Assessing LEED-Based Sustainability Practices in Logistics Projects: A Triple Bottom Line Materiality Matrix Approach

Abstract

Sustainable construction has emerged as a strategic response to contemporary environmental, social, and economic challenges, particularly in sectors with high resource consumption, such as logistics infrastructure. This study adapts and applies existing sustainability assessment frameworks to the specific context of logistics buildings by integrating Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) sustainability criteria with a Triple Bottom Line (TBL)-based materiality matrix. The research investigates how sustainability practices associated with LEED criteria can contribute to economic, environmental, and social performance within the TBL framework. To support this assessment, a materiality matrix is developed by integrating stakeholder perspectives and the potential impacts of sustainability practices across TBL dimensions, enabling the identification and prioritization of the most relevant strategies for the logistics context. Additionally, the study examines the contribution of LEED-based strategies to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within these dimensions. The main contribution of the study is the adaptation and application of established sustainability assessment frameworks to logistics projects through a structured decision-support framework that integrates LEED sustainability criteria, stakeholder-based materiality assessment, TBL perspectives, and sensitivity analysis to support sustainability-oriented decision-making.

1. Introduction

In this study, the term logistics buildings is adopted as the standard designation for the built environments under analysis, encompassing warehouses, distribution centers, terminals, and urban logistics hubs involved in new construction and major renovation, in alignment with the scope of the LEED Building Design and Construction framework. This term is used consistently throughout the manuscript to avoid terminological variation with related expressions such as facilities or construction projects.

In these buildings, sustainable progress occurs both through new developments and through the adaptation of existing structures via retrofitting, which can reduce life-cycle impacts when guided by environmental and social principles [1,2]. Urban Logistics Hubs exemplify this trend by incorporating sustainable practices in the context of land scarcity and high urban costs. The ITF (2024) [3] highlights the use of microhubs in central areas, often resulting from the conversion of former factories and industrial warehouses for operations such as cross-docking and sorting [4].

Over the last decade, the sustainability performance of logistics buildings has attracted increasing attention in both academia and industry. Previous studies have investigated topics such as energy-efficient warehouse design, green building certifications, low-carbon construction materials, circular economy practices, and climate-resilient infrastructure [5]. Despite these advances, the literature remains fragmented, typically addressing environmental, social, or economic aspects separately rather than through an integrated sustainability perspective. Furthermore, most studies focus on general commercial or industrial buildings, while logistics buildings possess unique operational requirements that influence their sustainability performance and management priorities [6].

However, logistics buildings present particular challenges, such as large spans, narrow aisles, strict thermal requirements for storing perishables, and constant air exchange resulting from the frequent opening of external doors, factors that increase energy consumption [7]. Accordingly, the use of sustainable building technologies, such as natural ventilation, thermal insulation, and high-durability and low-impact materials, becomes essential for balancing energy efficiency, environmental comfort, and occupational health [8]. Sustainable development in logistics buildings requires a systemic perspective, combining the rational use of materials, strategies for reducing resource consumption, and social aspects related to health, aesthetics, and community integration [9]. In this context, the materiality matrix emerges as a relevant tool for prioritizing topics across environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions [10,11].

In this study, the materiality matrix is applied from an impact materiality perspective, focusing on the identification and prioritization of sustainability topics based on their impacts on stakeholders and the sustainability performance of logistics buildings.

Complementarily, certifications such as LEED translate these priorities into technical and measurable criteria. Ensign et al. (2021) [12] emphasize that credits obtained in global certifications reflect a commitment to sustainable practices, contributing to market valuation, reduced operational costs, and the attraction of ESG oriented investors and partners. In logistics buildings, LEED-oriented practices encourage the adoption of lower-impact transportation alternatives and strategies that minimize disturbances to surrounding communities, including noise pollution [13]. Beyond transportation, the operational demands of warehousing, including large spans, continuous operation, and intensive climate control, call for practices such as energy-efficiency measures, thermal insulation, renewable energy integration, and rainwater management [14], several of which are also incentivized through LEED credits in the Energy and Atmosphere and Water Efficiency categories. Furthermore, LEED promotes practices such as reverse logistics by encouraging the reduction, reuse, and recycling of construction and demolition waste, supporting more sustainable material flows and reducing landfill disposal and associated environmental impacts [15].

In this context, the integration of sustainable construction principles, materiality matrices, and environmental certifications such as LEED provides a technical and strategic framework for the sustainable development and improvement of logistics buildings. This study aims to identify and analyze sustainability practices applicable to logistics buildings, considering challenges such as energy efficiency, resource efficiency and occupant comfort. Rather than introducing a fundamentally new assessment methodology, the study adapts and applies existing sustainability assessment frameworks by integrating LEED criteria with a TBL-based materiality matrix tailored to the logistics context. This integrated framework supports the assessment and prioritization of sustainability strategies according to their relevance to stakeholders and their environmental, social, and economic impacts.

Therefore, the research question guiding this study is: How can the integration of LEED sustainability criteria with a Triple Bottom Line-based materiality matrix support the assessment and prioritization of sustainability practices in logistics buildings?

To address this research question, the next section examines the main decision-support approaches discussed in the literature for sustainability-related assessments in construction. Next, the methodology for developing the materiality matrix is presented, followed by its application and the final considerations.

2. Comparative Analysis and Selection of the Decision-Support Framework

Decision-making in building construction is highly complex, involving conflicting criteria, project-specific conditions, and uncertain or limited data. As a result, expert judgment and human preferences are essential for evaluating long-term impacts across the building’s full life cycle [16]. In this context, the literature presents a range of methods and approaches for structuring decision-making processes, which may be individual or collective, and may rely on either single-criteria or multi-criteria evaluation [17].

Within the scope of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, various techniques such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), TOPSIS, DEA, VIKOR, ELECTRE, and PROMETHEE are widely employed [17]. However, the choice of a decision-support method must consider not only analytical rigor but also contextual conditions, such as data availability, stakeholder profile, and operational constraints [16,18].

Considering that the selection of sustainability decision-support methods heavily depends on the profile of the stakeholders involved, the materiality matrix emerges as a particularly useful tool for identifying and prioritizing sustainability issues. Originally developed in financial accounting, this tool has increasingly been applied in sustainability contexts, where it supports the integration of material issues into organizational decision-making and strategic planning [19,20].

Faux (2012) [21] demonstrates that different stakeholder groups assign different levels of importance to the same environmental event, indicating that materiality is shaped by the evaluator’s profile rather than being neutral or universal. The study also highlights that materiality matrices, by structuring assessment around concrete scenarios and organizing issues by priority, can support more realistic, strategic, and stakeholder-aligned decision-making. In addition, the materiality matrix helps organizations understand how stakeholder perceptions of environmental, social, and governance issues influence value creation and shape strategic business decisions, while also supporting a more comprehensive assessment by considering both actual and potential material impacts [10,19]. This practical dimension is also illustrated by Calabres et al. (2019) [22], who applied the materiality matrix in a real case study, demonstrating how the tool can support the identification and prioritization of sustainability issues in organizational contexts.

The materiality matrix has since been widely applied beyond financial accounting, including within the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines and empirical studies across multiple sectors [19,22,23]. Taken together, these findings suggest that the materiality matrix is particularly well suited to the objectives of this study because it integrates multiple stakeholder perspectives across environmental, social, and economic dimensions while enabling the prioritization of strategic themes according to their relevance to both the organization and society. In construction contexts marked by limited standardized data, time constraints, and uncertainty, this participatory and less technically rigid approach is particularly useful, as it supports problem definition, goal setting, and the identification of strategic criteria. By linking the significance of Triple Bottom Line impacts with their influence on stakeholder judgments, the tool also helps organizations align sustainability strategies, identify emerging risks and opportunities, and support the shared value creation required by LEED certification and broader development goals [10,16,17,18,19,20].

Despite the recognized potential of the materiality matrix to support the identification and prioritization of relevant issues in sustainable projects, a significant gap remains regarding its application to sustainable logistics in construction projects. To investigate the current state of the art, an advanced search was conducted in the Web of Science database, which is widely recognized for its comprehensive coverage and rigorous indexing of scientific publications. The following search string was employed: TS = (“materiality matrix” OR “materiality assessment” OR “materiality analysis”) AND (“construction project” OR “building project* “OR “infrastructure project*”) AND (logistic* OR “supply chain”)’. The search returned no results addressing these themes simultaneously, indicating the absence, or at least the scarcity, of studies that employ the materiality matrix as an analytical tool in the context of sustainable logistics in construction projects.

This finding highlights the originality and scientific relevance of the present study, as it extends an approach widely adopted in corporate sustainability and ESG reporting contexts to a new field of investigation characterized by the complexity of logistics operations in construction projects, thereby addressing a gap that has received limited attention in the existing literature.

3. Materials and Methods

Logistics buildings comprise facilities with different operational functions and scales, ranging from regional distribution centers to urban logistics facilities [24]. The methodology adopted in this study was designed to enable an in-depth analysis of sustainable best practices applied to logistics buildings. The methodological process was divided into four interconnected steps, as described in Figure 1.

3.1. Step 1—Identification and Selection of Best Sustainable Practices

The first step consists of mapping sustainable alternatives based on the identification and selection of best practices associated with the construction and retrofit of logistics buildings, adapting these practices to the specific context of logistics projects. The analysis focuses on assessing the technical relevance and potential contribution of the proposed actions, establishing a solid foundation for the development of the materiality matrix.

3.2. Step 2—Literature Review and Contextualization—TBL Benefits

The initial step of the research involves a systematic review of the literature, focusing on the identification and critical analysis of the benefits of selected sustainable best practices to meet internal logistics in buildings, especially in logistics constructions. This review provides the theoretical basis for the analysis of the materiality matrix from the perspective of TBL impacts, covering environmental, social, and economic aspects.

The TBL framework evaluates sustainability performance through three interdependent dimensions, economic (Profit), social (People), and environmental (Planet) [25], providing the analytical lens through which the materiality matrix criteria are classified and assessed in this study [26].

3.3. Step 3—Building the Materiality Matrix

The materiality matrix was chosen because the study aimed to identify and prioritize sustainability practices based on stakeholder perspectives, rather than to rank alternatives or optimize decisions. For this reason, it was considered more suitable than other multicriteria methods, which are typically designed for comparing predefined options.

The concept of materiality originated in the field of financial reporting and has established itself as a prioritization tool for internal and external decision makers [27]. In the context of corporate sustainability, materiality corresponds to the identification and analysis of the economic, social, and environmental issues most relevant to the organization and its stakeholders, allowing resources and strategies to be directed to the areas of greatest impact [28].

A materiality matrix is a visual representation that relates, on Cartesian axes, the importance of the impact for the organization (X-axis) and the relevance of a given topic for stakeholders (Y-axis). This approach enables prioritization by serving as strategic support for planning and management decisions [10,11].

3.3.1. TBL Impact of Best Practices—Axis X

Initially, an impact assessment is carried out, i.e., the change or effect caused by each best practice in logistics operations aimed at performing its role in a sustainable manner aligned with the SDGs and TBL pillars, which covers three dimensions: (i) Profit (economic), which emphasizes increasing the value of results and reducing input costs, seeking to maximize profit, revenue, and economic growth, (ii) Planet (environmental), encouraging organizations to reduce, or at least minimize, their negative ecological impacts, in addition to promoting green practices, such as conservation of natural resources, waste management, and pollution prevention; and (iii) People (social), which refers to the development of programs aimed at the well-being of society and the satisfaction of stakeholders.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda, with the purpose of guiding actions aimed at eradicating poverty, protecting the environment, and promoting peace and prosperity for all by 2030. These goals were designed to address some of the most urgent challenges facing the international community and require consistent and integrated progress across all dimensions for the 2030 Agenda to be effectively achieved [29].

Building on this broader framework, the SDGs can also be understood as practical reference standards for promoting sustainability, particularly in light of their growing integration into private-sector strategies and decision-making processes [30].

