Towards a Coherent Framework of Sustainability Learning Outcomes in Engineering Education

Abstract

Defining clear and coherent Sustainability Learning Outcomes (SustLOs) is the first step toward empowering engineers to create effective and sustainable solutions. Despite their importance, there is still a lack of consensus and clarity about what SustLOs are and what they should encompass. This study aims to identify, analyze and synthesize SustLOs in engineering education in order to provide a clear, structured and measurable framework. A literature review was conducted to understand which specific SustLOs are emphasized in engineering education. These outcomes were then grouped by similarity and aligned with three learning levels: “Know”, “Know How” and “Does”. A clustering and refinement process followed to eliminate redundancy and improve conceptual coherence. The literature review revealed 154 diverse and overlapping SustLOs, reflecting the fragmented way in which sustainability is often addressed. Nearly half were transversal, highlighting the inherently multidimensional nature of sustainability. Most fell into the “Does” level, reflecting the emphasis placed on applied, action-oriented learning. However, categories such as “Ethical/Social Responsibilities and Values” and “Personal and Professional Growth” had fewer sustainable development and engineering outcomes at this level, highlighting the challenge of assessing long-term or behavioral outcomes. Through clustering and refinement, 23 SustLOs were established, offering a coherent foundation for curriculum design and assessment in engineering for sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The urgent issues of climate change, population growth and rapid urbanization require innovative, engineering-driven solutions [1]. More than ever, engineers are expected to contribute not only with technical expertise but also with ethical judgment, creative, critical and systemic thinking, considering interdisciplinarity and global perspectives to contribute to a just society and a sustainable future [1]. In this context, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) emerges as a transformative approach. ESD promotes the integration of knowledge, skills, values and behaviors through active learning and the development of critical and systemic thinking lie at its core, empowering students with the tools, mindsets and capabilities required to drive sustainable change [2,3]. Therefore, integrating ESD into engineering education is essential to empower future engineers to design and implement innovative solutions to today’s pressing sustainability challenges [3].

One mechanism for achieving this education lies in the definition of Sustainability Learning Outcomes (SustLOs). These can act as the foundation for the design of curricula, pedagogical strategies and assessment practices, ensuring that sustainability becomes a concrete and measurable component of engineering education [4,5].

Despite the growing emphasis on sustainability within engineering education, a notable lack of consensus and conceptual clarity persists in the literature regarding what constitutes a relevant SustLO or how it differs from related concepts such as learning objectives or competencies. The distinction between these terms is often blurred, leading to inconsistencies in the interpretation, design and assessment of educational initiatives [6,7,8,9]. Even within the broader education literature, these terms are frequently used interchangeably, contributing to conceptual ambiguity [9,10,11]. However, when studies attempt to unpack or differentiate these terms, a clear distinction emerges. Competencies are typically described as broad, integrated capabilities that encompass knowledge, capacities and skills, attitudes and values, often remaining abstract and general by nature [1,11]. As such, they require translation into specific, observable, and assessable learning outcomes in order to be operationalized within the curriculum [9,11].

Moreover, despite the ongoing studies focusing on integrating sustainability in engineering [3,7,12,13], there is no universal consensus on which SustLOs should be included in an engineering curriculum [7,8,14].

Existing efforts to define SustLOs tend to vary widely in structure, depth and specificity. While some institutions may adopt outcomes aligned with accreditation standards such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) or CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate), others develop their own outcomes based in institutional missions or global agendas like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although this diversity can offer valuable perspectives, it also contributes to fragmentation. The formulation of SustLOs is often shaped by cultural, disciplinary or institutional differences [14]. In the absence of a shared understanding and terminology, institutions and educators may struggle to define clear goals for sustainability integration or to compare and assess their efforts across different contexts. Thus, establishing a clear, coherent and measurable framework of SustLOs in engineering education is therefore a fundamental step towards transparency, consistency and comparability.

To address this gap, the present study reviews the landscape of SustLOs in engineering education literature and critically discusses through a systematic process the findings focusing on synthesis, coherence and redundancy. The objective is to support institutions and educators around the world in ensuring that engineering graduates are well-prepared to drive sustainable change by providing a structured and coherent framework of SustLOs that are grounded in educational concepts and practical, realistic outcomes.

The study is structured into four sections. First, the introduction outlines the motivation and context for the research. Then, the methodology is described concerning literature selection, SustLO identification, categorization, learning level assessment and the clustering and refinement process. The results are then presented and discussed, highlighting key trends and challenges that emerged from the analysis and clustering process. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for the implementation and continued refinement of SustLOs in engineering education are presented.

2. Methodology

2.1. Literature Review and Screening

A review of what SustLOs are emphasized in engineering education was conducted using the PRISMA 2020 methodology [15]. The search terms are presented in

Table 1. Search terms used for review (October 2024).

Database	Search Terms
Scopus	(“sustainability learning outcomes” OR “sustainable development learning outcomes” OR “sustainability learning objectives” OR “sustainable development learning objectives” OR “sustainability competenc*” OR “sustainable development competenc*”) AND (“sustainability” OR “sustainable development”) AND “engineering education”.
Web of Science

.

The search was conducted in October of 2024. The academic databases used for this study were Scopus and Web of Science, chosen for their broad coverage and strong representation in both education and engineering fields [16,17].

No exclusion criteria, neither in terms of publication type nor publication year were applied at the initial phase, in order to ensure a comprehensive and representative collection of results. All document types (e.g., journal articles, conferences papers, book chapters) and all years were considered. This inclusive approach not only supports a more thorough literature review but also allows the evolution of SustLOs in engineering education over the years to be traced.

Subsequently, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Studies were included if they: (i) focused on engineering education; (ii) made an explicit reference to sustainability or sustainable development in the context of teaching and learning; (iii) described SustLO or sustainability competencies that could be operationalized as SustLOs according to our definition (see following description); (iv) the full text was available; and (v) were published in English. Studies were excluded if they (i) were duplicated across database; (ii) addressed sustainability in general without specifying competencies or learning outcomes at the student level; (iii) discussed competencies in an abstract manner, without sufficient detail to translate them into SustLOs.

The selection process followed a two-stage screening approach. In the first screening, studies outside the scope of the research question were excluded based in their title and abstract, language and accessibility (exclusion of those not published in English or those that were inaccessible). The second screening involved a full text review to determine whether the article was effectively relevant to the study.

As previously mentioned, the terms SustLO and competencies lack a universally accepted definition. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, SustLOs were described as “specific, measurable statements of the knowledge, skills, and abilities individual students should possess and can demonstrate upon completion of a learning experience or sequence of learning experiences in relation to sustainability competencies” [9].

Only studies referring to competencies that could be easily translated to SustLOs were considered (i.e., if they are measurable and state an explicit focus and learning level). Although these studies use the terms competencies, their characteristics justify inclusion in the review due to the explained reasons. However, studies that only discussed competencies, without the potential for translation into learning outcomes based on our definition (i.e., generic or non-measurable), were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, some of the SustLOs included in the studies were excluded if they were considered too general or vague (e.g., “Commitment to sustainability” is excluded as it is not a measurable outcome).

2.2. Definition of Categories and Categorization of SustLOs

The next step involved categorizing the SustLOs identified in the literature according to shared concepts and learning intentions. This step helps transform a long, unstructured list into an organized framework, facilitating the detection of overlaps and redundancies.

