Environmental Benefits of Digital Integration in the Built Environment: A Systematic Literature Review of Building Information Modelling–Life Cycle Assessment Practices

Abstract

Cities are significant contributors to climate change, environmental degradation, and resource depletion. To address these challenges, sustainable strategies in building design, construction, and management are essential, and digitalisation through the integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can enable it. However, the environmental benefits of BIM–LCA integration remain underexplored, limiting broader practical adoption. This study systematically reviews 80 case studies (2015–2025) to assess how recent applications address known barriers and to identify enablers of successful BIM–LCA workflows. The analysis highlights a growing alignment between technological, regulatory, and methodological advancements and practical implementation needs, especially as technical barriers are increasingly overcome. Nevertheless, systemic challenges related to institutional, behavioural, and socio-economic factors persist. From a stakeholder perspective, four thematic drivers were identified: material circularity and resource efficiency; integration with complementary assessment tools; energy-performance strategies for comfort and efficiency; and alignment with international certification systems. The study offers a stakeholder-oriented framework that demonstrates the multi-level value of BIM–LCA integration not only for environmental impact assessment but to support informed decision-making and reduce resource consumption. These insights aim to bridge the gap between academic research and practical implementation, contributing to the advancement of sustainable practices in the built environment.

1. Introduction

The Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) sector accounts for approximately 40% of global energy consumption and 37% of carbon emissions [1], positioning it among the most significant contributors to climate change. The negative environmental impacts are interconnected with a broader multidimensional crisis, often called a global “polycrisis” [2]. To diminish the pressure that anthropic activities are creating on both ecological systems and human well-being, it is necessary to reduce the environmental footprint of urban development by improving the sustainability of building design and construction processes. The digitalisation of the construction sector emerges as an opportunity to provide a paradigm shift, disrupting the traditional method of assessing the complex and cross-cutting impacts generated by the built environment. Digital-based methodologies such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) enable a shift away from conventional, siloed approaches by supporting integrated, data-driven decision-making. The integration of BIM and LCA tools provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of construction projects, facilitating the comparison of design alternatives and the selection of more sustainable strategies. The main objectives of this research are the following: (1) to extract key technological, regulatory, and methodological advancements related to BIM–LCA integration recently developed; (2) to address whether the identified gaps from the literature are being confronted, or if further investigation and advancement are needed; (3) to summarize the benefits that BIM–LCA integration can provide in terms of sustainability enhancement, through the recognition of four categories of interest for stakeholders of the AEC sector.

The research is guided by the following questions:

• What gaps in the BIM–LCA literature are being addressed by recent research, and which areas still require further exploration?
• What main technological, regulatory, and methodological developments have emerged between 2015 and 2025 to support BIM–LCA integration?
• What sustainability benefits does BIM–LCA integration offer, and how are these aligned with practical stakeholder interests?

To address the three main Research Questions, a two-tiered methodology was employed (Figure 1). First, a theoretical framework was developed through the analysis of existing literature reviews to collect frequent gaps in research and practice. It resulted in the identification of recurring operational and strategic barriers that hinder the widespread implementation of BIM–LCA integration in practical applications. In the second phase, a systematic review of scientific articles presenting case studies of BIM–LCA integration was conducted. This systematic review aimed to highlight the most promising recent advancements and to categorize emerging stakeholder areas of interest. The results included the identification of 15 key technological, regulatory, and methodological advancements, alongside four primary categories of stakeholder concern: Circular Economy, Integrated Management, High-Performance Buildings, and Sustainability Certification.

The paper is structured into five sections. Section 1 introduces the study’s scope, objectives, and Research Questions. Section 2 describes the methodology implemented, organised in a theoretical framework and in a systematic review of case study articles. Section 3 presents the results of the literature review, namely lasting challenges, correlating advancements and key insights. Section 4 discusses the findings, and how they respond to the Research Questions. Finally, Section 5 highlights the study’s main conclusions and proposes directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical Framework

2.1.1. BIM–LCA Standards

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is based on intelligent and integrated digital tools and is characterized by extensive data embedded in each geometrical element [3]. This feature addresses one of the core limitations of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) calculations: the need for large volumes of detailed data [4]. BIM’s Common Data Environment (CDE) facilitates the retrieval of information required for LCA calculations, leading to an optimized and more detailed assessment of the design and construction process impacts [5]. LCA is a widely recognized method for quantifying the environmental impacts of buildings [6] and is the most commonly applied sustainability assessment tool in the AEC sector [7]. It is internationally standardised by ISO 14040 [8], and its application on the building is regulated on a European scale by BS EN 15804 [9]. The LCA methodology comprises four key phases:

• Goal and Scope Definition, where the purpose and boundaries of the assessment are established.
• Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI), that identifies inputs and outputs, such as materials, energy flows, emissions, and waste.
• Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), evaluating the environmental impacts of the inventory data.
• Results interpretation is the phase where the results are synthesized to draw conclusions and provide recommendations.

The LCA stages can be mapped to the life cycle phases of a building as defined by BS EN 15978, as schematized in

Table 1. LCA stages and building life cycle phase by EN 15978.