3.3.2. Relevance of Best Practices for Logistics Stakeholders—Axis Y

In this stage, based on the focus given to the identification and selection of best practices, the relevance of sustainable best practices for stakeholders will be assessed. Relevance refers to the degree of importance, urgency, and perceived value that different stakeholder groups attribute to certain sustainability actions or issues, considering their economic, social, environmental, and reputational impacts [31].

3.4. Step 4—Impact Assessment Based on the TBL Model and Relevance to Stakeholders

After consolidating the materiality matrix, the impacts of the best practices identified in each of the dimensions of the TBL are assessed. In the environmental aspect, factors such as energy efficiency, emissions reduction, resource management, and waste management are considered. In the social dimension, the focus is on occupational well-being and safety, thermal comfort, and the promotion of health and inclusion. Finally, in the economic dimension, the analysis considers the reduction in operating costs, asset valuation, and return on investment.

4. Triple Bottom Line Materiality Matrix—Focusing on LEED Certification

This section presents the Materiality Matrix based on the TBL concept, focusing on LEED certification for logistics buildings. The objective is to demonstrate how sustainable practices can be identified, evaluated, and implemented, considering environmental, social, and economic impacts, in line with international sustainability parameters. This approach is intended to support strategic decisions related to decarbonization and asset value. However, the study is limited to examining economic, environmental, and social impacts based on the literature review presented in Section 4.2 and on assessments provided by industry specialists. It does not include data from actual projects or statistical analyses.

LEED, developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), is the most widely adopted green building certification system worldwide, promoting innovative technologies, sustainable materials, and improved design practices [32,33]. Its most recent version, LEED v5, reinforces this role through a performance-based framework focused on decarbonization, quality of life, resilience, and equity [33].

4.1. Step 1—Identification and Selection of Best Sustainable Practices Applied to LEED Certification

Based on the literature and the LEED Building Design and Construction (v5) rating system, sustainable practices applicable to logistics buildings were identified and classified according to six core LEED assessment categories:

• Location and Transportation;
• Sustainable Sites;
• Water Efficiency;
• Energy and Atmosphere;
• Materials and Resources; and
• Indoor Environmental Quality.

Each best practice was assessed in terms of technical relevance, applicability, and potential contribution to the project’s environmental and social performance. This assessment underpins the construction of the materiality matrix and the subsequent analysis of convergence with LEED criteria.

The Integrative Process and Project Priorities categories were not included in the materiality matrix, as they require a distinct analytical approach. The Integrative Process is linked to integrated planning and decision-making processes, including the Climate Resilience Assessment prerequisite, while Project Priorities are project-specific and limit comparability across logistics buildings within a standardized framework. These categories are recommended for separate analysis in future research.

4.2. Step 2—Literature Review and Contextualization—LEED

The bibliographic search was conducted in recognized international databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, in addition to institutional sources such as LEED manuals and guidelines, Green Building Council Brazil, UNEP, and WBCSD. The following keywords were used: “Sustainable Construction,” “Green Logistics Buildings,” “Sustainable Logistics in Buildings,” “LEED Certification,” and “Materiality Assessment in Construction Projects.”

The inclusion criteria covered: (1) publications between 2010 and 2026; (2) direct relevance to sustainable construction, internal logistics, and green infrastructure; and (3) adherence to the TBL approach and ESG principles. After screening, approximately 80 documents were selected to compose the final body of the review.

The identification of sustainability practices was based on LEED sustainability categories and criteria, which were adapted to the specific context of logistics buildings (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). Given the limited availability of studies specifically addressing sustainability practices in logistics buildings, studies from broader built-environment contexts were considered to assess the TBL implications associated with these practices. Therefore, the environmental, social, and economic benefits presented in the tables represent evidence-based sustainability implications derived from the literature and adapted to the operational characteristics of logistics projects.

4.2.1. Location and Transportation

The choice of location for factories and warehouses is a strategic step in logistics management and should be considered early in the project, as it directly influences important decisions in the supply chain and logistics optimization methods [34,35]. Table 1 presents five best practices in this category, ranging from equitable development and sensitive land protection to compact and connected development, transportation demand management, and the use of cleaner energy and low-carbon vehicles, along with their descriptions and environmental, social, and economic benefits.

Table 1. LEED-Based Best Practices for Location and Transportation Applied to New Construction and Retrofit of Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Equitable development with choice of locations that stimulate neighborhood development and reduce transportation activity and high priority	It encourages choosing locations that integrate public and active transit (like walking or cycling) to lower transport demand and boost accessibility for workers and the local community.	Reduces vehicle use, transport-related emissions, traffic, and noise impacts [36,37].	Encourages physical activity and improves public health and social well-being. Reported reductions in noise nuisances reached 37.26% [36,37].	Boosts urban efficiency and sustainability, cutting infrastructure costs by 37.58% and climate change costs by 21.85% [36,37].
Sensitive Land Protection and Sustainable Site Selection	Promotes development in areas with existing infrastructure to encourage compact, connected land use, reducing environmental impact and improving community compatibility.	Preserving and connecting natural habitats reduces fragmentation and boosts biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem structure and function [36,37]. DHL’s initiatives demonstrate how logistics buildings can support biodiversity by incorporating habitats for insects and other species [38].	It improves quality of life by fostering healthier, more resilient, and inclusive environments through access to green spaces, integrated urban planning, and reduced visual and community disturbances associated with development [36].	Optimizing land use, integrating developments with existing infrastructure, and reducing exposure to natural hazards support long-term resilience, economic viability, and the attractiveness of developed areas [36].
Compact and connected development to promote improved population density in the surrounding area and diverse uses	Protects farmland and habitats by promoting development in areas with existing infrastructure, active mobility, and public transit.	Preserving natural areas and rehabilitating brownfields reduce emissions and pollution [39,40], while concentrating activities in logistics hubs preserves agricultural land and reduces habitat fragmentation and ecosystem disturbance [41]	Integrating logistics hubs with transit and active mobility reduces traffic, pollution, and commuting times, while promoting social inclusion, job access, and health [36,41].	It boosts job access, urban productivity, and property value in existing infrastructure areas while lowering commuting costs. [39,40]. Improves logistics efficiency and reduces pressure on agricultural land through strategic building location [41]
Transportation demand management through bicycle facilities and reducing parking space to minimize environmental damage associated with facilities	It promotes bicycle use and transit efficiency while shrinking parking areas, minimizing the environmental impacts of cars.	The integration of bicycle infrastructure reduces emissions, improves environmental quality, and decreases surface runoff from rainwater [42].	It enhances worker health, fosters inclusion, and makes the corporate environment more accessible and attractive [42].	It increases property values and reduces health and transportation costs, economically strengthening sustainable enterprises [42].
Use of cleaner energy and low-carbon vehicles	It encourages the adoption of cleaner transportation technologies, including electric vehicles and other low-carbon alternatives, supported by adequate infrastructure.	Proprietary charging infrastructure maximizes EV environmental benefits by ensuring they directly replace fossil fuels, supporting global strategies to cut urban emissions and carbon footprints through consistent electric operation [43,44].	Reduction in noise and air pollution, improving public health and community well-being [45].	Own infrastructure directly reduces the operating cost of EVs. Without own charging, the total cost of ownership increases, mainly because installation fees can be prohibitive, including approval, wiring, transformers, and equipment [43].

Table 1. LEED-Based Best Practices for Location and Transportation Applied to New Construction and Retrofit of Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Equitable development with choice of locations that stimulate neighborhood development and reduce transportation activity and high priority	It encourages choosing locations that integrate public and active transit (like walking or cycling) to lower transport demand and boost accessibility for workers and the local community.	Reduces vehicle use, transport-related emissions, traffic, and noise impacts [36,37].	Encourages physical activity and improves public health and social well-being. Reported reductions in noise nuisances reached 37.26% [36,37].	Boosts urban efficiency and sustainability, cutting infrastructure costs by 37.58% and climate change costs by 21.85% [36,37].
Sensitive Land Protection and Sustainable Site Selection	Promotes development in areas with existing infrastructure to encourage compact, connected land use, reducing environmental impact and improving community compatibility.	Preserving and connecting natural habitats reduces fragmentation and boosts biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem structure and function [36,37]. DHL’s initiatives demonstrate how logistics buildings can support biodiversity by incorporating habitats for insects and other species [38].	It improves quality of life by fostering healthier, more resilient, and inclusive environments through access to green spaces, integrated urban planning, and reduced visual and community disturbances associated with development [36].	Optimizing land use, integrating developments with existing infrastructure, and reducing exposure to natural hazards support long-term resilience, economic viability, and the attractiveness of developed areas [36].
Compact and connected development to promote improved population density in the surrounding area and diverse uses	Protects farmland and habitats by promoting development in areas with existing infrastructure, active mobility, and public transit.	Preserving natural areas and rehabilitating brownfields reduce emissions and pollution [39,40], while concentrating activities in logistics hubs preserves agricultural land and reduces habitat fragmentation and ecosystem disturbance [41]	Integrating logistics hubs with transit and active mobility reduces traffic, pollution, and commuting times, while promoting social inclusion, job access, and health [36,41].	It boosts job access, urban productivity, and property value in existing infrastructure areas while lowering commuting costs. [39,40]. Improves logistics efficiency and reduces pressure on agricultural land through strategic building location [41]
Transportation demand management through bicycle facilities and reducing parking space to minimize environmental damage associated with facilities	It promotes bicycle use and transit efficiency while shrinking parking areas, minimizing the environmental impacts of cars.	The integration of bicycle infrastructure reduces emissions, improves environmental quality, and decreases surface runoff from rainwater [42].	It enhances worker health, fosters inclusion, and makes the corporate environment more accessible and attractive [42].	It increases property values and reduces health and transportation costs, economically strengthening sustainable enterprises [42].
Use of cleaner energy and low-carbon vehicles	It encourages the adoption of cleaner transportation technologies, including electric vehicles and other low-carbon alternatives, supported by adequate infrastructure.	Proprietary charging infrastructure maximizes EV environmental benefits by ensuring they directly replace fossil fuels, supporting global strategies to cut urban emissions and carbon footprints through consistent electric operation [43,44].	Reduction in noise and air pollution, improving public health and community well-being [45].	Own infrastructure directly reduces the operating cost of EVs. Without own charging, the total cost of ownership increases, mainly because installation fees can be prohibitive, including approval, wiring, transformers, and equipment [43].

4.2.2. Sustainable Sites

The Sustainable Sites category covers a set of good design and construction practices that aim to minimize the environmental impact of development, protect and restore ecosystems, and create healthier and more resilient urban environments. The emphasis is on efficient management of natural resources and the integration of green infrastructure into the built environment. It is important to understand how to make the best use of land, as buildings and construction-related infrastructure lead to the loss of ecosystems (habitats) and biodiversity, reduce the potential of land for recreation, and reduce rainwater infiltration areas due to soil sealing [44]. Table 2 presents seven best practices in this category, including site disturbance minimization, habitat protection, accessible outdoor space, rainwater management, resilient site design, and heat island and light pollution reduction, along with their descriptions and environmental, social, and economic benefits.