The definition and categorization of SustLOs were primarily based on an iterative, inductive analysis of the SustLOs themselves. Initially, the first author reviewed the identified SustLOs to identify recurrent dimensions and patterns of similarity, and grouped them according to their defining characteristics, ensuring that the categories were both comprehensive and mutually exclusive, minimizing overlaps while capturing the full range of outcomes. This process resulted in a structured framework matrix in which, for each category, a definition and decision rules were developed to guide the categorization of the SustLOs. The categorization was then independently reviewed by the two other authors, who indicated for each SustLO whether they agreed with the proposed categorization. All SustLOs for which at least one author did not agree with the initial assessment were subsequently examined in a joint discussion until a consensual decision was reached.

2.3. Level of Learning Assessment

To understand not only what students are expected to learn, but also the depth of that learning, a level of learning assessment was conducted. The assessment was conducted using a simplified version of the Miller’s Pyramid. This straightforward framework assesses the progression from theoretical knowledge (“Knows” and “Know How”) to practical application and performance (“Show How” and “Does”) [18]. It aligns with the goals of engineering education for sustainable development, which aim to produce graduates who can apply their knowledge to real-world challenges and problems.

An initial calibration exercise was conducted in which the four original levels were applied to the SustLOs. The results showed that SustLOs classified as “Show How” were, in more than half of the cases, indistinguishable from those classified as “Does”. On this basis, and in line with previous work in engineering education [19], the framework was simplified into three levels: “Know”, “Know How” and “Show How + Does”, reflecting the absence of a relevant distinction between these levels in engineering.

Each SustLO in the database was initially assigned by the first author to one of these three levels, based on the dominant action verb and type of performance described. As with the categorization process, after assignment by the first author, the other two authors reviewed the proposed classification, and through open discussion, all authors reached a consensus.

2.4. Cluster and Refinement of SustLOs

Following the categorization and learning level analysis, the SustLOs were clustered to create a more coherent framework of SustLOs. This step involved grouping the SustLOs into a more manageable number while preserving the breadth and depth of the original list.

The process of clustering was guided by a similarity criterion to limit subjective judgment. SustLOs were clustered when the following conditions were met: (i) they shared comparable action verbs indicating the same type of cognitive or performance demand; (ii) they focused on the same underlying sustainability principle. In practice, the clustering process was driven by aligning both criteria, with a comparison of semantic patterns used as a supporting criterion.

Redundancy was explicitly addressed throughout the process. SustLOs that were conceptually equivalent or different only in minor wording, while fulfilling the similarity rules above, were merged into a single representative SustLOs. When SustLOs partially overlapped, the version that was more specific, operational and aligned with the categorization was retained, provided that no unique learning intention was lost.

Action verbs were used in the proposed SustLOs (considered a core principle to define learning outcomes) to ensure each SustLO clearly communicates what students should be able to do. The first author clustered the SustLOs and the other two authors independently reviewed the results. Divergences were discussed until full consensus was reached among all authors, thereby increasing interrater reliability and reducing subjectivity.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Literature Review

Figure 1 illustrates the results of the article selection process based on the PRISMA 2020 methodology.

The search in the databases gave an initial result of 90 studies. Of these, 26 were duplicates and 20 were excluded in the initial screening, 12 according to the title abstract and keywords, 1 due to language and 7 due to accessibility. Following full text assessment, an additional 30 were excluded for being out of scope of the study; consequently, 14 articles were included in the study.

As shown in

Table 2. Overview of literature reviewed.

Reference	Aim of the Study	Relevant Observations
[14]	Comparative analysis of the sustainability competencies defined by three universities, using the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) descriptors	The study analyses the SustLOs in four different categories: “Knowing and understanding”, “skills and abilities”, “attitude”. Similarities across institutions highlight the need to further develop the definition of sustainability competencies.
[19]	Develop and implement competency maps to integrate and assess sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in engineering curricula	SustLOs organized according to the 4 competencies defined by Spanish Universities’ Rectors Conference (CRUE), dimensions of sustainability (whenever possible, only the holistic dimension was used), and classified into domain levels using a simplified version of the Miller’s Pyramid. This research has been updated to include 29 SustLOs [20].
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]	Assess the integration of sustainability competencies into teaching in industrial and informatics engineering.	Four general outcomes mentioned: “Knowledge and understanding”, “Application”, “Ethics and values” and “Working with others”. Although this study falls outside the scope (focuses on specific engineering degrees and does not explicitly define SustLOs), the study was included because outlines what engineers must be able to do, according to the Barcelona Declaration, and some learning outcomes established by engineering accreditation agencies (also referenced in [24]).
[26]	Explore how the doughnut model can be used, as a pedagogical tool, to develop sustainability skills in engineering.	Workshop defined SustLOs based on macro competencies: critical thinking, working in an interdisciplinary group, problem-solving, systemic thinking, normative competence, self-awareness, contextualizing and vision of the future, strategic competence. Abstract competencies such as self-awareness and normativity were most challenging, as they require deeper reflection and extended engagement. The study highlights the importance of innovative and interactive pedagogical approaches in effectively fostering sustainability competencies.
[27]	A framework for integrating sustainable education into engineering courses at Malaysian technical Universities.	Although outside of direct scope of our research, the study presents key 21st century engineering competencies based on national (Courses Outcomes defined by the Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) and the Malaysian Education Blueprint (Higher Education) and international UN’s Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) frameworks. The defined attributes are grouped in five dimensions: knowledge, application, system, quantify and optimize.
[28]	Assess whether complementary subjects in the engineering curriculum contribute to the development of competencies in Ethics, Social Responsibility and Sustainability (ERS) through the application of a questionnaire to several engineering students.	Although this study focuses on ERS and not SustLOs, it is still relevant because it addresses sustainability competencies integrated into a broader framework of ethics and social responsibility that can be translated to measurable SustLOs (describe as indicators in the study). The implicit SustLOs are organized under ERS dimensions: − Social Responsibility (Awareness, Commitment, Citizenship and Social Justice), − Ethics (Responsibility, Act with moral principles and professional values, Professional and personal ethics and Honesty) − Sustainability (Systemic, Discipline and regulations, Anticipatory, Strategic and Action competence for interventions) ERS were not improved most likely due to the insufficient hours of academic work Age positively influences perception of competencies
[29]	Address a gap in the literature on sustainability competencies in engineering education by exploring which competencies engineering students consider most important to develop as sustainable designers. This is achieved by asking students to rank 36 statements based on their perceived importance.	36 statements based on the 8 competencies for sustainability: system thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic thinking, collaboration, integrated problem solving, adaptability and flexibility across different domain of knowledge (i.e., know what, know how, know how to be). Overall, students recognize the complexity of socio-environmental challenges and value cross-disciplinary expertise and see collaboration as a key skill that enables sustainable solutions.
[30]	Assess whether Earth System Literacy (ESL) can fill gaps in sustainability competencies in engineering courses.	ESL can strengthen anticipatory, normative, strategic and systemic thinking competencies among engineering students Highlights the challenge of embedding ESL into existing curricula, while emphasizing that its integration is key to bridging the gap between technical skills and the environmental insight need for sustainable design The resume of the SustLO in Section 5.2 of the study provides a clearer and more comprehensive summary of expected student understanding (compared to information in Table 2).
[31]	Presents an integrated course curriculum that systematically incorporates sustainability and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) into engineering education at all levels (BSc, MSc and PhD)	Designed to gradually build competencies from basic life cycle thinking to advanced LCA methodologies. The curriculum serves as a unique and scalable example of how to integrate LCA across engineering.
[32]	Applied a theoretical assessment framework to assess how integrating Industrial Ecology (IE) into engineering curriculum supports sustainable development, using curriculum analysis, pedagogical strategies, unit assessments and alumni feedback.	IE enabled students to move beyond “end of pipe” thinking towards life cycle perspectives and preventive approaches. Active learning strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, real case studies) and pedagogical innovation (e.g., open book quizzes, documentaries) enhanced student engagement and understanding. Student feedback indicates that postgraduate students especially benefited by applying sustainability principles in their workplaces.

