While promising, recent studies [20] have raised concerns about the scalability and empirical robustness of DT-driven interventions in sustainability contexts.

2.5. Rationale for the Present Study

The preceding literature highlights the evolution of Design Thinking from a cognitive and reflective practice to a structured methodology for innovation. While its application has expanded across industries and disciplines, recent research increasingly emphasizes its potential to address complex societal challenges linked to sustainable development.

Although individual studies have examined the intersections between Design Thinking and specific SDGs, there remains a lack of comprehensive frameworks that systematically map DT principles to the broader sustainable development agenda. Existing contributions, while valuable, tend to focus on isolated sectors, limited case studies, or conceptual propositions without offering an integrative synthesis.

Given the urgency of achieving the SDGs and the recognized capacity of Design Thinking to foster human-centered, innovative solutions, a systematic review that explicitly connects DT principles to the SDG framework is both timely and necessary. Such an endeavor can bridge theoretical gaps, inform practice, and guide future research toward leveraging Design Thinking as a strategic methodology for sustainable innovation.

Although Buhl et al. [4], Fischer [5], and Shapira et al. [6] have initiated important connections between Design Thinking and sustainability, these studies primarily focus on case-specific or conceptual discussions. They do not offer a systematic mapping of Design Thinking principles in relation to the 17 SDGs, nor do they propose a unified framework that bridges theory and practice in connecting Design Thinking to the SDGs.

Accordingly, this study aims to systematically review the literature at the intersection of Design Thinking and the SDGs, identify key principles and applications, and propose future research directions that enhance the integration of design methodologies into sustainability initiatives.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Literature Review Methodology

This study employed a systematic literature review methodology based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [21] to ensure transparency, rigor, and reproducibility.

Searches were conducted across multiple databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The following keyword combinations were applied:

• “Design Thinking” AND “Sustainability”
• “Design Thinking” AND “Sustainable Development Goals”
• “Human-Centered Design” AND “SDGs”
• “Innovation” AND “Global Goals”

The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, and academic books published between 2013 and 2023, in the English and Spanish languages. Only studies explicitly linking Design Thinking methodologies to sustainability or SDGs were considered eligible.

Gray literature, opinion pieces, blog posts, and works not focused on methodological aspects of Design Thinking were excluded.

After inclusion, the selected studies were subjected to a qualitative content analysis based on an inductive coding strategy. Recurring principles, methodological approaches, and reported alignments with SDG targets were extracted manually and categorized. This process informed the identification of 10 core Design Thinking principles across the corpus. No software tools were used; coding was conducted manually to retain proximity to context and meaning. While this approach enables interpretative depth, it also introduces a degree of subjectivity inherent to manual analysis, which was mitigated through iterative cross-validation among co-authors.

3.2. Content Analysis Protocol

To ensure analytical transparency and methodological rigor, the content analysis process followed qualitative research principles aligned with Krippendorff’s framework for content analysis [22]. The unit of analysis consisted of conceptual elements such as themes, principles, and methodological strategies explicitly linked to Design Thinking (DT) and sustainability across the 42 selected publications. Coding categories were developed inductively through close reading and iterative refinement, with thematic convergence emerging from repeated patterns.

For each of the 42 studies, a pre-designed data extraction sheet was applied to systematically collect key information. This included research objectives, methodological approach, applied Design Thinking principles, related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), main findings, and reported limitations. This standardized structure followed methodological guidance from the PRISMA 2020 statement [21] and best practices in qualitative synthesis (Krippendorff, 2018 [22]), ensuring consistency, traceability, and transparency across all sources.

The extraction sheet was pre-structured and consistently applied across all studies to ensure coherence and comparability. It functioned as a standardized matrix that guided the identification and recording of relevant elements in a uniform manner, regardless of publication type or disciplinary origin.

The analysis was conducted manually without the use of software tools, allowing greater proximity to contextual nuances. To mitigate researcher bias and ensure reliability, the coding process was conducted in two iterative rounds, with continuous refinement of categories and verification against the analytical framework.