Table 2. LEED-Based Best Practices for Sustainable Sites Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Minimizing site disturbance through environmental assessment of the terrain	It assesses the conditions of the terrain affected by construction activities and preserves existing native vegetation, reducing disturbances and optimizing the use of resources.	Environmental assessment supports the strategic siting of logistics buildings, minimizing land disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and impacts on sensitive ecosystems [46]	Strategic terrain assessment for logistics preserves agricultural livelihoods and local food security while reducing congestion. Furthermore, it improves regional mobility, environmental quality, public health, and community well-being by cutting air, water, and soil pollution [47].	It lowers costs for soil preparation and stabilization, earthworks, and drainage; reduces the need for rehabilitation; and optimizes the use of materials and energy, resulting in operational savings and efficiency throughout the building’s life cycle [48].
Promote habitat protection or restoration	It preserves existing natural areas and restores degraded areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity.	Restoring degraded areas for new building construction preserves natural habitats while optimizing the spatial footprint of logistics networks [46]. Strengthens urban resilience to flooding, improves ecosystem services, and protects local ecosystems [49].	Eco-designed logistics hubs reduce freight-related environmental stressors, which protects public health, minimizes physical and psychological damage, and strengthens community cohesion and safety during extreme weather and climate events [50].	It reduces damage costs and increases property values by promoting a more resilient urban environment [49].
Provide accessible outdoor space	Create outdoor spaces that encourage interaction with the environment, passive recreation, and physical activity, improving urban quality.	Integrated green spaces and permeable areas enhance worker well-being and reduce the environmental impacts of logistics buildings [46]	Green spaces improve well-being and reduce stress for logistics workers and drivers [46].	Landscaping in logistics parks helps preserve neighborhood quality and adjacent property values [46].
Promote Rainwater Management	It reduces surface runoff and improves water quality through green infrastructure solutions that replicate the natural water balance.	It absorbs rainwater, reduces surface runoff and accumulation, and improves water quality by filtering pollutants [47].	It improves the safety and well-being of communities by reducing the risks of flooding and environmental degradation [47].	It lowers costs for property and infrastructure damage and repairs by reducing the impacts of flooding [47].
Implementation of a project to improve site resilience	Design, build, and maintain sites that are more resilient to climate risks and natural disasters, increasing the ecological and social value of urban areas.	It expands areas of ecological value, increases carbon sequestration, and promotes stormwater retention [50].	It improves perceived safety, increases living areas and open public spaces, and encourages the use of sidewalks and bike lanes [50].	Investing in flood-resilient facility design reduces inventory damage costs, safeguards logistics asset values, and lowers water treatment costs, while boosting property values and generating green jobs related to adaptation and resilience [46,50,51].
Adoption of practices to reduce heat islands	Minimizing the effects of microclimates and heat islands on people and habitats through solutions such as green roofs and reflective materials.	It reduces air pollution and GHG emissions by lowering air conditioning demand and conventional energy use, while mitigating urban heat island effects in logistics hubs through enhanced ecological value, natural cooling, reduced surface runoff, and lower land surface temperatures [52,53].	Mitigating the logistics hub heat island effect lowers the incidence of heatstroke, heat exhaustion, and cardiovascular strain during extreme heatwaves, directly safeguarding vulnerable residents and senior citizens [53]	It reduces energy costs due to lower heat transfer through the building envelope [52].
Adoption of practices to reduce light pollution	Increase access to the night sky and improve visibility by using efficient, low-intensity lighting, such as LEDs.	It reduces CO2 emissions and impacts on sensitive nocturnal ecosystems, contributing to environmental sustainability [54].	It improves visual comfort and well-being for workers and communities by avoiding excess light and preserving the visibility of the night sky [54].	It reduces operating costs and electricity consumption, promoting efficiency and savings [54,55].

Table 2. LEED-Based Best Practices for Sustainable Sites Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Minimizing site disturbance through environmental assessment of the terrain	It assesses the conditions of the terrain affected by construction activities and preserves existing native vegetation, reducing disturbances and optimizing the use of resources.	Environmental assessment supports the strategic siting of logistics buildings, minimizing land disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and impacts on sensitive ecosystems [46]	Strategic terrain assessment for logistics preserves agricultural livelihoods and local food security while reducing congestion. Furthermore, it improves regional mobility, environmental quality, public health, and community well-being by cutting air, water, and soil pollution [47].	It lowers costs for soil preparation and stabilization, earthworks, and drainage; reduces the need for rehabilitation; and optimizes the use of materials and energy, resulting in operational savings and efficiency throughout the building’s life cycle [48].
Promote habitat protection or restoration	It preserves existing natural areas and restores degraded areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity.	Restoring degraded areas for new building construction preserves natural habitats while optimizing the spatial footprint of logistics networks [46]. Strengthens urban resilience to flooding, improves ecosystem services, and protects local ecosystems [49].	Eco-designed logistics hubs reduce freight-related environmental stressors, which protects public health, minimizes physical and psychological damage, and strengthens community cohesion and safety during extreme weather and climate events [50].	It reduces damage costs and increases property values by promoting a more resilient urban environment [49].
Provide accessible outdoor space	Create outdoor spaces that encourage interaction with the environment, passive recreation, and physical activity, improving urban quality.	Integrated green spaces and permeable areas enhance worker well-being and reduce the environmental impacts of logistics buildings [46]	Green spaces improve well-being and reduce stress for logistics workers and drivers [46].	Landscaping in logistics parks helps preserve neighborhood quality and adjacent property values [46].
Promote Rainwater Management	It reduces surface runoff and improves water quality through green infrastructure solutions that replicate the natural water balance.	It absorbs rainwater, reduces surface runoff and accumulation, and improves water quality by filtering pollutants [47].	It improves the safety and well-being of communities by reducing the risks of flooding and environmental degradation [47].	It lowers costs for property and infrastructure damage and repairs by reducing the impacts of flooding [47].
Implementation of a project to improve site resilience	Design, build, and maintain sites that are more resilient to climate risks and natural disasters, increasing the ecological and social value of urban areas.	It expands areas of ecological value, increases carbon sequestration, and promotes stormwater retention [50].	It improves perceived safety, increases living areas and open public spaces, and encourages the use of sidewalks and bike lanes [50].	Investing in flood-resilient facility design reduces inventory damage costs, safeguards logistics asset values, and lowers water treatment costs, while boosting property values and generating green jobs related to adaptation and resilience [46,50,51].
Adoption of practices to reduce heat islands	Minimizing the effects of microclimates and heat islands on people and habitats through solutions such as green roofs and reflective materials.	It reduces air pollution and GHG emissions by lowering air conditioning demand and conventional energy use, while mitigating urban heat island effects in logistics hubs through enhanced ecological value, natural cooling, reduced surface runoff, and lower land surface temperatures [52,53].	Mitigating the logistics hub heat island effect lowers the incidence of heatstroke, heat exhaustion, and cardiovascular strain during extreme heatwaves, directly safeguarding vulnerable residents and senior citizens [53]	It reduces energy costs due to lower heat transfer through the building envelope [52].
Adoption of practices to reduce light pollution	Increase access to the night sky and improve visibility by using efficient, low-intensity lighting, such as LEDs.	It reduces CO2 emissions and impacts on sensitive nocturnal ecosystems, contributing to environmental sustainability [54].	It improves visual comfort and well-being for workers and communities by avoiding excess light and preserving the visibility of the night sky [54].	It reduces operating costs and electricity consumption, promoting efficiency and savings [54,55].

4.2.3. Water Efficiency

The Efficient Water Use category focuses on conserving drinking water resources and reducing the burden on water infrastructure systems. Table 3 presents four best practices in this category, namely water metering and reporting, minimum water efficiency, leak detection, and enhanced water efficiency, along with their descriptions and environmental, social, and economic benefits.

Table 3. LEED-Based Best Practices for Water Efficiency Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Promote building water metering and Reporting	A sustainable management strategy that monitors and records water consumption to identify opportunities for savings and efficiency.	It reduces pressure on local supply systems and improves the health of the urban ecosystem by preventing waste [56].	It promotes a culture of sustainability, encourages behavioral change, and can support more equitable water distribution, especially in large facilities [56].	The use of smart meters allows for significant cost savings and greater efficiency in water management [56].
Promote minimum water efficiency by reducing outdoor and indoor water use	Implement water efficiency measures like native plants, smart irrigation, low-flow fixtures, and leak prevention.	It contributes to conserving water resources, preventing erosion and pollution, and relieving urban drainage systems [57].	It improves social perception of environmental responsibility and user comfort in environments with efficient water infrastructure [57].	It reduces operational costs for irrigation and maintenance, in addition to improving corporate image and reputation [57].
Promote water metering and leak detection	Focuses on reducing internal consumption and saving water by identifying and preventing leaks.	It contributes to the conservation of drinking water, reduction in water pollution, and mitigation of urban water stress [58].	Strengthens the company’s environmental image, supports local water security, and promotes a culture of conscious water use [58].	It reduces water supply and sewage costs, improves the performance of materials such as concrete, and adds long-term value to the building [58].
Maximizing efficiency in water consumption and return in the municipal system/Enhanced Water Efficiency	It reduces the burden on municipal water and wastewater systems by promoting efficiency throughout the building’s entire water cycle.	It reduces natural resource consumption and emissions from water pumping and treatment, contributing to ecosystem preservation [59].	It improves working conditions and strengthens institutional image by promoting environmental responsibility and commitment [60].	Lowers operating costs and increases property value, making it more attractive to investors [61].

Table 3. LEED-Based Best Practices for Water Efficiency Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Promote building water metering and Reporting	A sustainable management strategy that monitors and records water consumption to identify opportunities for savings and efficiency.	It reduces pressure on local supply systems and improves the health of the urban ecosystem by preventing waste [56].	It promotes a culture of sustainability, encourages behavioral change, and can support more equitable water distribution, especially in large facilities [56].	The use of smart meters allows for significant cost savings and greater efficiency in water management [56].
Promote minimum water efficiency by reducing outdoor and indoor water use	Implement water efficiency measures like native plants, smart irrigation, low-flow fixtures, and leak prevention.	It contributes to conserving water resources, preventing erosion and pollution, and relieving urban drainage systems [57].	It improves social perception of environmental responsibility and user comfort in environments with efficient water infrastructure [57].	It reduces operational costs for irrigation and maintenance, in addition to improving corporate image and reputation [57].
Promote water metering and leak detection	Focuses on reducing internal consumption and saving water by identifying and preventing leaks.	It contributes to the conservation of drinking water, reduction in water pollution, and mitigation of urban water stress [58].	Strengthens the company’s environmental image, supports local water security, and promotes a culture of conscious water use [58].	It reduces water supply and sewage costs, improves the performance of materials such as concrete, and adds long-term value to the building [58].
Maximizing efficiency in water consumption and return in the municipal system/Enhanced Water Efficiency	It reduces the burden on municipal water and wastewater systems by promoting efficiency throughout the building’s entire water cycle.	It reduces natural resource consumption and emissions from water pumping and treatment, contributing to ecosystem preservation [59].	It improves working conditions and strengthens institutional image by promoting environmental responsibility and commitment [60].	Lowers operating costs and increases property value, making it more attractive to investors [61].

4.2.4. Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air

The Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air category focuses on optimizing energy consumption, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting more comfortable and resilient environments. Table 4 presents eleven best practices in this category, including carbon planning, commissioning, energy metering, refrigerant management, electrification, peak load reduction, enhanced energy efficiency, renewable energy, and grid interactivity, along with their descriptions and associated environmental, social, and economic benefits.