, the literature mainly explores diverse strategies for embedding sustainability in engineering education.

Several studies focus on curricular strategies and course design to reinforce sustainability competencies across different levels of engineering courses [27,31,32]. The use of pedagogical tools is also a central theme, with some studies investigating models such as the Doughnut model, Earth Literacy and Industrial Ecology to support the development of SustLOs [26,30,32]. Others concentrate on assessment methodologies such as competencies maps [14,19,21,22,23,24], the validation of sustainability initiatives in the courses, and the assessment of learning outcomes through student feedback [26,28,29,32]. One study explores which competencies students themselves perceive as most critical for becoming sustainable designers [29]. Together, these studies provide a comprehensive view of how sustainability competencies are taught, assessed and perceived in engineering education. However, most of the studies were not specifically dedicated to defining or analyzing SustLOs (often focusing on competence analysis), thus a literature gap was identified.

3.2. Categorization and Learning Level Assessment of the Identified SustLOs

Following the identification of the SustLOs in the literature, a categorization and level of learning assessment of the extensive database was conducted to structure the diverse SustLOs into meaningful groups and evaluate the expected depth of learning associated with each outcome and category.

Across the 14 articles, 154 SustLOs were identified (Table S1: Categorization of the Sustainability Learning Outcomes identified in the engineering literature). The studies reviewed, either directly or indirectly, adopted different ways to categorize the SustLOs (Table 2). In some studies, the SustLOs are categorized according to general competencies [20,26,29]. Other studies categorized SustLOs into dimensions such as knowledge and understanding, skills and applications, attitudes and values, collaboration and social responsibility and ethical, sustainability and holistic oriented thinking [14,20,24,25,27,28].

Considering the reviewed studies and the relevance for the present review, the 154 identified SustLOs were analyzed and grouped, based on similarity, into the following six categories (Table S1: Categorization of the Sustainability Learning Outcomes identified in the engineering literature):

• Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainability—focuses on the understanding/awareness of the fundamentals/principles of sustainability, the interdependence of the ecological, social and economic systems, or major sustainability challenges/problems from a local, national or international perspective.
• Sustainability Skills and Capabilities—focuses on generic cognitive and problem-solving skills to understand, analyze and address sustainability issues.
• Sustainable Engineering Applications (tools, frameworks and practical applications): focuses on the development of technical and methodological application of sustainability tools, methods, and frameworks to implement sustainable engineering solutions.
• Ethical/Social Responsibilities and Values—focuses on the development of ethical principles, social justice, and responsibility towards others (i.e., “what is the right thing to do?”)
• Personal and Professional Growth—focuses on self-awareness, lifelong learning to contribute to sustainable development (i.e., “Who am I as a professional, and how do I build my ability to act?”).
• Collaboration, Communication Skills and Stakeholder’s Role—represents the development of teamwork, communication, and stakeholder roles and engagement for inclusive and participatory in sustainability actions.

Although a dimension for “Personal and Professional Growth”” was not explicitly highlighted in the reviewed articles, the analysis of similarities among SustLOs revealed a set of SustLOs oriented towards self-awareness, reflexivity, and progressive development of skills over time. These outcomes emphasize how engineers understand and position themselves in relation to SD and built their skills to act as a change agents in complex SD challenges. This focus aligns with the self-awareness and action oriented competencies highlighted as critical for advancing in SD [33]. Recognizing “Personal and Professional Growth” as a separate category is also essential as it emphasizes that engineering students must develop the ability for continuous learning and to use innovation. This aligns with [1], which underscore that the achieving the SDGs depends on engineers’ ability to continuously reskill and upskill in response to rapid technological change, evolving labor and increasingly globalized practice contexts.

The distribution of SustLOs across the six categories is shown in Figure 2. Approximately half of the identified SustLOs (47%) are transversal, meaning that they fall within more than one category. This underscores the notion that SustLOs must be inherently multidimensional and interconnected, reflecting the reality that sustainability challenges do not exist in isolation but require integrated responses. The most prevalent category was “Sustainability Skills and Capabilities” (70 SustLOs) highlighting a strong focus on problem-solving and analytical skills. The prominence of the category “Ethical/Social Responsibility and Values” (39 SustLOS) along with the category “Collaboration and Communication Skills and Stakeholder’s Role”, further highlights the growing recognition of interpersonal and ethical SustLOs as essential to address sustainability challenges. Together, these trends, as illustrated in Figure 2, suggest a gradual shift in engineering education from a narrow technical knowledge toward a broader interdisciplinary, value-driven and problem-solving approach that combines societal and sustainability problem analyses with technical knowledge.

However, the high proportion of transversal SustLOs also poses important pedagogical and curricular challenges. Because many SustLOs are multidimensional (e.g., “Analyze complex problems drawing from multiple disciplines.”), their implementation depends on interdisciplinary teaching approaches, aligned across courses or disciplines. This requires a curriculum mapping, collaborative planning among teachers and stakeholders, and the use of interdisciplinary and active learning activities, such as project-based or capstone experiences, where multiple transversal outcomes can be authentically demonstrated and assessed.

To better understand the expected learning depth of the identified learning outcomes, a level of learning assessment was conducted across all categories, as shown in Figure 3.

As expected, the “Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainability” category contains the majority of SustLOs within the “Know” and “Know How” levels, reflecting its focus on conceptual understanding. In contrast, categories such as “Sustainability Skills and Capabilities” (44 SustLOs at the “Does” level), “Sustainable Engineering Application” (29 SustLOs at the “Does” level) and “Collaboration and Communication Skills and Stakeholder’s Role” (19 SustLOs at the “Does” level) exhibit an expected shift toward higher levels of learning, aligning with the more practical behavioral nature of the categories.

Interestingly, the “Ethical/Social Responsibility and Values” category was more evenly distributed across at “Know” and “Known How” levels (15 SustLOs each), suggesting that while ethical and social considerations are widely recognized as important (the category has 39 SustLOS, cited in 79% of the reviewed articles), they are often framed at the level of understanding and reflection rather than being translated into real world action or decision making. This pattern may reflect the complexity of assessing ethical behavior in practice, as well as challenges in designing learning experiences that authentically engage students in applied ethical dilemmas. A similar trend is observed in the “Personal and Professional Growth” category. Notably, this category has the smaller amount of SustLOs (9 SustLOs), and they fall mostly at the “Know How” level (5 SustLOs). One possible explanation is that while these SustLOs are essential, they are also abstract and difficult to measure. As such, framing them at the “Know How” level may reflect a pedagogical strategy, equipping the students to know how to use strategies and habits for personal development, even if their long-term application cannot be fully demonstrated within the scope of a formal course or degree.

Overall, as shown in Figure 3, the most common learning level across all categories was “Does”, (114 SustLOs), followed by “Know How” (73) and “Know” (55). This distribution highlights an important balance in engineering education for sustainable development that while technical and conceptual understanding remains vital, there is a clear shift towards outcomes that demand higher-order cognitive skills, such as critical thinking, systemic thinking, decision making and ethical reasoning. These learning outcomes equip engineering graduates not only with the ability to solve technical problems, but also to navigate complex, interdisciplinary environments where they must assess, and act upon the concerns, needs, interests and values of different sectors of society [20,25,30,32].