LCA Stage	Building Life Cycle Phase (BS EN 15978)
Goal and Scope Definition	Initial Planning and Design
Life Cycle Inventory Analysis	Production and Construction (Module A)
Life Cycle Impact Assessment	Use (Module B) and End-of-Life (Module C)
Interpretation	All Phases, including Beyond Life Cycle (Module D)

:

For LCA results to be contextualized into broader sustainability frameworks, it is necessary to incorporate a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts of construction projects. The integration of Absolute LCA and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) can be a critical advancement for LCA to guide stakeholders towards sustainable practices for the built environment. Absolute LCA permits to evaluate environmental impacts referring to science-based ecological thresholds of human activities such as the Planetary Boundaries [10], rather than relative benchmarks, aligning construction practices with global sustainability goals [11]. LCSA incorporates social and economic indicators alongside environmental assessments, providing comprehensiveness on the three main dimensions of sustainability.

To contextualize this research, previously existing literature reviews have been examined to identify recurrent gaps and highlight main findings.

Table 2. Resume of the previous literature reviews.

Ref.	Scope and Aim	Recognized Gaps	Main Findings
[12]	Current role of BIM to evaluate 3 BSA methods—LEED, BREEAM and SBTool, to determine which BSA method can currently take more advantage from BIM and to identify the number of assessed criteria from each one	BIM is not oriented towards sustainable building. As BSA are based on multidisciplinary approach, several different BIM tools are needed. Interoperability problems requiring time for model checking. Need to create common procedures and standards to support designers in performing a BSA with BIM.	Identification of which BSA criteria/categories can be assessed using BIM and which commonly used software can implement them.
[6]	BIM—LCA current integration approaches, and determine the pros and cons of the integration process from different viewpoints: (1) technical, (2) informational, (3) organizational and (4) functional issues	(1) Technical Issues (difficulties for the specialized LCA tools in processing BIM data); (2) Informational Issues: lack of extraction of quality and quantity of materials from BIM model; (3) Organizational Issues (automation of LCA in BIM-based processes requires clear industry standard), required for both LCA and BIM models	Major issues of the integration process are: (1) synchronized LCA methodology for necessary inputs identification; (2) developing information databases that ontologically and semantically conform to the BIM environment; (3) automated exchange of information between BIM and LCA tools
[13]	Present the main advancements of BIM applications in smart buildings, focused on IoT applications into buildings smart operations. It analyses (1) pre-, (2) during- and (3) post-construction life cycles of the project	Challenges due to BIM data interoperability and the integration of BIM generated energy models for buildings’ energy performance simulation	Pros and cons list of gbXML and IFC BIM file formats for integration of BIM models to BEPS tools
[14]	Identify solutions for BIM–LCA integration methods to overcome the interoperability issues and the challenges due to different LOD of BIM model	Environmental information is not automatically associated with the objects, their assignment increases uncertainty of the real environmental impacts of the project and forces the repetition of the process for each change within the BIM model.	Identification of solution for environmental information parametrisation on BIM objects, depending on specific LOD. List of LCA data according to the LOD of the project: generic information for LOD lower than 300; complete and reliable information based on EPDs for LOD higher than 300.
[15]	Description of methodologies and enabling factors for a BIM approach that can support and simplify data management for LCA analysis, enhancing BIM–LCA integration	Lack of available LCA software integrated in BIM tools, lack of BIM–LCA software databases added with information at various levels of detail for allowing early adoption during the design stages	Correlation between design stage and the LOD: (1) for early design (LOD 200 or below) the LCA information for phase A is relevant to define the workflow of the building design; (2) for detailed design (LOD 300 or above) the evaluation of phase B is necessary for an accurate LCA assessment.
[16]	Pros and cons of BIM-based LCAs, based on literary review, semi-structured interviews with SMEs, and use of the Delphi method	Challenges due to data management make BIM-based LCAs complex and laborious, lack of interoperability between BIM and LCA tools that prevents standardized and productive integration in the design phase	Main advantages of BIM-based LCAs: (1) early stages support for decision makers; (2) LCA integration in decision-making process; (3) different alternative comparison; and disadvantages (1) interoperability between LCA and BIM tools; (2) standardization of LCA procedures
[17]	Industry practice and needs for BIM–LCA, to understand the companies’ workflow in relation to the existing literature on BIM–LCA approaches and the challenges they meet in BIM–LCA, via eight semi-structured interviews with companies in the Danish building sector	Challenges related to the quality of the model and the role of supplementary sources to complete or detail the BoQ. Automation could be a possible solution to improve upon the data quality but can also be imprecise and reduce transparency in the process. Clear guidance for practitioners regarding automation of the process is needed.	The lack of quality and variations in modelling as challenges for practitioners, which points back to a management of the models not optimal for quantity take-off.
[4]	Identify evidence and best practices for the implementation of LCA in buildings	Early-design stages LCA is challenging as evaluating design alternatives is computationally expensive coupled with design choice uncertainty and a lack of detailed information; main challenges: (1) alignment with domain models and manufacturing systems; (2) reasoning and decision support tools; (3) efforts to scale up LCA from buildings to district level: (4) support of temporal information: (5) health and well-being considerations	Main accelerators: (1) facing actual limitations in semantic information; (2) lack of automatic mapping of BIM data and LCA, lack as-built and operation management information; (3) LCA studies at buildings aggregated level is scarce; (4) limited number of studies have tested the use of DLCA