Table 4. LEED-Based Best Practices for Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Impacts Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Promote operational carbon planning and decarbonization strategies/Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan	It allows stakeholders to visualize how project decisions impact long-term carbon emissions, ensuring low-carbon planning from conception.	It contributes to GHG emission mitigation, promotes energy efficiency, reduces natural resource consumption, and aligns with Net Zero goals. In logistics and warehousing, operational planning enables companies to project and cut emissions by 40% to 50% by 2030 [62,63].	Strengthens collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement in logistic [24], raises climate awareness, and stimulates the development of technical capabilities and an organizational culture oriented toward sustainability and innovation [62].	It reduces operating costs and future financial risks, increases the long-term efficiency of logistics buildings, and facilitates access to green financing and sustainability-related incentives [55,64].
Guaranteeing and optimizing minimum energy performance in buildings/Minimum Energy Efficiency	It modernizes systems such as air conditioning, lighting, vertical transportation, and electrical installations, promoting energy efficiency and building resilience.	Enhances building and utility efficiency, reducing GHG emissions and transforming logistics buildings into green warehousing nodes through sustainable system integration [63].	It increases property values, creates jobs, and reduces operating costs for energy over the building’s lifetime [65].	Reduces energy costs and improves operational efficiency while increasing property value, creating jobs, and lowering lifecycle operating expenses [63,65].
Project commissioning and performance assurance/Fundamental Commissioning	A set of activities that ensure building systems operate as designed and meet the owner’s goals.	It reduces energy consumption by up to 16% in new buildings and 13% in existing buildings, avoiding significant CO2 emissions and reducing the waste of natural resources [66].	It promotes significant improvements in thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and system reliability, increasing occupant satisfaction and reducing risks to user health and performance [66].	Average return on investment of 4.2 years, resulting from reduced operating costs, preventive maintenance, and correction of design flaws [66].
Building energy measurement management/Energy Metering and Reporting	Monitoring and reporting energy consumption, supporting efficient management and identifying savings opportunities.	It contributes to a direct reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by identifying waste and promoting the efficient operation of air conditioning, lighting, and ventilation systems [67].	It promotes awareness and engagement among occupants, strengthens the organizational culture of energy efficiency, and contributes to more comfortable and productive environments [67].	Enables operating cost reductions of between 10% and 30% through efficiency and predictive maintenance; improves return on energy investments and increases building value through performance certification [67].
Promote Refrigerant Management/Fundamental Refrigerant Management	It reduces high-GWP greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating harmful substances and preventing leaks.	It reduces direct and indirect GHG emissions, protects the ozone layer, and improves the energy efficiency of equipment [68].	It creates skilled jobs, strengthens occupational safety, and promotes healthier and more comfortable indoor environments [68].	It promotes the circular economy through the recovery, recycling, and reuse of refrigerants, reducing replacement and maintenance costs by up to 80% [68].
Electrification of operations	It encourages replacing fossil-fuel equipment with fully electric systems, improving air quality and reducing direct emissions.	Reduction in direct GHG emissions and improvement in local air quality by eliminating fossil fuel combustion, promoting greater energy efficiency with technologies such as heat pumps, and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels [69].	It improves public health by reducing pollution, combats energy poverty by lowering utility bills, and increases occupant comfort and safety, driving consumer acceptance of sustainable buildings [69].	It reduces long-term operating costs through lower maintenance and predictable energy pricing, enhances industrial productivity with precise heating, leverages tax incentives, and creates new markets and green jobs [69].
Promote the reduction in Peak Thermal Loads in Buildings	It minimizes extreme heating and cooling requirements in buildings through passive strategies and improvements in thermal envelope.	It decreases greenhouse gas emissions by reducing electricity generation during peak hours, avoiding the use of more carbon-intensive power plants and promoting greater energy efficiency [70,71].	It improves thermal comfort and energy supply stability, ensuring more stable and safer environments, as well as contributing to the well-being of occupants and the resilience of communities in the face of energy overloads [71,72].	It reduces operating and demand costs by shifting consumption to off-peak periods, optimizes the use of electrical infrastructure, and delays investments in additional grid capacity, increasing the economic efficiency of buildings [70,72].
Designing buildings with improved energy efficiency/Enhanced Energy Efficiency	It proposes the design of buildings that exceed minimum efficiency standards, significantly reducing energy use.	It reduces energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions and decreases the need for peak generation and dependence on fossil fuels, contributing to lower carbon intensity and climate impact mitigation [73,74].	It improves thermal comfort and indoor environmental quality, reduces health risks from exposure and pollution, and promotes energy equity by lowering bills and social vulnerability, thereby strengthening community resilience [73,74].	It reduces operating and demand costs over the life of the building, improves cost-effectiveness in life cycle analyses, defers investments in grid capacity, and increases the profitability and market value of more efficient buildings [73,74].
Promote the use of renewable energy	It encourages installing clean energy systems (solar, wind, heat pumps) to increase self-sufficiency and reduce fossil fuel dependence.	It decreases the concentration of atmospheric pollutants (SO2, NOx, particulate matter), mitigating impacts on the climate and urban ecosystems [75].	It reduces operating costs and increases resilience to energy price volatility; increases property values and generates stable long-term returns [75].	It improves air quality and reduces respiratory and cardiovascular health risks, promoting well-being and productivity [75].
Enhanced Commissioning	It extends basic commissioning with ongoing checks and post-occupancy monitoring, ensuring performance over time.	It reduces energy consumption and emissions by correcting inefficiencies in HVAC, lighting, and building envelopes, preventing excessive or sub-optimal equipment operation [76].	It reduces operating and maintenance costs by optimizing system performance, extends equipment life, reduces operational failures, and allows for the postponement of investments in energy infrastructure [77].	It improves thermal comfort and indoor air quality, increases occupant satisfaction and productivity, reduces the number of complaints, and strengthens the training of operation and maintenance teams, promoting healthier and safer environments [78].
Demand response management and adoption of interactive grid	It integrates the building into the electrical grid, allowing energy consumption to adjust based on operating conditions and system signals.	It reduces the carbon footprint of the electrical system and increases the integration of renewable sources [79,80].	It enhances grid reliability, reduces the risk of power outages for the local community, and promotes consumer awareness regarding energy consumption [79,80].	It reduces energy costs during peak hours, improves reliability, and delays investments in generation and transmission [79,80].
Enhanced Refrigerant Management	Encourages the use of substances with low global warming potential and best control practices.	It reduces direct greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% by replacing HFCs with low-GWP refrigerants (such as CO2, HFOs, and hydrocarbons), contributing to climate change mitigation and ozone layer protection [68,81].	It lowers operating and maintenance costs through leak prevention and energy efficiency, while driving innovation, job creation, and competitiveness in sustainable refrigeration [68,81].	It improves occupational safety and indoor air quality by reducing exposure to toxic and flammable substances, contributes to public health and community well-being, and supports the achievement of global climate goals [81].

Table 4. LEED-Based Best Practices for Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Impacts Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Promote operational carbon planning and decarbonization strategies/Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan	It allows stakeholders to visualize how project decisions impact long-term carbon emissions, ensuring low-carbon planning from conception.	It contributes to GHG emission mitigation, promotes energy efficiency, reduces natural resource consumption, and aligns with Net Zero goals. In logistics and warehousing, operational planning enables companies to project and cut emissions by 40% to 50% by 2030 [62,63].	Strengthens collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement in logistic [24], raises climate awareness, and stimulates the development of technical capabilities and an organizational culture oriented toward sustainability and innovation [62].	It reduces operating costs and future financial risks, increases the long-term efficiency of logistics buildings, and facilitates access to green financing and sustainability-related incentives [55,64].
Guaranteeing and optimizing minimum energy performance in buildings/Minimum Energy Efficiency	It modernizes systems such as air conditioning, lighting, vertical transportation, and electrical installations, promoting energy efficiency and building resilience.	Enhances building and utility efficiency, reducing GHG emissions and transforming logistics buildings into green warehousing nodes through sustainable system integration [63].	It increases property values, creates jobs, and reduces operating costs for energy over the building’s lifetime [65].	Reduces energy costs and improves operational efficiency while increasing property value, creating jobs, and lowering lifecycle operating expenses [63,65].
Project commissioning and performance assurance/Fundamental Commissioning	A set of activities that ensure building systems operate as designed and meet the owner’s goals.	It reduces energy consumption by up to 16% in new buildings and 13% in existing buildings, avoiding significant CO2 emissions and reducing the waste of natural resources [66].	It promotes significant improvements in thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and system reliability, increasing occupant satisfaction and reducing risks to user health and performance [66].	Average return on investment of 4.2 years, resulting from reduced operating costs, preventive maintenance, and correction of design flaws [66].
Building energy measurement management/Energy Metering and Reporting	Monitoring and reporting energy consumption, supporting efficient management and identifying savings opportunities.	It contributes to a direct reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by identifying waste and promoting the efficient operation of air conditioning, lighting, and ventilation systems [67].	It promotes awareness and engagement among occupants, strengthens the organizational culture of energy efficiency, and contributes to more comfortable and productive environments [67].	Enables operating cost reductions of between 10% and 30% through efficiency and predictive maintenance; improves return on energy investments and increases building value through performance certification [67].
Promote Refrigerant Management/Fundamental Refrigerant Management	It reduces high-GWP greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating harmful substances and preventing leaks.	It reduces direct and indirect GHG emissions, protects the ozone layer, and improves the energy efficiency of equipment [68].	It creates skilled jobs, strengthens occupational safety, and promotes healthier and more comfortable indoor environments [68].	It promotes the circular economy through the recovery, recycling, and reuse of refrigerants, reducing replacement and maintenance costs by up to 80% [68].
Electrification of operations	It encourages replacing fossil-fuel equipment with fully electric systems, improving air quality and reducing direct emissions.	Reduction in direct GHG emissions and improvement in local air quality by eliminating fossil fuel combustion, promoting greater energy efficiency with technologies such as heat pumps, and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels [69].	It improves public health by reducing pollution, combats energy poverty by lowering utility bills, and increases occupant comfort and safety, driving consumer acceptance of sustainable buildings [69].	It reduces long-term operating costs through lower maintenance and predictable energy pricing, enhances industrial productivity with precise heating, leverages tax incentives, and creates new markets and green jobs [69].
Promote the reduction in Peak Thermal Loads in Buildings	It minimizes extreme heating and cooling requirements in buildings through passive strategies and improvements in thermal envelope.	It decreases greenhouse gas emissions by reducing electricity generation during peak hours, avoiding the use of more carbon-intensive power plants and promoting greater energy efficiency [70,71].	It improves thermal comfort and energy supply stability, ensuring more stable and safer environments, as well as contributing to the well-being of occupants and the resilience of communities in the face of energy overloads [71,72].	It reduces operating and demand costs by shifting consumption to off-peak periods, optimizes the use of electrical infrastructure, and delays investments in additional grid capacity, increasing the economic efficiency of buildings [70,72].
Designing buildings with improved energy efficiency/Enhanced Energy Efficiency	It proposes the design of buildings that exceed minimum efficiency standards, significantly reducing energy use.	It reduces energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions and decreases the need for peak generation and dependence on fossil fuels, contributing to lower carbon intensity and climate impact mitigation [73,74].	It improves thermal comfort and indoor environmental quality, reduces health risks from exposure and pollution, and promotes energy equity by lowering bills and social vulnerability, thereby strengthening community resilience [73,74].	It reduces operating and demand costs over the life of the building, improves cost-effectiveness in life cycle analyses, defers investments in grid capacity, and increases the profitability and market value of more efficient buildings [73,74].
Promote the use of renewable energy	It encourages installing clean energy systems (solar, wind, heat pumps) to increase self-sufficiency and reduce fossil fuel dependence.	It decreases the concentration of atmospheric pollutants (SO2, NOx, particulate matter), mitigating impacts on the climate and urban ecosystems [75].	It reduces operating costs and increases resilience to energy price volatility; increases property values and generates stable long-term returns [75].	It improves air quality and reduces respiratory and cardiovascular health risks, promoting well-being and productivity [75].
Enhanced Commissioning	It extends basic commissioning with ongoing checks and post-occupancy monitoring, ensuring performance over time.	It reduces energy consumption and emissions by correcting inefficiencies in HVAC, lighting, and building envelopes, preventing excessive or sub-optimal equipment operation [76].	It reduces operating and maintenance costs by optimizing system performance, extends equipment life, reduces operational failures, and allows for the postponement of investments in energy infrastructure [77].	It improves thermal comfort and indoor air quality, increases occupant satisfaction and productivity, reduces the number of complaints, and strengthens the training of operation and maintenance teams, promoting healthier and safer environments [78].
Demand response management and adoption of interactive grid	It integrates the building into the electrical grid, allowing energy consumption to adjust based on operating conditions and system signals.	It reduces the carbon footprint of the electrical system and increases the integration of renewable sources [79,80].	It enhances grid reliability, reduces the risk of power outages for the local community, and promotes consumer awareness regarding energy consumption [79,80].	It reduces energy costs during peak hours, improves reliability, and delays investments in generation and transmission [79,80].
Enhanced Refrigerant Management	Encourages the use of substances with low global warming potential and best control practices.	It reduces direct greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% by replacing HFCs with low-GWP refrigerants (such as CO2, HFOs, and hydrocarbons), contributing to climate change mitigation and ozone layer protection [68,81].	It lowers operating and maintenance costs through leak prevention and energy efficiency, while driving innovation, job creation, and competitiveness in sustainable refrigeration [68,81].	It improves occupational safety and indoor air quality by reducing exposure to toxic and flammable substances, contributes to public health and community well-being, and supports the achievement of global climate goals [81].