Together, Figure 2 and Figure 3, demonstrate that, in engineering, SustLOs are increasingly framed as practice oriented. However, “Ethical/Social Responsibility and Values” and “Personal and Professional Growth” SustLOs are comparatively less operationalized and assessed at lower levels of learning. This imbalance highlights an important area for further curriculum development and assessment innovation.

Finally, many of the 154 SustLOs overlap, revealing a degree of redundancy, as similar learning outcomes are often articulated using slightly different language. Consequently, this number can be significantly reduced through further analysis and synthesis.

3.3. Clustering and Refinement of SustLOs

The clustering and refinement process resulted in a consolidated final set of 23 SustLOs, a significant reduction from the original 154 SustLOs.

Table A1. Clustered and original Sustainability Learning Outcomes (SustLOs).

Nº	Clustered Sustainability Learning Outcomes	Nº	Sustainability Learning Outcomes identified in the Engineering Education Literature	Level
				Know	Know How	Does
CATEGORY
Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainability
1	Students understand sustainability challenges, locally and globally, by exploring their environmental, social, economic and technological causes, frameworks (for example SDG, Triple Bottom Line) and the potential of human and natural systems to support SD.	1	“To understand the current situation of the world and the challenges of our society from a sustainability perspective.”
		2	“Have a global insight into the mechanisms that underline sustainability problems.”
		3	“To know the causes that bought society to the current unsustainability and specially the role of technology.”
		4	“Have a knowledge of the concept and the framework of the concepts related to sustainable development and can see the relation between their knowledge and skills and this societal challenge”
		5	“To know the fundamentals of the Sustainability and Human Development paradigm.”
		6	“Knowledge about the sustainable development concept and political ambition.”
		7	“Have an understanding of the relation of technical systems and subsystems and of the social factors that partly determine the performance of a technology in practice.”
		9	“Knowledge of the interface between the focus area of the profession and natural and social systems (environmental impacts at large).”
		10	“Have a global insight into the technical and scientific dimensions of sustainable development and are aware of the economical and social dimension”
		11	“Acquiring understanding of the interrelation between product, process and environmental, and the dynamics of technological change.”
		17	“Are aware of the risks of unsustainable use of resources that are available to mankind.”
		18	“Learners know the main causes, consequences and proposed solutions to sustainability problems (social, economic and/or environmental), both local and global, especially in their professional field, for example, Sustainable Development Goals from Agenda 2030 and IPCC reports.”
		20	“Learners know the strategic role of their profession in sustainability and the direct and indirect consequences of the use of products and services related to their professional field on society, the economy and the environment.”
		26	“Know the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) principles.”
		27	“I am familiar with and care about local issues and their connection to national and global factors.”
		28	“I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community.”
		30	“I am aware of the potential of the human and natural resources in my environment for sustainable development.”
		33	“Understand Earth processes at different temporal and spatial scales, that influence the availability and sustainability of Earth resources.”
		40	“Definition and key elements of sustainability.”
		41	“Achieve a sound understanding of the basic theories of cleaner production and the triple bottom line principles of sustainable development;”
2	Students know key concepts and sustainable strategies related to products, projects and services across their life cycle.	12	Knowledge of the main topics and models that can be applied to the use of technology to achieve integrated ecological and technological objectives.”
		13	“To know the basic tools and strategies to the introduction of sustainability criteria in the final thesis work and in the development of the profession”
		36	“Comprehend and analyze sustainability in a life cycle perspective.”
		37	“Comprehend LCA and circular economy.”
		38	Comprehend and evaluate sustainability in a holistic perspective.”
3	Students know how to identify stakeholders and recognize the interconnection between environmental, social, economic and technological systems, the short and long-term and the local and global impact of engineering in relation to planetary boundaries.	8	“To know how the scientific and technological developments have helped to cover the basic needs and the development of environmental transformation capacities”
		14	“To recognize the causes of sustainability problems not only at the level of subsystems but also are able to overcome their disciplinary boundaries in creating structural solution.”
		15	“Are capable of identifying directions for solutions for sustainability questions and have an understanding of the implications of the possible solutions: in the long terms; in the other scale levels (geographically); in the other systems levels.”
		16	“Ability to identify systems—to think holistically in order to be able to handle complexity and balance between different dimensions of SD (to discern patterns, to understand cause-effect relationships, to understand conceptual models of systems, etc.).”
		19	“Learners understand the economic viability plan of a project in their professional field and identify the economic consequences it will have on society.”
		21	“Understand how their work interacts with society and the environment, locally and globally, in order to identify potential challenges, risk and impacts.”
		23	“An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.”
		24	“Ability to relate stakeholders to planetary limits and the social floor.”
		25	“Ability to relate planetary limits and the social floor to the design object.”
		29	“I anticipate and understand the impact of environmental changes on social and economic systems.”
		31	“Recognize what the local community needs to achieve sustainability.”
		32	“Recognize the civil community’s role in sustainability development.”
		34	“Recognize sustainability challenges and engineers’ role in achieving or improving environmental sustainability.”
		35	“Identification and optimization of resource consumption and environmental impacts for engineering projects.”
4	Students understand the systemic impacts of engineering on society and the environment across disciplines and their life cycle.	14	“To recognize the causes of sustainability problems not only at the level of subsystems but also are able to overcome their disciplinary boundaries in creating structural solution.”
		22	“An ability to analyze societal and environmental aspects of engineering activities. Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship.”
		28	“I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community.”
		29	“I anticipate and understand the impact of environmental changes on social and economic systems.”
		35	“Identification and optimization of resource consumption and environmental impacts for engineering projects.”
		36	“Comprehend and analyze sustainability in a life cycle perspective.”
		38	“Comprehend and evaluate sustainability in a holistic perspective.”
Sustainability Skills and Capabilities
1	Students know how to analyse sustainability considering the interconnection between environmental, social, economic and technological systems, the short and long-term and the local and global impact of engineering in relation to planetary boundaries.	1	“Ability to handle shifts in perspectives (interdisciplinarity, dynamics over time, local and global considerations, geographical differences, and cultural, social and political perspectives).”
		3	“Are capable of identifying directions for solutions for sustainability questions and have an understanding of the implications of the possible solutions: in the long terms; in the other scale levels (geographically); in the other systems levels.”
		4	“Ability to identify systems—to think holistically in order to be able to handle complexity and balance between different dimensions of SD (to discern patterns, to understand cause-effect relationships, to understand conceptual models of systems, etc.).”
		16	Understand how their work interacts with society and the environment, locally and globally, in order to identify potential challenges, risk and impacts.”
		22	“An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.”
		29	“Ability to relate stakeholders to planetary limits and the social floor.”
		30	“Ability to relate planetary limits and the social floor to the design object.”
		31	“Ability to contextualize complex system and interaction across ecological, social and environmental dimensions.”
		39	“Recognise the value of sustainability problem-solving competence.”
		40	“Consider the need for different skills for problem-solving.”
		43	“Recognise the need for changes during the sustainability project development process.”
		50	“Recognise that changes demanded by stakeholders require new approaches.”
		55	“See the whole and the composing parts of a given system.”
		62	“Understanding how e.g., different actors play a role in implementation of sustainable measures.”
2	Students know how to analyse practices, products and design approaches in their professional field.	8	Learners reflect critically about sustainability in their professional field.”
		10	“Learners understand the economic viability plan of a project in their professional field and identify the economic consequences it will have on society.”
		12	“Learners know how to analyse the alternatives to products or services in their professional field to decide which is the most sustainable.”
		13	“Learners know how to apply different sustainability approaches to production, consumption (responsible consumption) and recycling”
		23	“Ability to question design indicators.”
		24	“Ability to question the current way of designing in a company.”
		25	“Ability to question company practices.”
		45	“Identify any issues that may arise during the process of developing sustainability solutions.”
		47	“Identify the possible solutions for sustainability.”
		48	“Identify factors that affect the success or failure of interventions toward sustainability.”
		66	“Acquiring an overview of sustainability aspects to be considered when developing new technologies.”
3	Students develop and implement sustainable solutions in their professional field while considering technical, economic, social, ethical and environmental aspects.	2	“Ability to solve problems and develop projects under the Sustainability paradigm.”
		5	“Are capable to make a sound judgement between different directions of solutions, taking into account: i) uncertainties; ii) the dynamics of the technology; iii) the interest of different actors.”
		6	“Ability to identify ethical dilemmas and make decisions based partly on ethical considerations (accept that the decision may be based on both facts and ethical considerations).”
		7	“Participatory decision-making, to be able to use democratic principles.”
		11	“Learners are able to plan a project in their professional field, design an economic viability plan and follow-up the economic management throughout its useful life.”