[18]	BIM–LCA integration workflows, to synthesize benefits and challenges for construction industry stakeholders	(1) Data inaccuracy that lead to incorrect LCA results and limit the usefulness of the integration, (2) integrating data between BIM and LCA tools requires a seamless exchange of data, (3) lack of standardization in data and methods can make it difficult to compare results, (4) integrating BIM and LCA requires high technical expertise, (5) integrating BIM and LCA can be time-consuming and costly, (6) data security and privacy concerns	Accelerators: (1) Further development of BIM–LCA integration software; (2) standardization of data formats; (3) increased use of BIM–LCA integration in practice; (4) further case studies and comparative analysis; (5) investigation of the impact of BIM–LCA integration on other sustainability indicators
[19]	Diffusion of digital technologies in the building sector for LCA and other environmental assessment methods, and analysis of scientific documents from literature and JRC reports	The quantity of publications is still limited to validate the actual positive impact of digitalisation in the building industry. The full understanding of the environmental benefits of digital technologies still requires investigation.	BIM and 3D printing are the most diffused technologies for environmental assessment. Robotics studies for enhancing sustainability are very limited. Most of the work in the digital technology area is focused on the design and engineering process, whereas renovation and demolition process are barely addressed, and conservation and recycling of construction and demolition waste present a considerable challenge to the industry.
[20]	Reviews digital tools beyond LCA, including computational methods and circularity indicators, for supporting the Circular Economy (CE) in the built environment, to identify plugins that can be used in the design process by practitioners.	Lack of tools for circular design from reused building elements; larger adoption of LOIN guidelines in needed to structure BIM models for improving information sharing and collaboration.	Given the variety of digital tools, and methodological differences in LCAs, it remains challenging for practitioners to achieve CE objectives solely through digital workflows. Nevertheless, digital tools can help designers work towards these goals and evaluate circular design strategies more effectively.
[21]	Investigate integration of BIM, LCA and BEM to improve the environmental and sustainable approaches in the design and construction phases of green buildings.	(1) Informational issues: interoperability of BIM models, (2) operational issues: lack of standardization related to setting and defining BIM strategies; (3) BIM–BEM integration; (4) interoperability between LCA and BIM; (5) integration of BIM, LCA, and AI	(1) Interoperability of BIM model is not guaranteed even if there is the existence and management of the IFC standard ISO 16739-1:2018 [22]; (2) future research are needed on the implementation of the Building Execution Plan (BEP); (3) promising results utilising REVIT for the physical model and Green Building Studio for the energy model as tool; (4)AI assistant interface and the mediation environment used to translate spoken requests and obtain information into CSV files all have a high degree of compatibility.
[23]	Investigate digitalisation role in fostering circular economy in construction	(1) Efficiency: it should be ensured that digital aspects are included when discussing circular buildings; (2) creating a digital inventory of buildings constructed prior to using digital tools; (3) more than technological advancements: achieving circularity benefits requires systemic changes in institutions, behaviour, and socio-economic factors	(1) Life Cycle Integration: effectiveness of digitalisation of design and construction phases, where 3D designs and digital twins are prevalent; (2) enhance applicability to existing structures, highlighting the potential of technologies like 2D blueprint digitalisation and laser scanning for material reuse; (3) efficiency and CE Tools: efficiency gains from digital transformation in construction processes shoes the potential of embedding CE tools in BIM models.
[24]	Role of BIM software in streamlining the LCA process to enhance efficiency and accuracy: overview of BIM software, LCA tools, energy consumption tools, of BIM–LCA integration cases, green building certification systems.	(1) Specific LOD requirements: absence of a standard and well-defined concept for LOD does not allow accurate LCA calculations; (2) Degree of Automation: fully automated BIM–LCA integration can be unlocked via automatic matching of elements and materials from the BIM model to the knowledge database; (3) interoperability and data exchange	BIM–LCA in combination with other technologies, such as semantic web technology and GIS technology, can be a decisive advancement to overcome data interoperability challenges.
[25]	Identify enablers factors (dynamic parameters, processes, and methodologies) related to Dynamic LCA	Uncertainty in Building LCA due to temporal and spatial variations; standardisation of cut-off criteria to identify which dynamic processes and temporal variations should be incorporated	Overview of dynamic parameters: Energy evolution, Temperature change variations, Technological advancement, Carbonisation (carbon storage within buildings components), Material flows from replacement, Waste recycling rates, Characterisation factors (CFs), Weighting factors (WFs).
[26]	BIM–LCA in supporting embodied carbon evaluation (ECE) for early-design decisions, LCA databases and of data exchange methods between BIM and ECE.	Unclear boundaries for EC, lack of early-stage component-based design, inadequate database activity scenarios, insufficient design information for BIM data mapping, and limited exploration of DVs affecting EC	(1) Adopting comprehensive life cycle boundaries towards EC—A1-A5, B1B5, and C1-C4 to improve early-design decision-making; (2) developing standardized, customized LCI databases for enabling process-based design optimization in EIA; (3) uncertainty analysis or regional benchmarking systems validation of Design variables (DV)

presents a summary of the main literature reviews.