4.2.5. Materials and Resources

The Materials and Resources category focuses on the responsible management of inputs used in the built environment, prioritizing the reduction in environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle of materials, from extraction and manufacturing to use, reuse, and disposal. This approach encourages circular economy practices, promotes the use of products with low environmental impact, and fosters transparency in supply chains through certifications and environmental product declarations. Strategies in this area involve the selection of recycled, reused, or sustainably sourced materials, the efficient management of construction and demolition waste, and the adoption of durability and disassembly criteria that extend the useful life of buildings and reduce the demand for new resources. Table 5 presents the best practices associated with the Materials and Resources category, accompanied by their descriptions and the environmental, economic, and social benefits they generate.

Table 5. LEED-Based Best Practices for Materials and Resources Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Construction and demolition waste management plan/Planning for Zero Waste Operations	It implements a waste management plan with separation and recovery targets, reducing landfill and incinerator volume through reuse and recycling.	It reduces the volume of waste in landfills, minimizes soil and water contamination, and contributes to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging recycling and reuse of materials and preserving natural resources [82,83].	It improves health and safety in the workplace, creates jobs associated with the circular economy, and promotes environmental awareness among workers and communities, strengthening sustainable practices in the construction sector [84,85].	It reduces transportation and disposal costs, generates savings through the reuse of materials, and increases the efficiency of construction processes, stimulating production chains aligned with the circular economy [86,87,88].
Quantification and assessment of embodied carbon in construction	It measures life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of construction materials to identify carbon sources and guides sustainable design and specification decisions.	It reduces construction climate impact by replacing carbon-intensive materials with low-footprint alternatives, promoting a transition toward carbon neutrality [89,90].	It promotes innovation and technical training, strengthens public sustainability policies, and raises awareness about the total decarbonization of the building life cycle [90,91,92].	It optimizes material life cycles, lowers operating and maintenance costs, and increases the transparency and market value of sustainable developments [89,90].
Reuse of materials with reduced impact on the building’s life cycle/Building and Materials Reuse	It incorporates reused materials into new buildings, reducing embodied carbon, keeping resources in circulation, and decreasing the demand for virgin raw materials, preserving natural resources and historical values.	It reduces carbon emissions and raw material consumption, extends the useful life of components, and decreases waste volume, contributing to environmental conservation and climate mitigation [93].	It improves the quality of life of users by providing healthier and more comfortable environments and encourages sustainable and circular practices in the construction sector [93].	Despite higher initial costs, it reduces long-term operating and maintenance expenses and increases property value, fostering markets for reused materials [93].
Reducing embodied carbon by reducing the impact of the building’s life cycle/Reduce Embodied Carbon	It monitors and reduces the embodied carbon in key structural, finishing, and landscaping materials in new and renovation projects by adopting low-impact solutions.	The use of concrete with pozzolanic additions, recycled steel, and engineered wood reduces building life cycle emissions up to 40%, contributing to climate neutrality goals [94,95].	It boosts technical skills and green jobs, raises awareness of sustainability, and strengthens healthier and more resilient urban communities [94].	It generates savings through efficient use of materials and waste reduction, stimulates innovation, and increases competitiveness in carbon pricing policies [95]
Use of Low-Emitting Materials	It uses low-emitting interior materials, such as paints, coatings, adhesives, flooring, and furniture, which reduce pollutants and improve air quality.	It promotes conservation of natural resources, reduces GHG emissions and waste, and encourages the use of recycled, renewable, and lower-environmental-impact materials [96].	It provides healthier indoor environments, reducing respiratory problems and allergies and increasing the thermal and acoustic comfort of occupants [97].	It reduces waste and maintenance costs, in addition to optimizing energy performance and material durability [98].
Disclosure and Sustainable Optimization of Building Materials/Building Product Selection and Procurement	It encourages the use of products and materials with transparent information on sustainability (EPD), responsible sourcing, and safe chemical ingredients, rewarding choices with lower impact.	It reduces embodied carbon emissions, promotes the circular economy, and optimizes the production chain with low-impact materials [99,100,101].	It increases transparency and trust with consumers and promotes the well-being of occupants by using natural and healthy materials [102].	It generates reduced operating costs, competitive advantage in bidding, and access to markets with strict environmental requirements [101,103,104].
Use of construction and demolition waste/Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion	It maximizes the reuse and recycling of construction and demolition materials, preserving their value and promoting the circular economy.	It reduces soil, water, and air pollution, contributes to the Zero Waste goal, and reduces CO2 emissions by up to 19.7% by replacing raw materials in cement production [105,106].	It generates local jobs, improves worker health, and contributes to sustainable urban development in densely populated areas [105,106]	It reduces production costs by using recycled aggregates, preserves the value of materials, and encourages waste minimization practices with economic instruments [106].

Table 5. LEED-Based Best Practices for Materials and Resources Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Construction and demolition waste management plan/Planning for Zero Waste Operations	It implements a waste management plan with separation and recovery targets, reducing landfill and incinerator volume through reuse and recycling.	It reduces the volume of waste in landfills, minimizes soil and water contamination, and contributes to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging recycling and reuse of materials and preserving natural resources [82,83].	It improves health and safety in the workplace, creates jobs associated with the circular economy, and promotes environmental awareness among workers and communities, strengthening sustainable practices in the construction sector [84,85].	It reduces transportation and disposal costs, generates savings through the reuse of materials, and increases the efficiency of construction processes, stimulating production chains aligned with the circular economy [86,87,88].
Quantification and assessment of embodied carbon in construction	It measures life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of construction materials to identify carbon sources and guides sustainable design and specification decisions.	It reduces construction climate impact by replacing carbon-intensive materials with low-footprint alternatives, promoting a transition toward carbon neutrality [89,90].	It promotes innovation and technical training, strengthens public sustainability policies, and raises awareness about the total decarbonization of the building life cycle [90,91,92].	It optimizes material life cycles, lowers operating and maintenance costs, and increases the transparency and market value of sustainable developments [89,90].
Reuse of materials with reduced impact on the building’s life cycle/Building and Materials Reuse	It incorporates reused materials into new buildings, reducing embodied carbon, keeping resources in circulation, and decreasing the demand for virgin raw materials, preserving natural resources and historical values.	It reduces carbon emissions and raw material consumption, extends the useful life of components, and decreases waste volume, contributing to environmental conservation and climate mitigation [93].	It improves the quality of life of users by providing healthier and more comfortable environments and encourages sustainable and circular practices in the construction sector [93].	Despite higher initial costs, it reduces long-term operating and maintenance expenses and increases property value, fostering markets for reused materials [93].
Reducing embodied carbon by reducing the impact of the building’s life cycle/Reduce Embodied Carbon	It monitors and reduces the embodied carbon in key structural, finishing, and landscaping materials in new and renovation projects by adopting low-impact solutions.	The use of concrete with pozzolanic additions, recycled steel, and engineered wood reduces building life cycle emissions up to 40%, contributing to climate neutrality goals [94,95].	It boosts technical skills and green jobs, raises awareness of sustainability, and strengthens healthier and more resilient urban communities [94].	It generates savings through efficient use of materials and waste reduction, stimulates innovation, and increases competitiveness in carbon pricing policies [95]
Use of Low-Emitting Materials	It uses low-emitting interior materials, such as paints, coatings, adhesives, flooring, and furniture, which reduce pollutants and improve air quality.	It promotes conservation of natural resources, reduces GHG emissions and waste, and encourages the use of recycled, renewable, and lower-environmental-impact materials [96].	It provides healthier indoor environments, reducing respiratory problems and allergies and increasing the thermal and acoustic comfort of occupants [97].	It reduces waste and maintenance costs, in addition to optimizing energy performance and material durability [98].
Disclosure and Sustainable Optimization of Building Materials/Building Product Selection and Procurement	It encourages the use of products and materials with transparent information on sustainability (EPD), responsible sourcing, and safe chemical ingredients, rewarding choices with lower impact.	It reduces embodied carbon emissions, promotes the circular economy, and optimizes the production chain with low-impact materials [99,100,101].	It increases transparency and trust with consumers and promotes the well-being of occupants by using natural and healthy materials [102].	It generates reduced operating costs, competitive advantage in bidding, and access to markets with strict environmental requirements [101,103,104].
Use of construction and demolition waste/Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion	It maximizes the reuse and recycling of construction and demolition materials, preserving their value and promoting the circular economy.	It reduces soil, water, and air pollution, contributes to the Zero Waste goal, and reduces CO2 emissions by up to 19.7% by replacing raw materials in cement production [105,106].	It generates local jobs, improves worker health, and contributes to sustainable urban development in densely populated areas [105,106]	It reduces production costs by using recycled aggregates, preserves the value of materials, and encourages waste minimization practices with economic instruments [106].

4.2.6. Indoor Environmental Quality

The Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) category focuses on creating indoor environments that promote the health, comfort, and well-being of occupants. Table 6 presents seven best practices in this category, including indoor air quality management, smoke and vehicle idling control, occupant experience (thermal, lighting, and acoustic comfort), accessibility and inclusion, resilient spaces, and air quality testing and monitoring, along with their descriptions and the environmental, economic, and social benefits they generate.

Table 6. LEED-Based Best Practices for Indoor Environmental Quality Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Indoor air quality management plan in construction/ Construction Management	It protects worker and occupant well-being by defining indoor air quality (IAQ) standards during construction, preventing contamination and moisture damage to materials.	It reduces carbon footprint and energy consumption by promoting more efficient and sustainable ventilation and air conditioning systems [82,83].	It reduces respiratory diseases, allergies, and lung infections, improving the health and well-being of occupants and workers [107].	It improves operational efficiency and reduces long-term costs through energy optimization and reduction in rework related to poor air quality [86].
Indoor Air Quality Assurance and Optimization/Fundamental Air Quality	It enhances occupant comfort, well-being, and productivity by improving indoor air quality through efficient ventilation, contaminant reduction, and continuous air monitoring.	It contributes to reducing energy consumption and carbon footprint through the use of natural ventilation and high-efficiency systems, aligning with sustainability principles [108].	It ensures healthier and more productive indoor environments, preventing “Sick Building Syndrome” and promoting equity in health and cognitive performance [108,109].	It increases occupant productivity and satisfaction, reduces absenteeism and operating costs with corrective maintenance, and optimizes energy performance [108]
Environmental Control of Smoke/No Smoking or Vehicle Idling	It minimizes exposure of occupants and users to tobacco smoke, substitutes, cannabis smoke, and vehicle emissions, ensuring healthier indoor and outdoor environments.	It reduces air pollutants and environmental risks associated with secondhand smoke, improving air quality and contributing to cleaner and safer indoor environments [110].	It reduces the financial and social burden of smoking-related diseases, lowering public health costs and work absenteeism [110].	It promotes health equity and denormalizes tobacco, creating safer environments and positive role models for children and youth [110].
Promotion of thermal comfort, indoor lighting, natural light, quality views, and acoustic comfort/Occupant Experience	It enhances occupant health, productivity, and satisfaction through a human-centered design that optimizes thermal, lighting, acoustic, and visual comfort while fostering emotional connections to the space.	Optimizing thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort lowers energy consumption and emissions while reducing lighting waste and improving overall building performance [9,111,112,113,114,115,116,117].	It boosts occupant health, performance, and satisfaction while reducing stress, fatigue, and hearing issues by creating comfortable, accessible, and inclusive environments [111,118,119,120,121].	It reduces operational and maintenance costs, increases property value, and boosts occupant productivity, leading to financial savings and improved organizational performance [111,114,117,122,123,124].
Adoption of indoor air quality improvement project/Enhanced Air Quality	This consists of designing facilities to improve indoor air quality and better protect the health of building occupants.	Improving indoor air quality reduces pollutant exposure, while effective ventilation filters, conditions, and replaces indoor air to remove contaminants [125].	Designing for IAQ contributes to safer, healthier, and more comfortable spaces, protecting all occupants from respiratory hazards [126,127].	Improving IAQ generates financial gains by reducing costs related to health, absenteeism, and lost productivity [126].
Ensuring Accessibility and Inclusive Environments/Providing Accessibility and Inclusion	It aligns with Design for All principles to meet diverse occupant needs, increasing building usability while promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion.	It integrates sustainable, resilient, and biophilic design strategies to improve environmental quality and occupant well-being [128].	It promotes social inclusion, autonomy, and full participation of people with disabilities, strengthening the sense of belonging and community cohesion [125,128].	It increases the efficiency and value of projects by optimizing evidence-based design improvements and processes, favoring return on investment [128].
Promote resilient spaces/Resilient Spaces	Implement design features that strengthen the ability of occupants and buildings to adapt to climate variations and extreme events, ensuring comfort, health, and safety.	It reduces exposure to environmental risks and optimizes the building’s thermal and energy performance, contributing to adaptation to climate change [129].	It protects occupant health during pandemics and extreme conditions, reducing social vulnerabilities by creating safer, more adaptable environments [130].	It represents a long-term investment that reduces operating and maintenance costs, in addition to adding market value to resilient developments [131].
Indoor Air Quality Assessment/Air Quality Testing and Monitoring	It seeks to monitor and ensure indoor air quality after construction and during occupancy by controlling variables such as CO2, humidity, and temperature.	It improves the environmental performance of the building by reducing pollutants and optimizing energy use through natural ventilation and efficient environmental control [117,132].	It improves the comfort, health, and well-being of occupants by reducing exposure to pollutants, promoting environmental equity and transparency, and strengthening capacity building and awareness [132,133].	It reduces productivity losses, increases operational efficiency, and lowers instrumentation and maintenance costs, in addition to promoting affordable monitoring solutions [133,134].