		14	“Learners are able to bring new ideas and solutions to a project in their professional field to make it more sustainable, to propose sustainable projects, to follow-up and dismantle appropriately and to select which indicators will be used to measure sustainability.”
		15	“Learners are capable of exercising their profession and of actively participating in responsible action in the entities in which they develop their profession, taking into account ethical principles related to the values of sustainability (for example, equality; justice; the precautionary principle; prevention of damage; responsibility towards present and future generations; protection and restoration of a healthy environment; and social, economic and environmental human rights).”
		18	“Apply a holistic and systemic approach to solving problems and the ability to move beyond the tradition of breaking reality down into disconnected parts.”
		21	“An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal consideration.”
		26	“Ability to co-construct design indicators.”
		28	“Ability to propose a solution in response to the problem posed, i.e., how can sustainability issues be taken into account in the design?”
		33	“Optimise engineering designs to trade off across the three principles of sustainability (Profit, Planet & People).”
		34	“I analyse individually or in groups situations related to sustainability and their impact on society, the environment, and the economy, both locally and globally”
		36	“I create and provide critical and creative solutions to technology and engineering issues, always considering sustainability.”
		41	“Prepare mitigation plans when implementing sustainable solutions.”
		42	“Design strategies for solving sustainability problems.”
		44	“Deal with uncertainties while developing solutions for sustainability.”
		46	“Estimate the social, environmental, and economic implications of a decision.”
		49	“Accept the technological limitations to solve sustainability problems.”
		51	“Realign resources to meet the changing needs for sustainability.”
		53	“Adopt sustainable principles as an integral part of engineering practice”
		56	“Be open-minded to new sustainability concepts.”
		69	“Evaluate and develop sustainability strategies.”
4	Students assess, compare and adapt sustainability solutions and strategies using interdisciplinary tools, performance indicator and life cycle thinking while considering uncertainties, systemic constrains and stakeholders’ interests.	5	“Are capable to make a sound judgement between different directions of solutions, taking into account: i) uncertainties; ii) the dynamics of the technology; iii) the interest of different actors.”
		9	“Learners are able to relate a sustainability problem of a product or service in their professional field with the methods and strategies to face them.”
		14	“Learners are able to bring new ideas and solutions to a project in their professional field to make it more sustainable, to propose sustainable projects, to follow-up and dismantle appropriately and to select which indicators will be used to measure sustainability.”
		19	“Participate actively in the discussion and definition of economic, social, and technological policies to help redirect society towards more sustainable development.”
		20	“An ability to analyse societal and environmental aspects of engineering activities. Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship.”
		27	“Ability to listen to participants’ opinions and incorporate them into the search for indicators.”
		32	“Ability to use tools to measure sustainability performance of products, processes and design.”
		34	“I analyse individually or in groups situations related to sustainability and their impact on society, the environment, and the economy, both locally and globally”
		35	“I use resources sustainably in the prevention of negative impacts on the environmental and social and economic systems”
		37	“Use techniques to make decisions in addressing sustainable problems.”
		38	“Compare different frameworks for solving sustainability problems.”
		41	Prepare mitigation plans when implementing sustainable solutions.”
		44	“Deal with uncertainties while developing solutions for sustainability.”
		46	“Estimate the social, environmental, and economic implications of a decision.”
		49	“Accept the technological limitations to solve sustainability problems.”
		52	“Build scenarios based on goals for sustainability”
		54	“Measure the sustainable impact of technological solutions.”
		56	“Be open-minded to new sustainability concepts.”
		57	“Build criteria to participate in sustainable activities.”
		58	“Analyze complex problems drawing from multiple disciplines.”
		59	“Be critical towards engineering contributions to all dimensions of sustainability.”
		60	“Identification and optimization of resource consumption and environmental impacts for engineering projects.”
		61	“Comprehend and analyse sustainability in a life cycle perspective.”
		63	“Analyse and evaluate sustainability strategies.”
		64	“Comprehend and evaluate sustainability in a holistic perspective.”
		65	“Evaluate key characteristics of energy systems, waste and recycling systems, and natural resources, food and agriculture systems.”
		67	“Progress measurement (e.g., by defining performance indicators).”
		68	“Analyse the sustainability activities of an organization.”
		69	“Evaluate and develop sustainability strategies.”
		70	“Acquire the ability to use key methods and tools for corporate environmental and sustainability engineering and management from a social, economic and environmental perspective
Sustainable Engineering (Tool, framework and practical applications)
1	Students know key tools and metrics to assess environmental, social, and economic impacts of products, projects and services across their life cycle.	2	“Learners know metrics (or tools) to measure the environmental impact of products and services related to their professional field (for example, environmental footprint, pollutant emissions, resource/energy consumption, biodiversity impact, waste generation, Directive 2014/95/UE for non-financial reporting, etc.).”
		3	“Learners know strategies and/or technologies for reduction, reuse and recycling of natural resources and waste related to products and services in their professional field.”
		6	“Learners know metrics (or tools) to measure and describe the social impact of products and services related to their professional field (for example, social life cycle assessment, ISO 26000, Directive 2014/95/UE for non-financial reporting, etc.).”
		9	“Learners know the basic concepts of resource management applicable to the management of projects in their professional field and methods (or tools) to estimate their economic viability (for example, fixed and variable costs, amortization, budgets, Gantt diagrams, externalities analysis, CANVAS analysis, SWOT analysis, business plans, strategic plans, cost–benefit analysis, etc.).”
		10	“Learners know different economic approaches that promote sustainable development (for example, circular economy, economy of the common good, social economy, ecological economy, etc.).”
		26	“Knowledge and capabilities regarding corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) and carbon footprint (CFP).”
		27	“Comprehend and analyse sustainability in a life cycle perspective.”
		30	“Comprehend LCA and circular economy.”
2	Students how to select the appropriate tools and metrics for assessing the environmental, social and economic impacts of products, projects and services throughout their lifecycle in their professional field.	4	“Learners know how to use appropriate metrics (or tools) to measure the environmental impact of products and services related to their professional field throughout their life cycle (extraction, production, use and end of life).”
		7	“Learners know how to use appropriate metrics (or tools) to measure the social impact of products and services related to their professional field.”
		21	“Identify any issues that may arise during the process of developing sustainability solutions.”
		26	“Knowledge and capabilities regarding corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) and carbon footprint (CFP).”
3	Students are able to apply sustainability tools and frameworks to assess, design and optimise sustainable products, services or projects.	1	“Learners are able to relate a sustainability problem of a product or service in their professional field with the methods and strategies to face them.”
		5	“Learners take into account environmental criteria in projects related to their professional field and include indicators to estimate/measure environmental impact.”
		8	“Learners take into account security, health and social justice criteria in their projects and actions and include indicators to measure social impact.”
		11	“Learners are able to bring new ideas and solutions to a project in their professional field to make it more sustainable, to propose sustainable projects, to follow-up and dismantle appropriately and to select which indicators will be used to measure sustainability.”
		12	“Learners are able to use techniques and/or tools to promote collaboration and cooperation in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contexts in their professional field, participating in processes of reflection and decision making as agents of change towards sustainable transitions.”
		13	“An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal consideration.”
		14	“Apply sustainability practice and design.”
		15	“Ability to use tools to measure sustainability performance of products, processes and design.”
		16	“Optimise engineering designs to trade off across the three principles of sustainability (Profit, Planet & People).”
		17	“Use techniques to make decisions in addressing sustainable problems.”
		18	“Compare different frameworks for solving sustainability problems.”
		19	“Prepare mitigation plans when implementing sustainable solutions.”
		20	“Design strategies for solving sustainability problems.”
		22	“Build scenarios based on goals for sustainability”
		24	“Use tools to test interventions for sustainable development.
		25	“Quantification and analysis of environmental impacts from buildings, components and products eco-design (synthesis oriented).”
		27	“Comprehend and analyse sustainability in a life cycle perspective.”
		31	“Evaluate key characteristics of energy systems, waste and recycling systems, and natural resources, food and agriculture systems.”
		32	“Apply a number of tools (e.g., simple LCA, actor network analysis, strategy canvas etc.).”
		33	“Application and implementation of Life Cycle Management (LCM) in industrial organizations.”
		34	“Application of instruments e.g., ecolabels, ISO standards, Carbon Footprints, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems.”
		35	“Progress measurement (e.g., by defining performance indicators).”
4	Students are able to assess sustainability strategies, business models and organisational practices from a system and life cycle perspective.	23	“Measure the sustainable impact of technological solutions.”
		27	“Comprehend and analyse sustainability in a life cycle perspective.”
		28	“Analyse and evaluate sustainability strategies.”
		29	“Analyse and build sustainable business models.”
		36	“Analyse the sustainability activities of an organization.”
		37	“Evaluate and develop sustainability strategies.”
		38	“Quantitative assessment of sustainability with special focus on environmental life cycle assessment.”
		39	“Acquire the ability to use key methods and tools for corporate environmental and sustainability engineering and management from a social, economic and environmental perspective.”
Ethical/Social Responsibilities and Values