2.1.2. Barriers Identification

Previous scientific research has been conducted regarding BIM–LCA integration, and the main results obtained and unsolved gaps are collected and summarized in Table 2. From this analysis, it was possible to identify recurring barriers, categorized into two main groups: operational barriers and strategic barriers. Summarized findings from prior studies are presented in

Table 3. Common operational barriers retrieved from the academic literature reviews.

Operational Barrier	Description
Data Availability and Standardization	Lack of environmental data and database availability depending on geographical context
Software Interoperability	Data conflicts among BIM and LCA tools
Technical complexity	LOD and LOIN requirements, time consuming process
Accuracy and Reliability	Granularity of information at different BIM stages, uncertainties on quantification of results

and

Table 4. Common strategic barriers retrieved from the academic literature reviews.

Strategic Barrier	Description
Decision-making support	Early stage and design phase support, whole-life approach
Cost–benefits analysis	High initial costs, lack of comprehensive benefits assessment
Stakeholders support	No common standards and directives for structuring BIM models, LCA boundaries
Education and training	Lack of trained experts, comprehensive metrics for sustainable strategies evaluation

.

Operational Barriers:

• Data Availability and Standardization: The lack of standardized, geographically contextualized environmental data holds back the efficiency of LCA tools to offer accurate and replicable results [12,26].
• Software Interoperability: Interoperability between different BIM and LCA software remains a challenge due to different data format conflicts [6]. These challenges still obstruct the efficiency of data exchange for workflows that encompass the utilization of different software.
• Technical Complexity: The integration process demands precise definitions of Level of Development (LOD) and Level of Information Need (LOIN), making it resource-intensive and requiring specialized expertise [4,11,24].
• Accuracy and Reliability: LCA results often lack accuracy and consistency, which undermines its reliability as an assessment tool. The most common gap identified from the literature that compromises results accuracy is data granularity uncertainty, which can hinder credibility of LCA as a decision-support tool [18].

Strategic barriers:

• Decision-making Support: To effectively steer a more informed decision-making process, LCA must be integrated during early design phases when decisions have the most influence on sustainability outcomes [20].
• Cost–benefits Analysis: Integration of digital-based methodologies such as BIM and LCA usually means high initial implementation costs, as well as challenges of quantification of comprehensive benefits of its adoption [13,19]. This can be a strong barrier for practical stakeholders, especially among small- and medium-sized enterprises, exacerbated also by struggles with the quantification of return on investment of long-term environmental gains.
• Stakeholders Support: The lack of standardized protocols for BIM object definitions and LCA system boundaries impedes smooth collaboration and weakens the benefits of shared digital environments [15,25].
• Education and Training: A substantial skills gap has been recognized in the use of BIM and LCA tools in the AEC sector [23,24]. The standardization of sustainability metrics can help the information related to tools requirements and results communication, to uniformize assessment deliveries.

2.2. Systematic Review of Case Studies

A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate recent scientific articles involving BIM–LCA integration in case studies of new construction projects. The methodology followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, integrated with a snowball sampling approach to identify additional relevant publications. Two academic databases served as the basis, namely Scopus and Web of Science, where articles published between 2015 and 2025 from peer-reviewed journals were retrieved. The keywords used were: BIM, LCA, Buil*, and Sustain*. These terms were queried within titles, abstracts, and keywords, and interconnected between them using Boolean “AND” operators to ensure thematic relevance and interconnection between the topics. Wildcards (e.g., Buil* and Sustain*) enabled the capture of all variations, such as building, built, or sustainability.

The selection criteria used to define the final sample of studies were summarized as follows:

• Language: English.
• Document type: Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers.
• Databases searched: Scopus and Web of Science.
• Publication period: 2015–2025.
• Screening process: Studies were included based on title, abstract, and full-text relevance to BIM–LCA integration.

The review process identified a final dataset of 53 articles after applying the following three exclusion criteria:

• Papers that do not assess nor aim to improve environmental sustainability impacts of building design, construction, or management processes.
• Studies focused solely on single life-cycle building phases, without evaluating impacts across multiple phases.
• Research with a narrow technological focus, lacking broader methodological replicability.

An additional 27 articles were incorporated through snowball sampling, resulting in a total of 80 sources included in the review (Figure 2).

The drafted selection and exclusion criteria have led to the identification of mostly papers belonging to academic literature. Documentation from industry-based implementation remains limited, as peer-reviewed scientific publications remain predominant as sources of systematic literature reviews. The selected sample reflects the research-oriented perspective on BIM–LCA integration as a tool to boost sustainability performance of building projects, highlighting recent theoretical developments.

3. Results

The following section provides a comprehensive analysis of the papers selected after the exclusion process performed within the PRISMA and the snowball sampling selection. It is divided in two parts: first, the most innovative findings presented in each case study were extracted and collected as technological, regulatory, and methodological advancements. Secondly, emerging themes of interest were analyzed and clustered into four benefit areas. A resume of the analyzed papers is schematize in

Table A1. Papers presenting the case studies analysed.