Table 6. LEED-Based Best Practices for Indoor Environmental Quality Applied to Logistics Buildings.

Best Practice	Description	Environmental Benefits	Social Benefits	Economic Benefits
Indoor air quality management plan in construction/ Construction Management	It protects worker and occupant well-being by defining indoor air quality (IAQ) standards during construction, preventing contamination and moisture damage to materials.	It reduces carbon footprint and energy consumption by promoting more efficient and sustainable ventilation and air conditioning systems [82,83].	It reduces respiratory diseases, allergies, and lung infections, improving the health and well-being of occupants and workers [107].	It improves operational efficiency and reduces long-term costs through energy optimization and reduction in rework related to poor air quality [86].
Indoor Air Quality Assurance and Optimization/Fundamental Air Quality	It enhances occupant comfort, well-being, and productivity by improving indoor air quality through efficient ventilation, contaminant reduction, and continuous air monitoring.	It contributes to reducing energy consumption and carbon footprint through the use of natural ventilation and high-efficiency systems, aligning with sustainability principles [108].	It ensures healthier and more productive indoor environments, preventing “Sick Building Syndrome” and promoting equity in health and cognitive performance [108,109].	It increases occupant productivity and satisfaction, reduces absenteeism and operating costs with corrective maintenance, and optimizes energy performance [108]
Environmental Control of Smoke/No Smoking or Vehicle Idling	It minimizes exposure of occupants and users to tobacco smoke, substitutes, cannabis smoke, and vehicle emissions, ensuring healthier indoor and outdoor environments.	It reduces air pollutants and environmental risks associated with secondhand smoke, improving air quality and contributing to cleaner and safer indoor environments [110].	It reduces the financial and social burden of smoking-related diseases, lowering public health costs and work absenteeism [110].	It promotes health equity and denormalizes tobacco, creating safer environments and positive role models for children and youth [110].
Promotion of thermal comfort, indoor lighting, natural light, quality views, and acoustic comfort/Occupant Experience	It enhances occupant health, productivity, and satisfaction through a human-centered design that optimizes thermal, lighting, acoustic, and visual comfort while fostering emotional connections to the space.	Optimizing thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort lowers energy consumption and emissions while reducing lighting waste and improving overall building performance [9,111,112,113,114,115,116,117].	It boosts occupant health, performance, and satisfaction while reducing stress, fatigue, and hearing issues by creating comfortable, accessible, and inclusive environments [111,118,119,120,121].	It reduces operational and maintenance costs, increases property value, and boosts occupant productivity, leading to financial savings and improved organizational performance [111,114,117,122,123,124].
Adoption of indoor air quality improvement project/Enhanced Air Quality	This consists of designing facilities to improve indoor air quality and better protect the health of building occupants.	Improving indoor air quality reduces pollutant exposure, while effective ventilation filters, conditions, and replaces indoor air to remove contaminants [125].	Designing for IAQ contributes to safer, healthier, and more comfortable spaces, protecting all occupants from respiratory hazards [126,127].	Improving IAQ generates financial gains by reducing costs related to health, absenteeism, and lost productivity [126].
Ensuring Accessibility and Inclusive Environments/Providing Accessibility and Inclusion	It aligns with Design for All principles to meet diverse occupant needs, increasing building usability while promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion.	It integrates sustainable, resilient, and biophilic design strategies to improve environmental quality and occupant well-being [128].	It promotes social inclusion, autonomy, and full participation of people with disabilities, strengthening the sense of belonging and community cohesion [125,128].	It increases the efficiency and value of projects by optimizing evidence-based design improvements and processes, favoring return on investment [128].
Promote resilient spaces/Resilient Spaces	Implement design features that strengthen the ability of occupants and buildings to adapt to climate variations and extreme events, ensuring comfort, health, and safety.	It reduces exposure to environmental risks and optimizes the building’s thermal and energy performance, contributing to adaptation to climate change [129].	It protects occupant health during pandemics and extreme conditions, reducing social vulnerabilities by creating safer, more adaptable environments [130].	It represents a long-term investment that reduces operating and maintenance costs, in addition to adding market value to resilient developments [131].
Indoor Air Quality Assessment/Air Quality Testing and Monitoring	It seeks to monitor and ensure indoor air quality after construction and during occupancy by controlling variables such as CO2, humidity, and temperature.	It improves the environmental performance of the building by reducing pollutants and optimizing energy use through natural ventilation and efficient environmental control [117,132].	It improves the comfort, health, and well-being of occupants by reducing exposure to pollutants, promoting environmental equity and transparency, and strengthening capacity building and awareness [132,133].	It reduces productivity losses, increases operational efficiency, and lowers instrumentation and maintenance costs, in addition to promoting affordable monitoring solutions [133,134].

4.3. Step 3—Development of the Materiality Matrix—LEED

To develop the materiality matrix, the impact of best practices on economic (Profit), environmental (Planet), and social (People) performance was assessed based on the opinions of sustainability experts in logistics buildings.

Using a qualitative approach and document analysis of impacts on the TBL pillars, the matrix was adapted to ensure scientific consistency, practical applicability, and alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. For this purpose, the Materiality Matrix tool was adapted to the logistics construction context, drawing on recognized methodologies [27,135,136].

4.3.1. TBL Impact of Best Practices—X-Axis

The X-axis of the materiality matrix was designed to represent the significance of each best practice in terms of its potential impact on the TBL dimensions. To operationalize this assessment, a qualitative evaluation procedure was conducted through expert brainstorming, as illustrated in Figure 2, combining evidence from the literature review with the judgment of specialists in sustainability, construction, and logistics. Based on this approach, each practice was assessed using an ordinal scale to classify the intensity and scope of its expected contribution to the TBL pillars.

Brainstorming is a designed structured creative technique method used to generate many ideas for a specific problem without immediate criticism. It can be done individually or in groups, though individuals often produce more original ideas before group discussion. Improved versions, such as value-focused brainstorming, make the process more effective by aligning ideas with clear objectives [137].

Wilson (2013) [138] suggests that brainstorming works well in groups of three to ten people, with three to six being especially effective for focused idea generation. For sustainability-related classification, brainstorming was selected as a complementary qualitative approach because it facilitates knowledge exchange among experts and supports the interpretation and classification of complex sustainability practices across multiple dimensions, as also shown by McDaniel et al. (2025) [139]. Given the exploratory and framework-development nature of this study, emphasis was placed on the relevance and complementarity of expert knowledge rather than statistical representativeness [140].

A structured brainstorming process was conducted with four specialists in sustainability, construction, and logistics, each with at least five years of professional experience. The participants were purposively selected based on their recognized expertise in sustainability, as evidenced by their academic qualifications, research activities, teaching experience, and participation in sustainability-related projects, while complementary knowledge in construction and logistics was considered to ensure a multidisciplinary assessment. The brainstorming sessions were designed to evaluate the intensity and scope of each sustainability practice across the environmental, social, and economic pillars of the TBL framework. Potential participants were identified through academic and professional networks and invited directly via email to contribute to the assessment process. The specialists were not identified and agreed to have their opinions used as a source for the study.

A panel of four participants was considered appropriate for the brainstorming process, as it falls within the recommended range while still allowing for diversity of perspectives and effective interaction. The study used purposive sampling to select specialists with strong expertise in sustainability and complementary knowledge of construction and logistics. Given these selection criteria, priority was placed on the quality and relevance of expert knowledge rather than on the number of participants, thereby supporting informed and multidisciplinary assessments. The authors were responsible for conducting and facilitating the video conference session.

Data collection focused on LEED v5 best practices adapted to the context of logistics buildings. The process began with a detailed presentation of the selected practices, providing the basis for assessing their potential impacts across the TBL dimensions: economic, environmental, and social. Structured brainstorming was then applied as a collaborative approach to facilitate knowledge exchange and identify insights that may not emerge from individual assessments, enabling a systemic analysis of the practices. The evaluation was conducted through videoconferencing.

To quantify expert perceptions, an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 4 was adopted. The Likert-type scale is a composite measure consisting of a set of interrelated points, typically ranging from 4 to 10 response options, specifically designed to quantify and assess a broad and abstract concept. Among its variations, even-numbered scales stand out because they remove the neutral midpoint and encourage respondents to adopt a definite position on the issue, thereby reducing indecision bias [141]. In addition, according to Lei Chang (1994) [142], the use of scales with fewer response options, such as a four-point scale, is psychometrically more appropriate because it reduces the proliferation of response-method errors and avoids ambiguous distinctions or unnecessary cognitive burden for participants, without compromising the criterion validity of the instrument in measuring the variables under study. The use of an even-numbered scale was intentional, as it removed the neutral midpoint and encouraged a well-founded evaluative position, thereby reducing indecision bias. Whenever disagreements arose, iterative discussion rounds were conducted, supported by evidence from the literature, predefined evaluation criteria, and practical experience, until consensus was achieved among the specialists for each criterion assessed. Discussions were informed by evidence from the literature review, and the final scores were established through expert consensus. To reduce subjectivity and limit individual bias, all assessments were grounded in the reviewed evidence, and impact ratings were assigned according to predefined criteria for each level of the ordinal scale.

The final step consisted of data processing and visualization. The Materiality Matrix was then constructed by crossing the TBL Impact (derived from expert consensus on the X-axis) with Stakeholder Relevance (derived from the LEED scoring structure on the Y-axis). This approach enables the identification of strategies that generate the greatest shared and sustainable value for the logistics sector.

An ordinal evaluation scale from 1 to 4 was used to represent different levels of significance, as described in

Table A1. Description of impacts according to the ordinal evaluation scale.

Impact	Denomination	Description
1	Minimal Impact	The practice causes slight and localized changes, with limited effect within the specific scope.
2	Moderate Impact	The practice generates noticeable yet non-comprehensive improvements, affecting a significant part of the operation.
3	High Impact	The practice results in major changes, with broad and visible effects across most of the operation.
4	Very High Impact	The practice leads to substantial transformations, deeply and extensively altering the logistics scope.