The analytical framework established thematic clusters that were then mapped to specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This mapping enabled the construction of a conceptual bridge between DT principles and SDG targets, which served as the foundation for the integrative framework proposed in Section 4.

Content analysis was selected due to its suitability for synthesizing heterogeneous sources and generating conceptual insights from diverse empirical and theoretical materials. As recommended by Krippendorff [22], this approach allowed for systematic interpretation while maintaining sensitivity to meaning, context, and the interpretive nature of qualitative synthesis.

As this study was conducted by a single author, no formal inter-coder reliability measures (e.g., Cohen’s Kappa [23]) were applied. However, internal coherence was maintained through systematic iteration of the coding protocol and repeated comparison between coded content and the overarching analytical framework. This ensured a consistent and transparent application of the coding scheme.

3.3. Study Selection Process

The study selection followed a structured four-stage screening process, consistent with PRISMA 2020 guidelines [21]:

• Identification: An initial pool of 450 records was retrieved through database searches.
• Screening: After removing duplicates, 400 unique articles remained.
• Eligibility Assessment: Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance, yielding 87 full-text articles for further evaluation.
• Inclusion: After applying the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 studies were retained for final synthesis.

This selection process is summarized in the PRISMA 2020 [21] flow diagram (Figure 1).

While the search strategy was systematically constructed, certain limitations are acknowledged. First, limiting this review to English and Spanish publications may have excluded relevant insights from other linguistic contexts where Design Thinking is actively practiced. Second, excluding gray literature—such as NGO reports, policy briefs, or unpublished institutional case studies—may underrepresent practice-based innovations not yet reflected in peer-reviewed scholarship. This trade-off was accepted to ensure methodological consistency, transparency, and replicability across the reviewed sources.

3.4. Application Examples Selection

In addition to the systematic review, a targeted subset of real-world applications was analyzed to illustrate how Design Thinking has been implemented in alignment with specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Case selection was guided by the following criteria:

• Clear documentation of Design Thinking methodologies applied;
• Explicit alignment with one or more SDGs;
• Availability of detailed contextual, methodological, and outcome-related information.

Five representative case studies were identified across diverse sectors—technology, education, healthcare, transportation, and workspace design. Each was analyzed qualitatively to extract best practices, contextual drivers, and innovation strategies, providing concrete illustrations of how Design Thinking can advance sustainability objectives in varied domains.

4. Results

4.1. Key Principles Identified in the Design Thinking Literature

The systematic review revealed 10 key principles consistently emphasized across major Design Thinking frameworks and scholarly literature:

• Empathy: Understanding users’ emotions, needs, and lived contexts forms the basis of human-centered design.
• Iterative approach: Solutions are developed through repeated cycles of prototyping, testing, and refining.
• Divergent and convergent thinking: Designers explore multiple ideas before narrowing down to the most promising.
• Multidisciplinary collaboration: Involving diverse perspectives enhances creativity and solution quality.
• Rapid prototyping: Early modeling of solutions accelerates feedback loops and learning.
• User-centered approach: Solutions are explicitly grounded in users’ realities.
• Observation: Attentive examination of environments and user behavior informs design decisions.
• Creative problem solving: Encourages imaginative and innovative thinking.
• Learning through failure: Mistakes are reframed as opportunities for insight and iteration.
• Holistic and systemic thinking: Considers broader social, environmental, and institutional systems.

These principles provide a conceptual foundation for applying Design Thinking to human-centered and sustainability-oriented challenges, including those encompassed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Their identification was based on inductive thematic coding of the 42 selected studies. The coding was conducted manually to retain sensitivity to context and meaning, and the results were iteratively cross-validated by the author. While no software was used, the process followed established qualitative research protocols.