Ref.	CE	IM	HPB	SC	BIM	LCA Tool	Energy Analysis/Optimization	Database	Case Study Country
[50]	X	-	-	-	Revit	Manual Calculation	Ecotect	-	China
[51]	-	X	X	-	ArchiCAD	Excel-based	EcoDesigner	Korea Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)	South Korea
[52]	-	X	X	-	Revit	FME	IDA ICE	EPDs	Sweden
[53]	X	-	X	-	Revit	Dynamo	-	EcoInvent	Switzerland
[54]	-	-	X	-	ArchiCAD	Excel-based	DesignBuilder—EnergyPlus	EcoInvent	Uruguay
[55]	X	-	-	-	Revit	Excel	-	-	Italy
[56]	X	-	-	-	-	OpenLCA	-	EcoInvent	-
[57]	-	X	X	X	Revit	PREMISE	-	EcoInvent	Luxembourg
[58]	X	-	-	-	Revit	Tally	-	EcoInvent	-
[59]	X	X	-	-	Revit	Dynamo	-	Cype	Portugal
[12]	-	-	X	-	Revit	Tally	-	Cype	Portugal
[60]	X	-	X	-	Revit	eBalance	EnergyPlus	Life Cycle Data Network (LCDN)	China
[61]	X	-	-	-	Rhino	Excel	Report of the building (existing)	KBOB	Switzerland
[62]	X	-	-	-	Revit	Dynamo	-	KBOB	Switzerland
[63]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Tally	GreenBuilding Studio	GaBi	Brazil
[64]	X	X	-	-	Revit	OpenLCA	-	EcoInvent	Canada
[65]	-	-	X	-	Revit	Self-developed	-	Life Cycle Data Network (LCDN)	The Netherlands
[66]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Excel-based	IES-VE	ICE	Ghana
[67]	-	-	X	X	Revit	Tally	GreenBuilding Studio	GaBi	Ghana
[37]	-	-	X	-	-	-	EnergyPlus	ÖKOBAUDAT	Germany
[68]	-	X	-	X	-	GENERIS	-	ÖKOBAUDAT	Germany
[69]	-	X	-	-	Revit	Self-developed	Self-developed	KBOB	Switzerland
[70]	-	X	-	-	-	-	-	EPDs	Germany
[71]	-	X	-	-	Revit	Self-developed	CYPE	EcoInvent	Egypt
[43]	-	X	X	-	BIM-DLCA	BEPAS	GreenBuilding Studio	CLCD	China
[72]	X	X	-	-	Revit	Dynamo	-	EDPs	The Netherlands
[73]	-	-	-	X	Luban	Excel-based	-	-	China
[74]	-	X	-	X	Revit	Tally	Green Building Studio	GaBi	Brazil
[75]	-	X	-	-	Revit	Dynamo	-	EPDs	-
[76]	-	X	-	-	Revit	Tally	-	GaBi	Spain
[34]	-	-	-	X	-	Athena estimator	-	Athena	USA
[39]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Excel-based	-	-	-
[77]	-	-	X	X	Revit	Tally	FirstRate5—Risk Palisade	TRACI	Australia
[78]	-	X	-	X	Revit	SimaPro	-	Peru LCA	Peru
[17]	X	-	-	X	-	LCAbyg	-	ÖKOBAUDAT	Denmark
[79]	X	-	-	-	GTJ	-	-	-	China
[80]	X	X	-	-	Revit	Excel-based	-	-	-
[81]	-	X	-	X	Revit	Tally	-	GaBi	Brazil
[82]	X	-	-	-	Revit	Self-developed	-	ÖKOBAUDAT	Denmark
[83]	-	-	X	-	Revit	-	-	EcoHestia	Cyprus
[84]	-	X	-	X	Revit	Dynamo	buildingSMART Spain	BCCA	Spain
[5]	-	-	-	X	-	-	-	BCCA	Spain
[85]	X	X	-	-	Revit	Self-developed	-	GaBi	China
[86]	-	X	-	-	Revit	-	Green Building Studio	Glondon GTJ2018	China
[87]	X	X	-	-	Revit	OneClickLCA	-	EPDs	Egypt
[88]	X	-	X	-	Revit	Self-developed	TRNSYS	MEXICANIUH	Mexico
[29]	X	X	X	-	Rhino	-	Ladybug and Honeybee	Athena	Iran
[27]	X	X	X	-	Self-developed	Self-developed	Autodesk Insight	Cype	Portugal
[44]	-	-	X	X	Revit	Active House AH-LCA	-	ÖKOBAUDAT	Italy
[35]	-	X	X	-	Revit	OneClickLCA	Design Studio	EPDs	Denmark
[89]	X	X	-	-	Revit	SimaPro	HOT2000	Athena	Canada
[36]	X	-	-	-	-	LCAbyg	-	ÖKOBAUDAT	Denmark
[90]	-	X	-	-	-	-	-	-	Egypt
[91]	-	X	X	-	6D BIM API	OneClickLCA	-	EPDs	The Netherlands
[92]	X	-	-	-	Revit	Dynamo	-	ICE	UK
[93]	X	X	-	-	Rhino	Self-developed	Wallacei X, Bombyx, Ladybug, Honeybee	KBOB	Egypt
[94]	-	X	X	-	-	OneClickLCA	IES-VE	EcoInvent	UK
[47]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Tally	-	GaBi	Ecuador
[95]	X	X	-	-	Revit	Self-developed	-	Cype	Spain
[96]	-	X	-	X	Revit	Self-developed	-	BCCA	Spain
[97]	-	-	-	X	Revit	Dynamo	-	TBL database	Spain
[28]	-	X	X	-	-	Tally	Green Building Studio	GaBi	China
[98]	-	X	-	-	Revit	simplified LCA	EnergyPlus	-	Iran
[30]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Tally	Autodesk Insight	GaBi	Ecuador
[32]	X	X	-	-	-	-	-	-	China
[33]	-	X	-	-	Revit	OneClickLCA	-	EPDs	Portugal
[41]	-	X	-	-	Revit	-	-	EcoInvent	Pakistan
[99]	-	X	-	-	Revit	OpenLCA	-	Country data standards	Malaysia
[100]	X	-	X	-	-	OpenLCA	EnergyPlus	EDPs	Canada
[31]	-	-	X	X	Revit	Self-developed	DT dynamic data	-	Brazil
[101]	X	-	-	-	Revit	OneClickLCA	Ladybug and Honeybee	EDPs	UK
[102]	X	X	-	-	Revit	-	EnergyPlus	LCI datasets	Australia
[103]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Tally	EnergyPlus	TRACI	India
[104]	X	X	-	-	Revit	-	-	-	Austria
[105]	-	X	X	-	-	Self-developed	-	EDPs	Russia
[106]	-	X	X	-	Revit	Self-developed	Self-developed	Geospatial data	China
[107]	X	-	-	X	Revit	Tally	-	TRACI	USA
[108]	X	-	X	-	Revit	OneClickLCA	-	EDPs	Canada
[109]	-	-	-	X	Revit	SimaPro	-	EDPs	The Netherlands