Source: Prepared by the authors, adapted from [135].

, Appendix A.

To enhance the capacity of this expert-based evaluation, a sensitivity analysis was subsequently conducted to examine the stability of the materiality matrix results under variations in the assigned TBL weights.

4.3.2. Relevance of Best Practices for Logistics Stakeholders—Y-Axis

The LEED certification system was developed to establish an evaluation standard that encourages sustainable practices in the construction industry according to project type, encompassing: (i) building design and construction; (ii) interior design and construction; (iii) building operations and maintenance; and (iv) neighborhood development. It measures the environmental performance of buildings throughout their entire life cycle using criteria based on internationally recognized standards [143].

Complementing this structure, the LEED rating system uses a point matrix, with each point representing a sustainability strategy applied to the project. These credits are allocated according to environmental and social priorities: 35% are linked to climate change mitigation, 20% to direct impacts on human health, 15% to water management, 10% to promoting the green economy, and 5% to community resources [144].

LEED evaluates the environmental and sustainable performance of buildings through a cumulative scoring system, which results in the certification levels Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum, ranging from 40 to 110 points. To obtain certification, a project must meet mandatory prerequisites and may earn additional points through optional credits. The level achieved reflects the building’s commitment to sustainable practices and occupants’ well-being.

After presenting the criteria and scoring structure of the LEED v5 system, which guide the evaluation of buildings’ environmental performance and reflect their commitment to sustainability, it is essential to highlight how each action and strategy affects the various stakeholders involved in the logistics process. In this context, relevance, defined as the ability to influence stakeholders in their decision-making, is assessed using an ordinal scale from 1 to 4, representing different levels of significance based on the points assigned to each best practice and the requirement level for its execution, as presented in

Table A2. Description of Relevance Level According to the Ordinal Evaluation Scale.

Relevance Level	Denomination	Description
1	Minimal Relevance	Achievement of minimum scoring.
2	Moderate Relevance	Intermediate performance, with partial attainment of available points.
3	High Relevance	Maximum performance within the credit, achieving the total possible points.
4 = Requirement	Very High Relevance	Fulfillment of mandatory prerequisites.

, Appendix A.

To classify the best practices established by LEED, Equation (1) is used to convert numerical values into nominal values, applying linear normalization [145,146].

$$r=\left({\displaystyle \frac{ s-s_{min}}{s_{max}-s_{min}}} \right)\times (N-1)+1$$

(1)

where r is the new normalized value, s is the original data value, s_min is the minimum value in the dataset, s_max is the maximum value in the dataset, and N is the desired maximum value for the new scale.

Based on the best practices associated with the LEED categories,

Table A3. Scoring for LEED credits and TBL impact.

Categories	Best Practices/Subcategories	LEED Credits			TBL
		Total Credits	Scoring	Relevance to Stakeholders	Environmental		Social		Economic
					Scoring	Impact	Scoring	Impact	Scoring	Impact
Location and Transportation	Equitable development	0 to 15	2	Minimal	2	Moderate	4	Very High	3	High
	Sensitive Land Protection		1	Minimal	4	Very High	3	High	1	Minimal
	Compact and Connected Development		6	High	2	Moderate	3	High	2	Moderate
	Transportation Demand Management		4	Moderate	3	High	4	Very High	2	Moderate
	Electric Vehicles		2	Minimal	4	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate
Sustainable Sites	Minimize Site Disturbance	0 to 11	Required	Very High	4	Very High	2	Moderate	1	Minimal
	Biodiverse Habitat		2	Moderate	4	Very High	3	High	1	Minimal
	Accessible Outdoor Space		1	Minimal	2	Moderate	4	Very High	1	Minimal
	Rainwater Management		3	High	4	Very High	3	High	1	Minimal
	Enhanced Resilient Site Design		2	Moderate	4	Very High	4	Very High	3	High
	Heat Island Reduction		2	Moderate	3	High	4	Very High	2	Moderate
	Light Pollution Reduction		1	Minimal	1	Minimal	3	High	2	Moderate
Water Efficiency	Water Metering and Reporting	0 to 9	Required	Very High	4	Very High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate
	Minimum Water Efficiency		Required	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate
	Water Metering and Leak Detection		1	Minimal	4	Very High	2	Moderate	4	Very High
	Enhanced Water Efficiency		8	High	4	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate
Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air	Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan	0 to 33	Required	Very High	4	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate
	Minimum Energy Efficiency		Required	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate	3	High
	Fundamental Commissioning		Required	Very High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate	3	High
	Energy Metering and Reporting		Required	Very High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate	2	Moderate
	Fundamental Refrigerant Management		Required	Very High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate	2	Moderate
	Electrification of operations/Electrification		5	Moderate	4	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate
	Reduce Peak Thermal Loads		5	Moderate	2	Moderate	2	Moderate	4	Very High
	Enhanced Energy Efficiency		10	High	4	Very High	2	Moderate	3	High
	Renewable Energy		5	Moderate	4	Very High	3	High	2	Moderate
	Enhanced Commissioning		4	Moderate	2	Moderate	1	Minimal	3	High
	Grid interactive		2	Minimal	3	High	3	High	2	Moderate
	Enhanced Refrigerant Management		2	Minimal	4	Very High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate
Materials and Resources	Planning for Zero Waste Operations	0 to 18	Requirement	Very High	4	Very High	3	High	3	High
	Quantify and Assess Embodied Carbon		Requirement	Very High	4	Very High	2	Moderate	3	High
	Building and Materials Reuse		3	Moderate	3	High	3	High	3	High
	Reduce Embodied Carbon		6	High	4	Very High	2	Moderate	3	High
	Low-Emitting Materials		2	Minimal	4	Very High	4	Very High	3	High
	Building Product Selection and Procurement		5	High	3	High	2	Moderate	2	Moderate
	Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion		2	Minimal	4	Very High	2	Moderate	3	High
Indoor Environmental Quality	Construction Management	0 to 16	Required	Very High	3	High	4	Very High	3	High
	Fundamental Air Quality		Required	Very High	2	Moderate	4	Very High	2	Moderate
	No Smoking or Vehicle Idling		Required	Very High	3	High	4	Very High	1	Minimal
	Occupant Experience		7	High	2	Moderate	3	High	3	High
	Enhanced Air Quality		1	Minimal	4	Very High	4	Very High	2	Moderate
	Accessibility and Inclusion		1	Minimal	1	Minimal	4	Very High	1	Minimal
	Resilient Spaces		2	Minimal	4	Very High	3	High	3	High
	Air Quality Testing and Monitoring		2	Minimal	3	High	4	Very High	3	High

Source: Prepared by the authors, based on LEED.

(Appendix B) presents the points associated with LEED accreditation and the degree of impact that may influence sustainable development in terms of the environmental, social, and economic pillars, as determined by expert opinion.

4.4. Step 4—Impact Assessment Based on the TBL Model and Relevance to Stakeholders

This section evaluates the results obtained from the implementation of the materiality matrix with the aim of supporting decision-making regarding the adoption of best practices and compliance with the SDGs.

In this regard, the proposed materiality matrix is intended to provide a structured assessment of the relevance and potential impacts of LEED strategies based on criteria and evidence reported in the scientific and technical literature, rather than on observed performance data from specific building projects.

4.4.1. Initial Framework Application Results—Baseline Scenario

This subsection presents the initial results of the proposed framework, referred to as the Baseline Scenario. This scenario uses the main weights and qualitative assessments defined during the research and represents the standard interpretation of the relationship between LEED criteria and TBL impacts. These results serve as the reference point for sensitivity analysis, allowing comparison of how changes in stakeholder priorities affect the stability of the materiality matrix.

Location and Transportation

In the context of the Location and Transportation category, it can be observed, as shown in Figure 3, that compact and connected development to promote improved population density in the surrounding area and diverse uses is highly relevant for certification, considering the higher number of points obtained, with a high impact on the social pillar, mainly associated with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 10 (Reducing Inequalities). The justification for the high social impact stems from the creation of more accessible, walkable, and integrated neighborhoods, which increase spatial equity, stimulate community interaction, and reduce socioeconomic inequalities through proximity to essential services.

In addition to its social relevance, this approach also contributes to a moderate impact on the environmental pillar by encouraging efficient land use (SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities) and reducing the need for motorized travel, which has a positive impact on reducing pollutant emissions (SDG 13—Climate Action) and encourages sustainable transportation.

Within Location and Transportation (Table A3), Compact and Connected Development shows the highest LEED relevance, with social impact (SDG 3, SDG 8) driven by improved access to services and low-carbon mobility. Transportation Demand Management and Sensitive Land Protection occupy the opposite ends of the relevance spectrum but share a strong social and environmental rationale, respectively: the former through reduced congestion and air pollution (SDG 3, SDG 11) and the latter through biodiversity preservation (SDG 15).

Electric Vehicles stand out for their very high environmental impact (SDG 7), despite moderate relevance to certification, reflecting dependence on charging infrastructure and incentive policies (SDG 9). Equitable Development combines high social and economic impact (SDG 3, SDG 10, SDG 11) with only moderate environmental impact, since its emission benefits depend on complementary urban policies. Full scoring and impact ratings for all five practices are presented in Table A3 (Appendix B).

Sustainable Sites

In Sustainable Sites (Figure 4), Minimize Site Disturbance is the only required prerequisite, with very high environmental impact (SDG 15, SDG 11) from ecosystem protection, though its economic benefits remain indirect and long term (SDG 8). Rainwater Management combines high LEED relevance with very high environmental and social impact, mitigating flood risk and improving urban resilience (SDG 6, SDG 3, SDG 11), despite high upfront investment costs.

Accessible Outdoor Space illustrates a common pattern in this category: minimal certification relevance paired with very high social impact (SDG 3, SDG 11), reflecting benefits in mental health and community well-being that LEED scoring does not fully capture. Enhanced Resilient Site Design shows the most balanced profile, with very high environmental and social impact alongside high economic impact (SDG 3, SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 11, SDG 13), reinforcing climate adaptation and market value. Biodiverse Habitat, Heat Island Reduction, and Light Pollution Reduction follow comparable logic: strong environmental or social benefits with minimal direct economic return, detailed in full in Table A3 (Appendix B).

Efficient Use of Water

In Efficient Use of Water (Figure 5), Water Metering and Reporting is a required prerequisite with very high environmental impact (SDG 6) through conservation and reduced supply-system pressure, alongside moderate social impact via water security and resilience (SDG 3, SDG 11). Its economic impact is also moderate, reflecting reduced operating costs and growth in water-management and circular-economy jobs (SDG 8). The remaining three practices in this category, Minimum Water Efficiency, Water Metering and Leak Detection, and Enhanced Water Efficiency, follow comparable TBL profiles, detailed in Table A3 (Appendix B).

Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air

Within Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air (Figure 6, the category with the most LEED credits available), strategies optimizing energy performance show the highest certification relevance, with very high environmental impact through GHG reduction (SDG 7, SDG 13) and high social and economic impact via comfort, productivity, and reduced operational costs (SDG 3, SDG 8, SDG 9). Commissioning and Monitoring practices show high relevance and environmental impact (SDG 7, SDG 12), with economic benefits from reduced maintenance and extended system lifespan (SDG 8, SDG 9).

On-site renewable energy generation shows very high environmental impact through energy self-sufficiency (SDG 7, SDG 13), while Smart Metering and Automation—despite only moderate certification relevance—carries high environmental and economic impact through precise energy control and data-driven efficiency gains (SDG 8, SDG 12, SDG 13). Air Quality Management strategies stand out for very high social impact (SDG 3) tied to occupant health, contrasting with the category’s otherwise environmental and economic emphasis. Demand Response and Grid-Interactive Buildings round out the category with moderate relevance but growing strategic importance as energy markets evolve (SDG 7, SDG 8, SDG 11, SDG 13). Full scoring across all eleven practices is presented in Table A3 (Appendix B).