The synthesis drew on foundational theoretical sources, including Brown [1], Cross [16], Liedtka [2], and Schön [11], whose work informed the formulation and validation of each principle. This transparent, literature-grounded approach supports both the analytical depth and the replicability of the Design Thinking principle framework.

The synthesis of the 10 final Design Thinking principles was conducted through iterative comparison and thematic clustering of the coded content. After coding each of the 42 studies using the standardized extraction sheet, recurrent conceptual patterns were grouped into provisional categories, which were subsequently refined across two validation rounds. This process allowed for the distillation of overlapping and complementary elements into 10 coherent principle clusters that represent the shared methodological foundations of DT as applied to sustainability. The final principles emerged from convergence across diverse sources, supported by conceptual triangulation with foundational DT literature.

The classification of Design Thinking principles and their linkage to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was grounded in a structured literature review of 42 peer-reviewed studies. A full extraction matrix titled “Traceability Matrix of Design Thinking and the Sustainable Development Goals” is provided as Supplementary Material to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

4.2. Correlation Between Design Thinking Principles and SDGs

The systematic review revealed consistent and meaningful correlations between core Design Thinking (DT) principles and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Each principle contributes uniquely to addressing complex challenges framed in the 2030 Agenda, enabling innovative, human-centered pathways toward sustainable development.

To make these linkages explicit, a structured mapping was developed (

Table 1. Mapping of Design Thinking Principles to Corresponding SDGs.

Design Thinking Principle	Correlated SDGs	Justification
Empathy	SDG 1, 3, 4	Deeply understanding the needs of marginalized communities (SDG 1), patients (SDG 3), and learners (SDG 4) fosters more inclusive and user-centered solutions.
Iterative approach	SDG 9, 13	Promotes continuous refinement of innovation (SDG 9) and adaptive strategies for climate action (SDG 13).
Divergent and convergent thinking	SDG 4, 11	Encourages creative ideation and structured focus, leading to robust educational outcomes (SDG 4) and urban solutions (SDG 11).
Multidisciplinary collaboration	SDG 9, 17	Drives innovation through cross-sector engagement (SDG 9) and supports global partnerships (SDG 17).
Rapid prototyping	SDG 9, 12	Accelerates the testing and scaling of innovations (SDG 9), while enabling iterative product cycles that promote responsible production (SDG 12).
User-centered approach	SDG 3, 4	Grounding solutions in user needs enhances relevance and efficacy in health (SDG 3) and education (SDG 4).
Observation	SDG 11, 14, 15	Close environmental analysis informs sustainable cities (SDG 11), marine ecosystems (SDG 14), and terrestrial biodiversity (SDG 15).
Creative problem solving	SDG 2, 9	Sparks novel solutions for global hunger (SDG 2) and industrial development (SDG 9).
Learning through failure	SDG 9, 10	Embracing failure enhances innovation (SDG 9) and encourages more equitable systems through iterative adjustment (SDG 10).
Holistic and systemic thinking	SDG 6, 13	Enables integrated approaches to water and sanitation (SDG 6) and climate resilience (SDG 13).

Source: Author’s elaboration based on the UN SDG framework.

), aligning each DT principle with one or more relevant SDGs. This correlation illustrates how Design Thinking functions as a strategic methodology to foster social inclusion, systemic change, and sustainability-driven innovation.

To ensure full traceability and academic rigor, a detailed extraction matrix is provided as Supplementary Material. This document, titled “Traceability Matrix of Design Thinking and the Sustainable Development Goals”, systematically documents the rationale for each association in Table 1, supported by the 42 reviewed studies. Readers can consult the matrix in the Supplementary Material section.

This mapping affirms the strategic role of Design Thinking as an enabler of sustainable development. It also provides a conceptual foundation for the operational integration of DT into policy frameworks, development planning, and innovation ecosystems targeting the SDGs.