.

Key Advancements in BIM–LCA Integration

From the critical analysis of the selected literature, the main findings were collected and summarized into three categories: technological (

Table 5. Resume of technological advancements retrieved from case studies.

Technological Advancement	Description
Automated material identification	Visual Programming Languages (VPLs), such as Dynamo and Grasshopper, can automate the material identification process of objectives from BIM models, significantly reducing manual errors and time associated with linking materials to environmental data [27], necessary to conduct LCA calculations.
Integration of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) algorithms	MCDM tools support comparative evaluation of design alternatives to meet various sustainability objectives, assisting multidisciplinary teams in optimizing solutions [28,29].
Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)	AI/ML models can be implanted to enhance the predictive capabilities of environmental assessments, offering real-time forecasts of impacts on ecosystems and communities [30,31].
Visualization of LCA feedback in BIM	Embedding LCA results into BIM environments allows for instant feedback, streamlining decision-making during the design phase [32].
Standardized BIM information exchange formats	Recent development of open formats such as IFC and gbXML improve software interoperability and streamline BIM–LCA data exchange [13,33].

), regulatory (

Table 6. Resume of regulatory advancements retrieved from case studies.

Regulatory Advancement	Description
Mandatory sustainability assessments in policy	The integration of LCA into national and EU policies aligns construction practices with climate goals and can standardize communications of LCA results among practitioners.
Sustainability Certification frameworks	BIM–LCA integration simplifies data extraction and reduces the cost of compliance for certifications such as LEED and BREEAM [34].
Standardization of LCA practices	The harmonization of LCA guidelines, particularly in the European context, fosters replicability and comparability [35] of calculations and results.
Government-led BIM frameworks	Public-sector frameworks enhance project coordination and enforce health, safety, and sustainability standards in construction processes.
Green incentives for sustainable practices	Demonstrating the effectiveness of BIM–LCA can support applications for financial incentives linked to environmentally responsible construction, such as the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and Sustainable Finance Taxonomy for the European context.

), and methodological (

Table 7. Resume of methodological advancements retrieved from case studies.

Methodological Advancement	Description
Early design phase integration	The integration of LCA in early phases enables environmentally informed design decisions, but faces challenges related to data granularity and model precision [36].
Stakeholder engagement frameworks	Collaborative platforms involving diverse stakeholders enhance the quality of sustainability evaluations but require structured coordination [30].
Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis	This type of analysis improves the robustness of environmental assessments by addressing variability in input data [37].
Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs)	Systematic reviews of academic literature reveal knowledge gaps and inform practical stakeholders regarding application strategies [17,38].
Lean construction principles and Circular Business Models (CBMs)	Alignment with circular economy principles promotes material efficiency and supports regional climate neutrality goals [39].

) advancements. From each category, five topics were identified as the most promising to respond to the increasing sustainability demands from the AEC sector and to accelerate a wider application of BIM–LCA integration in practices.