1	Students know the direct and indirect impacts of products, services, projects and professional actions on health, security and social justice.	9	“Learners know the basic concepts of health, security and social justice related to their professional field (for example, ergonomics, accessibility, user experience, equity, diversity, common good, transparency, human rights, gender perspective, needs of the most vulnerable groups, discrimination, dignity, anticorruption, etc.).”
		10	“Learners understand the direct and indirect consequences for security, health and social justice of products and services related to their professional field.”
		39	Knowledge and capabilities regarding corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) and carbon footprint (CFP).”
2	Students know how sustainability and ethics are integrated in the codes of law and corporate responsibility frameworks in the context of engineering.	12	“Learners know the code of ethics of their profession, the main ethical issues, and the laws and regulations related to sustainability.”
		13	“Learners know the concepts of social commitment and corporate social responsibility, as well as their possibilities and limitations.”
		39	Knowledge and capabilities regarding corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) and carbon footprint (CFP).”
3	Students know ethical principles, responsibilities and values related to sustainability in professional and societal context.	4	“Acknowledge the challenge to contribute from their profession to sustainable development.”
		5	“Ethical sense and consciousness of the human and professional activity.”
		6	“Respect for the past, current and future generations.”
		7	“Respect for the environment.”
		8	“Respect for the diversity.”
		12	“Learners know the code of ethics of their profession, the main ethical issues, and the laws and regulations related to sustainability.”
		13	“Learners know the concepts of social commitment and corporate social responsibility, as well as their possibilities and limitations.”
		16	“Understand the contribution of their work in different cultural, social and political contexts and take those differences into account.”
		26	“I am aware that I am in the world to contribute responsibly to its transformation.”
		27	“I understand that being part of this world entails a responsibility towards the members of a group or organization for the benefit of society.”
		28	“I am familiar and care about local issues and their connection to national and global factors”
		30	“I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community.”
4	Students are able to identify and question ethical dilemmas and company practices, as well as consider their own role as engineers and individuals within the context of sustainability.	1	“Ability to reflect on the professional role and responsibility as well as citizenship in relation to SD in a structured way.”
		2	“Ability to identify ethical dilemmas and make decisions based partly on ethical considerations (accept that the decision may be based on both facts and ethical considerations).”
		17	“An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.”
		18	Ability to question design indicators.”
		19	“Ability to question the current way of designing in a company.”
		20	“Ability to question company practices.”
		24	“Ability to question one’s role in society.”
		25	“Ability to question the role of the engineer within the company.”
		29	“To be a good professional, I cannot ignore the problems of the society I live in.”
		33	“Recognise sustainability values as part of professional ethics.”
		38	“Recognize sustainability challenges and engineers’ role in achieving or improving environmental sustainability.”
		39	Knowledge and capabilities regarding corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) and carbon footprint (CFP).”
		32	Formulate a vision of a fair and sustainable society.”
		35	Recognise what the local community needs to achieve sustainability.”
		36	Recognise the civil community’s role in sustainability development.”
5	Students are able to apply ethical principal and sustainability principal in their profession (for example, by engaging in participatory decision making, take into account stakeholders’ values/expectations, consider social, economic and environmental human rights)	3	“Participatory decision-making, to be able to use democratic principles.”
		11	“Learners take into account security, health and social justice criteria in their projects and actions and include indicators to measure social impact.”
		14	“Learners are capable of identifying and critically assessing the implications of ethical and deontological principles related to the values of sustainability in their professional field and of critically assessing the responsible action of companies.”
		15	“Learners are capable of exercising their profession and of actively participating in responsible action in the entities in which they develop their profession, taking into account ethical principles related to the values of sustainability (for example, equality; justice; the precautionary principle; prevention of damage; responsibility towards present and future generations; protection and restoration of a healthy environment; and social, economic and environmental human rights).”
		21	“Ability to take stakeholders’ expectations into account.”
		22	“Ability to take account of stakeholders’ values/expectations.”
		23	“Ability to negotiate with participants to take account of all the planetary limits and the social floor.”
		30	“I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community.”
		31	“I am coherent in my actions, respecting and appreciating (biological, social, cultural) diversity and committing myself to improving sustainability.”
		34	“Adopt sustainable principles as an integral part of engineering practice”
		37	“Be critical towards engineering contributions to all dimensions of sustainability.”
Personal and Professional growth
1	Students know how to reflect their professional and societal roles and responsibilities in relation to sustainable development.	1	“Ability to reflect on the professional role and responsibility as well as citizenship in relation to SD in a structured way.”
		2	“Acknowledge the challenge to contribute from their profession to sustainable development.”
		3	“Learners reflect critically about sustainability in their professional field.”
		4	“Ability to question one’s role in society.”
		5	“Ability to question the role of the engineer within the company.”
		6	“To be a good professional, I cannot ignore the problems of the society I live in.”
2	Students are able to apply research and innovation methods to support sustainable development projects under their professional activities	7	“I am aware of the importance of sustainability in society. I learn and then I impact my community.”
		8	“Explore research and innovation (R&I) opportunities to contribute to sustainability.”
		9	“Build criteria to participate in sustainable activities.”
Collaboration and Communication Skills and Stakeholder’s Role
1	Students know the roles, responsibilities related to the stakeholder involvement in economic, environmental and their professional field.	6	“Learners know the roles, rights and duties of the different stakeholders (professionals, companies, legislation, clients, consumers, etc.) in the production and consumption of products and services related to their professional field.”
		7	“Learners know the main economic and environmental stakeholders related to their professional field.”
		8	“Learners know techniques and/or tools to promote, in processes and projects in their professional field, stakeholders’ collaboration, the consideration of needs and expectations (information processes, consultation, participation and integration) and cooperation among them (scenario-building techniques, cocreation of knowledge, etc.).”
2	Students are able to identify and recognise stakeholders and their relevance and expectations in relation to sustainability challenges and projects and solutions that consider systemic causes, planetary boundaries and social foundations.	2	“To recognise the causes of sustainability problems not only at the level of subsystems but also are able to overcome their disciplinary boundaries in creating structural solution.”
		9	“Learners know how to collaborate with the different stakeholders involved in a project in their professional field, to identify their needs and expectations and to assess the implications they may have on the sustainability of the project.”
		18	“Ability to identify the stakeholders in relation to the designed object.”
		19	“Ability to relate stakeholders to planetary limits and the social floor.”
		24	“Recognise that changes demanded by stakeholders require new approaches.”
		26	“Identify collaborative approaches to solving sustainability issues.”
		28	“Understanding how e.g., different actors play a role in implementation of sustainable measures.”
3	Students are able to assess and compare alternative sustainability solutions considering uncertainties, technological changes, and stakeholders’ interests.	4	“Are capable to make a sound judgement between different directions of solutions, taking into account: i) uncertainties; ii) the dynamics of the technology; iii) the interest of different actors.”
		12	Participate actively in the discussion and definition of economic, social, and technological policies to help redirect society towards more sustainable development.”
		13	“Listen closely to the demands of citizens and others stake holders and let them have a say in the development of new technologies and infrastructures.”
		27	“Analyze complex problems drawing from multiple disciplines.”
4	Students collaborate with diverse stakeholders and interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams to co-create and implement sustainable solutions	1	“To cooperate with other technical and non-technical disciplines in designing and managing technical systems, and to communicate adequately with other stakeholders/actors in the surrounding of technical systems in question.”
		3	“Ability to handle shifts in perspectives (interdisciplinarity, dynamics over time, local and global considerations, geographical differences, and cultural, social and political perspectives).”
		5	“Participatory decision-making, to be able to use democratic principles.”
		10	“Learners are able to use techniques and/or tools to promote collaboration and cooperation in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contexts in their professional field, participating in processes of reflection and decision making as agents of change towards sustainable transitions.”
		11	“Work in multidisciplinary teams in order to adapt current technology to the demands imposed by sustainable lifestyles, resource efficiency, pollution prevention, and waste management.”
		14	“An ability to function effectively in national and international contexts, as a member or leader of a team, that may be composed of different disciplines and levels, and that may use virtual communication tools.”
		15	“Ability to co-construct design indicators.”
		16	“Ability to listen to participants’ opinions and incorporate them into the search for indicators.”
		17	“Ability to take stakeholders’ expectations into account.”
		20	“Ability to take account of stakeholders’ values/expectations.”
		21	“Ability to negotiate with participants to take account of all the planetary limits and the social floor.”
		22	“Collaborate with experts from different disciplines to solve sustainability problems.”
		23	“Work with multiple teams on solving sustainability problems.”
		25	“Value stakeholder feedback”
		29	“Strengthen multidisciplinary teamwork skills through group project participation and project delivery.”