4.3. Application Examples of Design Thinking Linked to SDGs

The five real-world case studies were selected through purposive sampling, based on their explicit use of Design Thinking frameworks and documentation in publicly available sources. While they do not all demonstrate direct environmental impact, they exemplify distinct approaches to integrating human-centered innovation within complex systems. The goal was to illustrate the methodological diversity and operationalization of DT principles, rather than to measure their outcomes on specific SDGs.

Several real-world case studies demonstrate the effective application of Design Thinking methodologies to promote sustainable development across diverse sectors. The selected examples illustrate how core Design Thinking principles have been operationalized to address specific SDG-related challenges.

• Digital purchase experience enhancement (technology sector): A multinational technology company applied Design Thinking to redesign its digital purchasing platform, improving user experience and inclusivity. By employing empathy-driven research and iterative prototyping, the company enhanced accessibility and satisfaction rates, contributing to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Redesign of educational environments (education sector): A large-scale educational initiative utilized Design Thinking to transform learning environments and pedagogical models. Through co-creation workshops involving students, teachers, and communities, the project promoted active learning and inclusivity, supporting SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
• Customer experience transformation in airlines (transportation sector): A major airline implemented Design Thinking methodologies to redesign customer experience processes, from check-in to in-flight services. Focused on user-centered innovation and rapid prototyping, the initiative contributed to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).
• Development of medical diagnostic devices (healthcare sector): In the healthcare sector, Design Thinking was used to create more intuitive and accessible diagnostic devices. The iterative design process prioritized patient usability, directly aligning with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Design of collaborative workspaces (urban development sector): A real estate development project applied Design Thinking to design collaborative workspaces that fostered innovation, sustainability, and community engagement. This application supported SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

These examples highlight the versatility of Design Thinking in addressing complex, multidisciplinary challenges and demonstrate its alignment with multiple SDGs across different sectors.

While most of these cases emphasize process innovation and stakeholder engagement, measurable sustainability outcomes were often indirect or insufficiently documented. This gap reflects a broader challenge in DT applications: the need for robust evaluation frameworks that align interventions with tangible SDG indicators.

However, these cases also raise important questions regarding replicability, scalability, and evaluation. Many of the initiatives were context-specific and often lacked independent impact assessments. Without robust mechanisms for longitudinal tracking, it remains difficult to determine whether such DT applications produce sustained, systemic change or represent isolated success stories. Future studies should explore how Design Thinking can move from exceptional cases to standardized, evidence-based practices within sustainability frameworks.

Additional Real-World Case: WaterWheel

One notable real-world example of a Design Thinking intervention with direct and measurable impact on sustainable development is the WaterWheel project, developed by the Indian social enterprise Wello. Designed to address the challenges of water transportation in rural communities, the WaterWheel enables users—primarily women—to roll up to 50 L of water over long distances, reducing physical strain and time spent fetching water. The solution emerged through empathy-driven fieldwork, iterative prototyping, and continuous feedback from end-users, exemplifying user-centered and context-sensitive innovation. Its implementation directly supports SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality), with evaluations showing improved health outcomes, increased school attendance for girls, and time savings for productive activities. This case illustrates how Design Thinking can foster tangible, scalable solutions aligned with SDG targets in resource-constrained environments.

4.4. Comparison of Major Design Thinking Methodologies

The systematic review identified three leading frameworks that structure the Design Thinking (DT) process, each offering distinct but complementary approaches to innovation and complex problem solving.

• Stanford d.school model: Developed by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University [24], this framework organizes the DT process into five iterative stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. It emphasizes human-centeredness, deep empathy for users, and early-stage experimentation. Its adaptability has enabled widespread application across education, corporate innovation, and social change initiatives.
• Double Diamond model (Design Council): Introduced in 2004 and revised in 2015 by the UK Design Council [18], the Double Diamond model outlines the process as two successive phases of divergent and convergent thinking: Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver. The model visually reinforces the importance of broad problem exploration followed by focused solution development. Later refinements have incorporated interdisciplinary collaboration and system-level thinking, expanding its relevance to societal and sustainability challenges.
• IDEO human-centered design model: Created by IDEO and formalized in The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design [25], this approach is structured into three phases: Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation. It foregrounds empathy, rapid prototyping, and cross-disciplinary teamwork. Initially intended for business innovation, the model has since been successfully applied in the public and nonprofit sectors to address health, education, and development challenges.