4. Discussion

This paragraph presents a discussion of the results from the literature review. Firstly, the main advancements found in recent case studies from academic literature were cross-analysed with the operational and systemic barriers recognised through theoretical framework from Section 2.

4.1. Advancements—Barriers Interconnection

Both main operational (

Table 8. Cross-analysis between operational barriers and advancements retrieved from the literature.

Barrier	Related Advancement
Environmental data availability	Automated material identification (Tech 1): BIM plugin can automate the identification of environmental data related to elements of the BIM model.
	Standardized BIM Information exchange format (Tech 5): latest upgrading from IFC format accelerated the inclusion of Environmental impact indicators in BIM objects.
	Early design phase integration (Method 1): promote consistent data analysis throughout the project life cycle and allows early informed decision.
Software Interoperability	Standardized BIM Information exchange format (Tech 5): open-source and vendor-neutral platforms like IFC and gbXML for data exchange enable transversal communication of software.
	Standardization of LCA practices (Reg 3): uniformity in results communication can help the interconnection with different sustainability assessment software.
	Application of AI/ML (Tech 3): can help facing interoperability issue for practical stakeholders.
Technical Complexity	Visualization of LCA feedback in BIM (Tech 4): LCA impacts visualization within BIM environment helps to understand the environmental implication of design choices.
	Early design phase integration (Method 1): first LCA feedback in a phase where the implementation of changes is less costly and time-consuming.
	Stakeholder engagement frameworks (Method 2): reduce fragmentation of decision-making and facilitate clash-detection processes for different specialties.
Results accuracy and reliability	Visualization of LCA feedback in BIM (Tech 4): it can enhance precision by providing dynamic feedback of different alternatives.
	Systematic Literature Reviews (Method 4): validate tools and workflows for reliability by confronting main pros and cons.
	Stakeholder engagement frameworks and Standardization of LCA practices (Method 2, Reg 3): improve result credibility through more standardized guidelines.

) and strategic (

Table 9. Cross-analysis between strategic barriers and advancements retrieved from the literature.

Barrier	Related Advancement
Decision-making support	Government-led BIM implementation frameworks (Reg 4): promote awareness and more structured BIM implementation for practical stakeholders.
	Green incentives for sustainable practices (Reg 5): enhance stakeholders’ engagement by covering supplementary costs of more structured information.
	Systematic Literature Reviews (Method 3): identify gaps and enhance understanding across user groups.
Cost-benefits analysis	Lean construction principles (Method 5): reduces project costs and waste, improving cost-effectiveness of BIM–LCA integration and results accuracy.
	Green incentives for sustainable practices (Reg 5): compensate high initial investment in BIM–LCA tools implementation.
Stakeholders support	Standardization of LCA practices (Reg 3): enhance replicability of the environmental assessment and confrontation of different workflows and results.
	Sustainability Certification frameworks (Reg 2): facilitate evaluation of projects and submission of evidence.
	Circular Business Models (Method 5): align with corporate ESG trends.
Education and training	Early design phase integration and Visualization of LCA feedback in BIM (Method 1, Tech 4): promote experiential learning by design teams.
	Stakeholder engagement and SLRs (Method 2, Method 4): disseminate best practices and foster participatory education.

) barriers previously identified in Section 2 were found to be strongly addressed by recent advancements. The most recurrent developments found were, respectively, (1) the development of visualization tools of LCA results into the BIM environment for technological, (2) the development of regulatory standards for LCA implementation and (3) the integration of LCA tool in the early design phase. Further development and a wider application in practices in these three key areas could provide decisive progress in addressing contemporary challenges related to BIM–LCA integration.

4.2. Indicators Analysis Results and Emerging Categories of Benefits

The analysis of the case studies reveals a growing and interdisciplinary interest in the BIM–LCA integration to support sustainable building design and construction. This reflects a shift towards more sustainable approaches that emphasize both environmental impacts reduction and process optimization. Through a detailed analysis of the indicators used in each case study, a classification framework has been developed to identify workflows aligned with key sustainability objectives. These indicators serve as benchmarks to evaluate whether the proposed methodologies in each study contribute to one or more of the four primary categories of benefits identified in Section 3: Circular Economy (CE), Integrated Management (IM), High-Performance Buildings (HPB), and Sustainability Certification (SC). The following sections explore how specific indicators relate to each category and demonstrate how their enhancement supports sustainability ambitions.

4.2.1. Circular Economy (CE)

The analysis of the case studies reveals a growing and interdisciplinary interest in the BIM–LCA integration to support sustainable building design and construction, as 33 papers were found to be relevant. This reflects a shift towards more sustainable approaches that emphasize both environmental impact reduction and process optimization. Through a detailed analysis of the indicators used in each case study, a classification framework has been developed to identify workflows aligned with key sustainability objectives. These indicators serve as benchmarks to evaluate whether the proposed methodologies in each study contribute to one or more of the four primary categories of benefits identified in Section 3: Circular Economy (CE), Integrated Management (IM), High-Performance Buildings (HPB), and Sustainability Certification (SC). The following sections explore how specific indicators relate to each category and demonstrate how their enhancement supports sustainability ambitions, and the summary is presented in Appendix A.