Note: Underlined text refers to the verbs and SustLO that were considered.

shows the global results of this process, presenting individual and mutually exclusive SustLOs for each category, alongside the SustLOs from which they were derived. During this refinement, certain identified SustLOs were intentionally excluded to maintain conceptual focus and avoid inflating the list with nuanced repetitions. For instance, in the “Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainability” category only SustLOs in the “Know” and “Know How” levels were retained, despite the presence of some “Does” level verbs in the initial dataset. On the other hand, the “Sustainability Skills and Capabilities” category includes only “Know How” and “Does” levels even though some “Know” level SustLOs were initially identified. These decisions result from the presence of multiple learning level verbs (e.g., comprehend and assess) within identified SustLOs. Moreover, SustLOs at the “Does” level that relate to the application of sustainability knowledge often intersect with more practice-oriented categories such as “Sustainability Skills and Capabilities” and “Sustainable Engineering Applications”. Similarly, including “Know” level outcomes in practice-oriented categories risks overlapping with the foundational knowledge category. As such, the absence of certain learning levels in specific categories does not imply a diminished emphasis on either knowledge acquisition or action-based learning, rather it represents a deliberate refinement of the role that each category plays within the overall framework, ensuring conceptual coherence and minimizing redundancy.

The framework of 23 SustLOs across categories and learning levels is shown in

Table 3. Proposed Sustainability Learning Outcomes Framework.

Number	Sustainability Learning Outcome	Level
Knowledge and Understanding of Sustainability
1	Students understand sustainability challenges, locally and globally, by exploring their environmental, social, economic and technological causes, frameworks (for example SDG, Triple Bottom Line) and the potential of human and natural systems to support SD.	Know
2	Students know key concepts and sustainable strategies related to products, projects and services across their life cycle.	Know
3	Students know how to identify stakeholders and recognize the interconnection between environmental, social, economic and technological systems, the short and long-term and the local and global impact of engineering in relation to planetary boundaries.	Know How
4	Students understand the systemic impacts of engineering on society and the environment across disciplines and their life cycle.	Know How
Sustainability Skills and Capabilities
5	Students know how to analyze sustainability considering the interconnection between environmental, social, economic and technological systems, the short and long-term and the local and global impact of engineering in relation to planetary boundaries.	Know How
6	Students know how to analyze practices, products and design approaches in their professional field.	Know How
7	Students develop and implement sustainable solutions in their professional field while considering technical, economic, social, ethical and environmental aspects.	Does
8	Students assess, compare and adapt sustainability solutions and strategies using interdisciplinary tools, performance indicator and life cycle thinking while considering uncertainties, systemic constrains and stakeholders’ interests.	Does
	Sustainable Engineering Applications
9	Students know key tools and metrics to assess environmental, social, and economic impacts of products, projects and services across their life cycle.	Know
10	Students know how to select the appropriate tools and metrics for assessing the environmental, social and economic impacts of products, projects and services throughout their lifecycle in their professional field.	Know How
11	Students are able to apply sustainability tools and frameworks to assess, design and optimize sustainable products, services or projects.	Does
12	Students are able to assess sustainability strategies, business models and organizational practices from a system and life cycle perspective.	Does
Ethical/Social Responsibilities and Values
13	Students know the direct and indirect impacts of products, services, projects and professional actions on health, security and social justice.	Know
14	Students know how sustainability and ethics are integrated in the codes of law and corporate responsibility frameworks in the context of engineering.	Know
15	Students know ethical principles, responsibilities and values related to sustainability in professional and societal context.	Know
16	Students are able to identify and question ethical dilemmas and company practices.	Know How
17	Students are able to apply ethical principal and sustainability principal in their profession (for example, by engaging in participatory decision making, take into account stakeholders’ values/expectations, consider social, economic and environmental human rights)	Does
	Personal and Professional Growth
18	Students know how to reflect their professional and societal roles and responsibilities in relation to sustainable development.	Know
19	Students are able to apply research and innovation methods to support sustainable development projects under their professional activities.	Know How
Collaboration, Communication Skills and Stakeholder’s Role
20	Students know the roles, responsibilities related to the stakeholder involvement in economic, environmental and their professional field.	Know
21	Students are able to identify and recognize stakeholders and their relevance and expectations in relation to sustainability challenges and projects and solutions that consider systemic causes, planetary boundaries and social foundations.	Know How
22	Students are able to assess and compare alternative sustainability solutions considering uncertainties, technological changes, and stakeholders’ interests.	Does
23	Students collaborate with diverse stakeholders and interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams to co-create and implement sustainable solutions	Does