Despite structural variations, these models converge around four foundational principles: user-centricity, iterative prototyping, creative ideation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Collectively, they reflect the adaptability and strategic potential of Design Thinking for tackling “wicked problems” across industries and policy domains.

Figure 2 presents a comparative visualization of the three frameworks, emphasizing their unique stages and conceptual emphases.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of Literature Review Results

The results of the systematic literature review highlight the versatility and adaptability of Design Thinking (DT) methodologies in tackling the multidimensional challenges of sustainable development. The identification of 10 core principles—including empathy, iteration, user-centeredness, and multidisciplinary collaboration—demonstrates a strong alignment between DT and the holistic, inclusive ethos of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

One key insight is the centrality of empathy and user-centered design across all dominant DT frameworks (Stanford, IDEO, Double Diamond). These principles directly support SDGs focused on equity, health, and education (e.g., SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 10), indicating that human-centered innovation is not merely compatible with, but often foundational to, sustainable development.

Furthermore, iteration and learning through failure resonate strongly with the dynamic, uncertain nature of sustainability initiatives. The capacity to test and refine solutions is particularly aligned with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

A comparative analysis of the three dominant methodologies reveals that all prioritize iterative learning, user-centered approaches, and cross-disciplinary collaboration as fundamental pillars. However, each model also exhibits nuanced structural emphases: the Stanford framework begins with empathy as a guiding principle [24], IDEO places greater focus on the stages of Inspiration and Implementation [25], while the Double Diamond model distinctly visualizes the process of divergence and convergence [18].

This flexibility across frameworks reflects DT’s ability to adapt to diverse sectors, cultures, and institutional environments.

The case studies reviewed illustrate DT’s application across technology, education, transport, healthcare, and urban planning. However, these examples also reveal that systemic, cross-sectoral potential remains underutilized. Most interventions remain project-based, lacking integration into long-term sustainability strategies or public policy ecosystems. This aligns with the proposition by Manzini [19] that sustainable innovation often arises from collaborative, community-led design processes grounded in local knowledge and participation.

Additionally, institutional uptake of DT remains limited in development agencies and public sectors. Possible barriers include organizational inertia, risk aversion, hierarchical cultures, and the tension between DT’s experimental ethos and compliance-driven governance models. Future efforts should explore how DT can be embedded into institutional routines while retaining its participatory and creative spirit.

In sum, DT presents a powerful methodology for advancing the SDGs. Yet, its strategic, institutional, and systemic integration remains an open frontier in both research and practice.

5.2. Unexplored Areas in Design Thinking Research

Despite growing scholarly interest, the literature reveals several critical gaps in how Design Thinking (DT) is applied, theorized, and evaluated in the sustainability domain.

One major limitation is the lack of integrative frameworks that holistically connect the DT process with the multi-goal strategies of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

While individual principles, such as empathy, are often emphasized, few models comprehensively address complex and cross-cutting issues such as climate justice or social resilience.

Another key shortcoming is the limited focus on impact assessment. Much of previous research emphasizes design processes and immediate outputs, with insufficient attention to long-term effects or measurable outcomes. The absence of standardized evaluation metrics restricts scalability and cross-case learning. Nonetheless, emerging contributions—such as the work of Ardila Echeverry et al. [26] in education and Mohamed et al. [27] in urban food systems—illustrate promising tools for measuring impact, albeit still underutilized. Likewise, Baldassarre et al. [28] have proposed a Responsible Design Thinking framework that incorporates social and environmental measurement criteria, opening potential for operationalizing sustainability goals more systematically.