4.2.2. Integrated Management (IM)

Integrated Management (IM) was recognized as the most prominent theme, with 47 studies addressing its relevance. The collaborative BIM environment enhances data sharing among stakeholders and practitioners across various phases of a project, and its integration with LCA allows for more information-based and coordinated sustainability strategies. Further integration with digital tools, such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) software [40], optimization algorithms like Binary Integer Programming [28], and GIS-based spatial analytics [41], can improve smart design choices towards optimized resource efficiency. Those tools provide benefits such as cost reduction, waste minimization, local sourcing, and optimized logistics [42]. Moreover, the use of Dynamic LCA (DLCA), enabled by real-time sensor data within BIM environments, allows for more precise and adaptive assessments of environmental performance [43], underscoring the growing potential of smart, data-driven construction management systems [25].

4.2.3. High-Performance Buildings (HPB)

Overall, 32 studies were classified under the High-Performance Buildings category, predominantly addressing energy efficiency throughout the building’s life cycle. Combining BIM and LCA tools with energy simulators and building management technologies can contribute to greater energy efficiency while improving environmental conditions and occupant comfort [44]. Nonetheless, energy-efficiency upgrades can lead to an unintended increase in embodied carbon [45]. A whole-life approach is therefore necessary to balance operational and embodied impacts. Further integration with Building Energy Modelling (BEM) tools supports this balance through comprehensive trade-off analysis. Additionally, aligning architectural design with urban energy networks [46] and promoting energy self-sufficiency through localized renewable energy sources [47] are identified as key strategies for extending energy efficiency from individual buildings to urban systems.

4.2.4. Sustainability Certification (SC)

The smallest subset of papers, 18 in total, focused on Sustainability Certification systems. While these frameworks provide standardized metrics for assessing the environmental, economic, and social performance of buildings, they are typically applied post-construction and thus offer limited support during early design, where the greatest sustainability gains can be realized [48]. BIM–LCA integration can help bridge this gap. BIM provides structured, real-time design data, while LCA enables quantitative evaluation aligned with certification criteria. This synergy facilitates proactive design strategies that enhance the likelihood of certification compliance and elevate overall sustainability performance [34,49].

5. Conclusions

This study presents a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) integration. The analysis was conducted through a two-tiered methodology. Firstly, the recent literature reviews were examined to identify recognized gaps and barriers. Then, a systematic review of academic publications from 2015 to 2025 was performed, focusing on case studies that implemented BIM–LCA integration workflows. This methodology allowed for an evaluation of whether previously identified gaps are being addressed and which categories of benefits are emerging from the perspective of stakeholders in the built environment. The findings indicate that recent advancements are accelerating progress in overcoming operational and strategic barriers associated with BIM–LCA integration. Moreover, new workflows show the potential to enhance stakeholder engagement by supporting sustainability improvements in construction projects. The analysis also identified which workflows and advancements are most promising to deliver key integration benefits and accelerate broader adoption.

Despite these advancements, several gaps remain unaddressed:

• Facing strategic barriers for practitioners requires further effort: while technological developments are mitigating operational challenges, strategic barriers still require significant attention. Interdisciplinary organization and early-phase implementation necessitate coordinated effort from different specialties and must begin early in the design process to maximize sustainability outcomes.
• Overall environmental sustainability is not guaranteed: BIM–LCA integration alone does not ensure effective reduction of environmental impacts of a construction project, nor its alignment with carbon neutrality goals. The emerging concept of Absolute LCA (A-LCA) represents the capability to align construction practices with planetary boundaries and long-term urban sustainability targets.
• Comprehensive sustainability indicators are needed: traditional LCA frameworks focus on environmental impacts but lack socio-economic scope. The Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) expands this focus; however, further research is needed to refine impact categories and improve comparability between studies. In the European context, aligning LCA outputs with EU sustainable construction indicators will enable more robust, policy-relevant sustainability assessments.

In addition to the above gaps encountered, this study faced some methodological and context-related limitations that frame its research boundaries and must be acknowledged. Firstly, the review was limited to peer-reviewed publications falling within the selection and exclusion criteria, namely English written and indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, which may have excluded valuable grey literature and industry reports. Secondly, the substantial heterogeneity encountered across the case studies prevented reliable quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis of environmental performance outcomes. Thirdly, the lack of standardization in reporting limited the extraction of substantial key performance indicators (KPIs) to be compared. These three main constrains underline the need for further research to bridge theoretical arising opportunities with real-world case studies. Practical large-scale implementations are arising and demonstrating the usefulness of BIM–LCA integration at the industry level. This advancement can lead to the practical application of digital environmental assessment tools to delivery information-based strategies during early design phases.

To bridge the gap between research and practice regarding BIM–LCA integration, transparent and standardized documentation of industrial applications will be required, as well as further alignment with international policies and frameworks sustainability performance. The performance of practical applications remains underexplored in terms multidimensional indicators, such as those developed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC), and the European Commission under the Level (s) framework or the New European Bauhaus (NEB) initiatives.

Future research should prioritize these areas to advance BIM–LCA integration as a decision-support tool for sustainable construction.