.

Consistent with earlier findings, the categories “Ethical/Social Responsibility and Values” and “Personal and Professional Growth” contains residual expression of the “Does” level (only one and no SustLOs, respectively). The “Personal and Professional Growth” category also has the fewest proposed SustLOs overall (only 2). This reflects the inherent difficulty of assessing long-term ethical behavior and personal development within the scope of formal education.

Assessing SustLOs in the categories “Ethical/Social Responsibility and Values” and “Personal and Professional Growth” is a complex process, not only due to methodological gaps but also because these SustLOs are deeply context-dependent and qualitative. They are developed over extended periods and across varied academic, professional and societal settings, making them difficult to nearly impossible to capture through standardized or purely quantitative instruments. Reference [16] further highlights the lack of robust monitoring and measurement strategies to analyze students’ interior transformations. Despite this, several promising approaches have emerged, as mentioned previously, particularly active, problem-based, and self-directed learning designs that engage students in open-ended problem framing and problem solving in complex, real-world environments and require them to adapt and justify their solutions in light of explicit social and environmental conditions. This approach along with stakeholder engagement in the projects work, encourage students to engage with different worldviews and cultural perspectives, thereby fostering responsible engineering practices based on norms, ethics, and social and cultural diversity [16]. Along these pedagogical strategies, curriculum mapping to identify gaps, and student and alumni surveys to perceive the SustLOs acquired [24], can provide richer, triangulated evidence of students’ ethical and professional abilities.

Consequently, this study advocates for realistic SustLOs, rather than forcing behavioral outcomes that are difficult to assess over time since educators should aim to cultivate students’ ethical awareness and professional capacities in ways that support ongoing development beyond classroom [1].

Although the identified 154 SustLOs showed a predominance of the learning level Does (114), the final clustered framework presents a more balanced distribution: 8 at “Know, 8 at “Know How”, and 7 at “Does”. This shift reflects the aim of creating a manageable, representative and coherent framework. During the clustering process, the SustLOs were consolidated based not only on their learning level, but also on their semantic and conceptual similarity, as previously mentioned. Many “Does” level outcomes were highly similar and were therefore merged under a single representative SustLO. The result is a set of SustLOs that captures the diversity and depth of sustainability learning without redundancy.

Beyond this valid conceptual consolidation, it is acknowledged that the framework might require adjustments with further empirical work to refine the proposed SustLOs to capture fully and properly the categories and learning levels and thus ensure broad applicability.

Such set of SustLOs have high practical potential to support, in a simplified way, curriculum design. Its use can be operationalized within a real curriculum by identifying gaps both in relevant areas described at the category level and in the learning levels. As an example, a course that shows a gap in one category can make an analysis on ways to improve and integrate such areas in their curriculum. This might pass through redesigning pedagogic tools (active learning/project-based activities/students involvement in assessment), straightening the relation with students and stakeholders, introducing new contents in existing disciplines or even creating new disciplines. The framework thus not aim to define the path and the methodology to implement changes but rather establish a reference starting point for curriculum design.

4. Conclusions

This study aimed not only to conduct a comprehensive literature review of SustLOs in engineering education but also to develop a consolidated framework that resulted in 23 clear, coherent, and measurable SustLOs. This framework was derived through identification, categorization, learning level assessment and refinement of the SustLOs sourced from the existing literature.

Although most of the studies were not specifically dedicated to defining or analyzing SustLOs, a total of 154 relevant SustLOs were identified. These were classified into six categories, which facilitated the transformation of an extensive list into a structured framework, enabling the identification of outcomes that articulate similar underlying concepts. Furthermore, the learning level assessment provided insights into the depth and complexity of each identified outcome, allowing for the differentiation between similar statements. The findings from this analysis reinforce the understanding that sustainability in engineering education is inherently multidimensional and interconnected, extending well beyond isolated technical knowledge. Nearly half of the identified SustLOs were transversal (47%), i.e., falling into more than one category. Additionally, there was a clear emphasis on higher order learning levels, reflecting the importance of preparing future engineers with not only the technical knowledge, but also with the skills, values and attitudes needed to address technical challenges, navigate complex interdisciplinary contexts and thoughtfully address the diverse concerns and values of all stakeholders.

A clustering and refinement process was carried out to improve clarity and coherence, reducing the original 154 SustLOs to a final set of 23. Consequently, although the initial dataset was heavily weighted towards higher level outcomes, particularly “Does”, the final framework represents a more balanced distribution across levels and categories. Notably, the categories “Ethical/Social Responsibility and Values” and “Personal and Professional Growth” remain underrepresented at the “Does” level. This does not indicate less importance but rather reflects the inherent challenges of measuring long-term ethical and personal development within the scope of formal education. As such, the framework advocates realistic learning outcomes, recognizing the limitations of what can be assessed in formal education, while still emphasizing the need to foster ethical awareness and lifelong growth.

The process of identifying, categorizing and assessing the learning level of the 154 SustLOs, and subsequently clustering them, offers a comprehensive perspective on how sustainability is currently conceptualized and intended to be integrated into engineering education. The resulting set of 23 refined SustLOs is a synthesis that aligns with educational priorities and responds to the need for greater transparency, consistency and comparability. This framework is a valuable step towards fostering greater global coherence in defining and implementing sustainability learning outcomes in engineering curricula.

Despite these contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the literature review was restricted to Scopus and Web of Science and to studies only available in English, which may have excluded relevant papers published in other languages, regional journals or alternative databases, and thus may not fully represent global practice. Secondly, the translation of competencies to SustLOs, subsequent categorization, learning level assessment, and clustering were based on qualitative, expert-driven judgment. Although systematic decision rules and author triangulation were used, other interpretations are possible. Third, the resulting framework is intentionally generic, formulated at a level that supports broad applicability, as such, it may not fully capture all cultural, disciplinary or institutional particularities. Fourth, the framework remains predominantly conceptual as no systematic implementation or longitudinal validation in specific courses was conducted. These limitations reinforce that the framework should be viewed as a reference point that requires further empirical work to test, contextualize and refine the proposed SustLOs.

Future research should focus on testing and validating this framework across different engineering courses, institutions and regions to understand how it translates into teaching, how it influences student learning and development and how it can be assessed. Further research should also be devoted to developing assessment strategies for ethical, personal and long-term behavioral learning outcomes, which remain challenging but essential aspects of sustainability education.