Sectoral fragmentation also hinders DT’s broader transformative capacity. Research tends to remain siloed within domains such as education, health, or urban planning, with limited exploration of how design approaches might bridge these sectors to address systemic challenges. For example, the intersection between climate action, equity, and innovation remains underexplored in design scholarship.

Cultural and contextual adaptation represents another significant gap. Although empathy is frequently cited as a cornerstone of DT, few studies consider how methodologies must be adapted to diverse political, socioeconomic, or cultural contexts, especially in the Global South. Methodological critiques further underscore the need for reflexivity; scholars such as Kimbell [29] and Johansson-Sköldberg et al. [30] caution that DT risks becoming a managerial trend, lacking empirical depth and theoretical clarity.

Lastly, ethical considerations remain largely overlooked. Issues of stakeholder inclusion, marginalization, and unintended consequences are rarely interrogated in DT research. Ethical frameworks for applying DT—particularly within vulnerable communities—require greater development. Recent initiatives, such as the ethical leadership model proposed by Massera and Jack [9], or the design justice approach by Costanza-Chock [31,32], offer important tools to embed principles of equity, participation, and power sensitivity into DT practice.

Addressing these gaps is essential for moving beyond promotional narratives and towards a more evidence-based, critically grounded, and ethically informed design approach to sustainability.

5.3. Connections Between Design Thinking and Modern Education

Education has emerged as a key sector where Design Thinking (DT) methodologies are increasingly applied to foster innovation, inclusivity, and systemic transformation. The iterative, user-centered nature of DT aligns closely with contemporary pedagogical paradigms that emphasize active learning, creativity, empathy, and critical thinking—competencies essential for advancing Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education).

This review identified multiple initiatives where DT principles have informed curriculum co-design, pedagogical experimentation, and educational environment transformation. For example, empathy-driven approaches enable educators to design learning experiences that are more responsive to diverse student profiles. Iterative prototyping encourages the development of adaptable educational models that can evolve with changing technological and societal demands.

Moreover, the emphasis on multidisciplinary collaboration within DT mirrors the capabilities required to address the interconnected nature of global challenges. Project-based learning, inspired by DT, fosters collaboration, problem-solving, and reflective practice—skills increasingly demanded by sustainability-driven economies and global citizenship education.

However, despite its promise, the integration of DT in education remains uneven and fragmented. Many applications are confined to isolated projects or short-term initiatives, rather than being embedded in systemic curriculum reforms or institutional strategies. There is also a prevailing tendency to focus on process-based outputs (e.g., prototypes) rather than evaluating long-term outcomes, especially regarding equity, accessibility, and inclusion.

Additionally, the application of DT in education requires careful adaptation to context-specific realities. Few studies address how DT frameworks need to evolve in resource-constrained or culturally diverse environments, raising concerns about equity and the risk of reinforcing existing disparities if inclusivity is not explicitly embedded in the design process.

Crucially, ethical considerations in educational innovation—such as student voice inclusion, community engagement, and the redistribution of power in learning design—remain underdeveloped in the literature. Without addressing these dimensions, DT risks being reduced to a technocratic tool rather than a transformational methodology.

In summary, the convergence of Design Thinking and education holds significant potential for achieving SDG 4 and related sustainability goals. Nonetheless, realizing this potential requires more than isolated interventions. It calls for the institutionalization of Design Thinking within educational policy and teacher training programs, ensuring that these methodologies are embedded at the systemic level rather than applied ad hoc. Furthermore, the development of robust evaluative frameworks is essential to link design processes with measurable educational impacts, enabling a more evidence-based understanding of how DT contributes to learning outcomes. Finally, sustained attention to ethics, inclusion, and contextual adaptation is imperative. Without a deliberate focus on these dimensions, Design Thinking may fail to address deep-rooted inequities and risk becoming a technocratic exercise devoid of transformative potential.

The contribution of this review lies not only in its systematization of Design Thinking literature but in its analytical mapping of DT principles to SDG targets—a connection not previously addressed in this comprehensive form. By bridging theoretical foundations with practical insights, this study offers a unified perspective for leveraging human-centered design as a strategic tool for sustainability transformation in education and beyond.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This section synthesizes the key findings of this study, while providing actionable recommendations for practice and outlining strategic directions for future research on the intersection of Design Thinking (DT) and sustainable development.

6.1. Key Findings and Conclusions

This review demonstrates that Design Thinking constitutes a dynamic, human-centered methodology with significant potential to address the complexity of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 10 core principles identified—such as empathy, iteration, holistic thinking, and creative problem solving—are inherently aligned with the integrative and adaptive demands of sustainability.

Far from being a peripheral innovation tool, DT emerges as a strategic enabler of inclusive and systemic change. Its emphasis on user-centric processes, iterative learning, and cross-disciplinary collaboration makes it particularly suited to environments characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and the need for social innovation.

Nevertheless, the current landscape of DT application remains fragmented and predominantly project-based, often lacking institutional anchoring or integration within broader sustainability strategies. This gap underscores the need for systemic adoption frameworks capable of linking DT more explicitly with long-term SDG implementation.

6.2. Practical Recommendations and Future Directions

To harness Design Thinking’s full potential for sustainability transitions, practitioners are encouraged to move beyond isolated interventions and instead adopt ecosystemic, cross-sectoral approaches. First, establishing participatory design ecosystems that actively involve marginalized stakeholders as co-creators—rather than passive beneficiaries—can enhance both the legitimacy and transformative impact of sustainability initiatives. Second, embedding iterative evaluation mechanisms within DT processes ensures continuous learning, contextual responsiveness, and adaptive alignment with evolving sustainability goals. Finally, integrating DT principles into higher education curricula, particularly in leadership, policy, sustainability, and innovation programs, can build long-term capacity for human-centered systems thinking on a large scale. These actions can foster a culture of innovation that is inclusive, reflexive, and better equipped to address complex socio-environmental challenges.

6.3. Suggestions for Future Research

Future research agendas should address several critical gaps identified in this review. One important direction is the development of integrative theoretical models that map the full DT process across multiple and interrelated SDGs, providing practical guidance for systemic application. Another key need is for longitudinal studies capable of evaluating the sustained effectiveness and transformative potential of DT-driven interventions in real-world sustainability contexts. Cultural adaptability also deserves greater attention; research should examine how DT methodologies can be tailored to under-researched regions and diverse sociopolitical environments, thereby ensuring global relevance and equitable impact. In addition, further inquiry is required into the ethical dimensions of DT practice, including how power asymmetries, inclusion, and the unintended consequences of innovation are addressed. Advancing these lines of inquiry is essential to transition from a promotional to a critically grounded and evidence-informed understanding of Design Thinking for sustainability.

6.4. Final Conclusions

When strategically aligned with the SDG framework, Design Thinking holds significant promise as a catalyst for inclusive, adaptive, and systemic innovation. Realizing this potential will require confronting current limitations—sectoral fragmentation, insufficient impact measurement, and weak institutional integration—and promoting collaborative, ethically conscious implementation.

By bridging academic insight, policy ambition, and community-driven innovation, DT can evolve into a core methodology for shaping equitable and sustainable futures. Unlocking this potential will demand sustained cooperation among scholars, practitioners, and decision-makers committed to transformative change.

Additionally, future research should also explore the development and application of structured impact evaluation tools for DT in sustainability contexts. Contributions such as the Cities2030 framework [29] and Responsible Design Thinking [30] can guide the standardization of metrics. Integrating ethical principles inspired by design justice [28] may also ensure that DT practices remain socially accountable and inclusive.

This study contributes to advancing the theoretical and practical integration of Design Thinking and the Sustainable Development Goals by offering a structured framework that maps DT principles to the 2030 Agenda. Unlike previous conceptual or sector-specific approaches, this integrative model enables a comparative understanding across disciplines and can support future empirical applications and evaluations aligned with global sustainability targets.