Materials and Resources

In Materials and Resources (Figure 7), Planning for Zero Waste Operations is a mandatory prerequisite with very high environmental, social, and economic impact (SDG 8, SDG 12, SDG 13), guiding sustainable management across the building’s life cycle. Quantify and Assess Embodied Carbon and Reduce Embodied Carbon follow a similar high-impact profile, reflecting their joint role in carbon accounting and mitigation. Low-Emitting Materials shows very high environmental and social impact, linking material selection directly to occupant health (SDG 3, SDG 12). Building and Materials Reuse and Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion contribute comparable environmental and economic benefits through circular material flows, while Building Product Selection and Procurement shows the category’s most moderate profile, reflecting its dependence on supply-chain transparency. Full results for all seven practices are presented in Table A3 (Appendix B).

Indoor Environmental Quality

In Indoor Environmental Quality (Figure 8), Fundamental Air Quality and No Smoking or Vehicle Idling are mandatory prerequisites with very high social impact (SDG 3), moderate environmental benefits through reduced pollutant emissions (SDG 11), and limited economic gains associated with productivity and reduced absenteeism (SDG 8). Construction Air Quality Management and Air Quality Testing and Monitoring show high environmental and economic impacts and very high social benefits, supporting pollution prevention, healthier indoor environments, reduced rework costs, and improved workforce productivity (SDGs 3, 8, 9, 11, and 12). Occupant Experience strategies, including thermal, visual, lighting, and acoustic comfort, present very high social impact, moderate environmental benefits through improved energy performance, and high economic value by enhancing productivity, reducing operating costs, and increasing asset value (SDGs 3, 8, and 11). Enhanced Air Quality provides moderate environmental and economic benefits while delivering very high social impact by improving occupant health (SDGs 3, 8, and 11). Finally, Accessibility and Inclusion and Resilient Spaces, although of lower relevance within the certification framework, provide very high social and environmental benefits, respectively, by promoting equity, climate resilience, and long-term building performance, with moderate economic contributions (SDGs 3, 8, 10, 11, and 13). Full results for all practices are presented in Table A3 (Appendix B).

4.4.2. Sensitivity Analysis—Alternative Scenarios

To assess the framework’s stability and reliability, a scenario-based sensitivity analysis was carried out. This analysis systematically varied the weights assigned to the TBL pillars on the Impact Axis (X-axis), while keeping the LEED relevance criteria on the Y-axis fixed, since they are inherent to the certification system. Alternative scenarios were then developed, with greater emphasis on environmental, economic and social priorities, to examine whether the key strategies identified in the Baseline Scenario remained material under different stakeholder perspectives.

Sensitivity analysis examines how uncertainty in model outputs can be attributed, either qualitatively or quantitatively, to variations in assumptions, parameters, or input data [147]. Because it evaluates how results respond to changes in the assumptions underlying the analysis, it is a key step in both model development and result communication [148,149]. In this way, sensitivity analysis provides essential insights into model behavior, structure, and responsiveness to changes in inputs. In this way, this study concludes that the analysis verified whether the framework’s recommendations reflect capacity and consistent priorities for sustainable construction logistics, rather than results dependent on a single weighting structure.

Based on studies by Markatos, Malefaki & Pantelakis, 2023 [150] and Sahabuddin & Khan, 2021 [151], a sensitivity analysis was conducted using scenarios with varying impact severities. The sensitivity criterion is defined by systematic variation of the weighting scheme of the TBL dimensions applied to the Impact Axis (X-axis). To evaluate the framework’s stability and address uncertainties in stakeholder preferences, four weighting scenarios were developed: (i) Alternative Scenario 1—Equal Weighting, assigning 0.33 to each TBL pillar; (ii) Alternative Scenario 2—Environmental Prioritization; (iii) Alternative Scenario 3—Social Prioritization; and (iv) Alternative Scenario 4—Economic Prioritization. In Scenarios 2–4, a dominant weight of 0.75 is assigned to the prioritized pillar, with the remaining 0.25 equally distributed between the other two dimensions (0.125 each). This stress-test approach assesses whether the materiality outcomes remain stable under significantly different stakeholder preference structures. The scenarios are presented in Appendix C.

The consolidated materiality of each subcategory within a specific scenario is determined using a weighted average that combines the individual impact scores of the TBL dimensions in Equation (2).

The general governing Equation (2) for the calculation is expressed as follows:

$$Ms,c=(w_{env,c}\times I_{env,s})+(w_{soc,c}\times I_{soc,s}) +(w_{econ,c}\times I_{econ,s})$$

(2)

where

• Ms,c represents the final materiality index of subcategory s under scenario c.
• $I_{env,s}$, $I_{soc,s}$, and $I_{econ,s}$ represent the intrinsic impact scores of subcategory s across the environmental, social, and economic dimensions, respectively.
• $w_{env,c}$, $w_{soc,c}$, and $w_{econ,c}$ correspond to the specific weights assigned to each dimension within scenario c, subject to the unity constraint where the sum of all weights equals one ($\sum w =1$).

Sensitivity Analysis—Location and Transportation

For the LEED Location and Transportation category, the sensitivity analysis demonstrates how environmental, social, and economic priorities influence the materiality of diverse strategies across alternative scenarios.

Equitable Development maintains a consistently High materiality profile, notably reaching very high in Scenario 3, which reflects its powerful combined contribution to social equity and economic development. Transportation Demand Management also exhibits high materiality in the baseline and most alternative models, peaking at very high in Scenario 3, indicating its strategic importance when social and environmental impacts are prioritized. Similarly, Electric Vehicles remain stable at high across the baseline and the first three alternative scenarios, only declining to moderate in Scenario 4 as economic-operational constraints become more restrictive.

In contrast, other strategies show distinct sensitivity patterns. Sensitive Land Protection remains high through the baseline and the first three alternative scenarios, aligning with its strong environmental focus. However, its materiality is constrained by a minimal economic impact in the baseline, leading to a decline to moderate in Scenario 4, where its less balanced TBL profile becomes a limiting factor. Compact and Connected Development fluctuates between moderate and high, reaching its peak materiality in Scenario 3. These variations underscore the framework’s capacity to distinguish strategies based on their unique TBL characteristics and to clearly reflect how shifting stakeholder priorities impact the perceived relevance of sustainability actions.

Sensitivity Analysis—Sustainable Sites

For the LEED Sustainable Sites category, the baseline assessment shows that materiality is closely associated with the balance of environmental, social, and economic impacts. Enhanced Resilient Site Design achieves the highest baseline materiality due to its very high environmental and social impacts combined with high economic benefits. Biodiverse Habitat, Rainwater Management, and Heat Island Reduction also demonstrate high baseline materiality, reflecting their strong environmental performance and complementary social contributions. In contrast, Minimize Site Disturbance, Accessible Outdoor Space, and Light Pollution Reduction present moderate baseline materiality because their overall TBL profiles are less balanced, despite strong performance in specific dimensions.

The sensitivity analysis shows that Enhanced Resilient Site Design, Biodiverse Habitat, and Rainwater Management are the most consistent strategies, maintaining high to very high materiality across the baseline and the first three alternative scenarios, declining only in Scenario 4. Conversely, Accessible Outdoor Space, Heat Island Reduction, Minimize Site Disturbance, and Light Pollution Reduction exhibit greater sensitivity to changing stakeholder priorities. Overall, Scenario 4 acts as the most restrictive case, with most strategies converging to moderate materiality, except Enhanced Resilient Site Design, which remains highly material.

Sensitivity Analysis—Efficient Use of Water

The sensitivity analysis for the Water Efficiency category shows that materiality varies according to the balance of environmental, social, and economic contributions. In the baseline assessment, Water Metering and Leak Detection achieves the highest materiality due to its very high environmental and economic impacts, while Enhanced Water Efficiency and Water Metering and Reporting attain high materiality by combining strong environmental performance with complementary social and economic benefits. Minimum Water Efficiency presents moderate baseline materiality, reflecting its more balanced but less differentiated TBL profile.

Across the alternative scenarios, Water Metering and Leak Detection proves to be the most consistent strategy, maintaining very high materiality in all scenarios except Scenarios 1 and 3, where it decreases slightly to high. Enhanced Water Efficiency remains consistently high until Scenario 4, when it declines to moderate. Water Metering and Reporting gradually decreases from high to moderate in the later scenarios, whereas Minimum Water Efficiency alternates between moderate and high, indicating greater sensitivity to changes in stakeholder priorities. Overall, Scenario 4 represents the most restrictive condition, reducing the materiality of most strategies while confirming the resilience of Water Metering and Leak Detection.

Sensitivity Analysis—Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air

The sensitivity analysis for the Energy Efficiency and Atmospheric Air category highlights different levels of capacity among decarbonization strategies. In the baseline assessment, high materiality is observed for strategies with strong environmental performance, including Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan, Electrification of Operations, Renewable Energy, Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Minimum Energy Efficiency, and Enhanced Refrigerant Management. Reduce Peak Thermal Loads stands out for its strong economic contribution, while Grid Interactive combines environmental and social benefits. In contrast, Fundamental Commissioning, Enhanced Commissioning, Energy Metering and Reporting, and Fundamental Refrigerant Management exhibit moderate materiality due to their limited differentiation across the Triple Bottom Line dimensions.

Across the alternative scenarios, Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan, Electrification of Operations, Renewable Energy, and Grid Interactive demonstrate the greatest stability, maintaining high materiality until Scenario 4, where they decline to moderate. Reduce Peak Thermal Loads displays the greatest sensitivity, remaining high in Scenario 1, decreasing to moderate in Scenarios 2 and 3, and increasing to very high in Scenario 4. Fundamental Commissioning and Enhanced Commissioning also gain relevance in Scenario 4, reaching high materiality after remaining moderate in previous scenarios. In contrast, Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Enhanced Refrigerant Management, and Minimum Energy Efficiency show moderate sensitivity to stakeholder priorities in Scenario 3, while Energy Metering and Reporting and Fundamental Refrigerant Management remain unchanged across all scenarios. Overall, Scenario 4 represents the strongest shift in priorities, reducing the materiality of most decarbonization strategies while increasing the importance of operational resilience measures.

Sensitivity Analysis—Materials and Resources

The sensitivity analysis for the Materials and Resources category reveals distinct materiality patterns associated with different TBL profiles. In the baseline assessment, Planning for Zero Waste Operations and Low-Emitting Materials achieve the highest materiality due to their very high environmental impacts, combined with high social and economic contributions. Building and Materials Reuse presents balanced high environmental, social, and economic impacts, resulting in consistently high baseline materiality. Quantify and Assess Embodied Carbon and Reduce Embodied Carbon also attain high materiality, reflecting their very high environmental impacts supported by moderate social impact and high economic benefits. Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion reaches high materiality through its very high environmental impact, despite more moderate social contributions. Building Product Selection and Procurement also exhibits high baseline materiality, supported by high environmental and moderate social and economic impacts.

Of all the alternative scenarios, Building and Materials Reuse offers the greatest certainty, maintaining high materiality throughout all scenarios. Low-Emitting Materials remains at very high materiality until Scenario 4, where it decreases slightly to high. Planning for Zero Waste Operations is the only strategy that improves under Scenario 2, reaching very high materiality while remaining high in the other scenarios. In contrast, Quantify and Assess Embodied Carbon, Reduce Embodied Carbon, and Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion decline to moderate materiality in Scenario 3, indicating greater sensitivity to changes in stakeholder priorities. Building Product Selection and Procurement is the most sensitive strategy, decreasing to moderate materiality in Scenarios 1, 3, and 4, and recovering to high only in Scenario 2. Overall, Scenario 2 strengthens the materiality of the most consistent resource-efficiency strategies, whereas Scenario 3 primarily reduces the importance of carbon- and waste-related practices.

Sensitivity Analysis—Indoor Environmental Quality

The sensitivity analysis for the Indoor Environmental Quality category demonstrates how different TBL profiles influence the materiality of indoor sustainability strategies under changing stakeholder priorities. In the baseline assessment, Construction Management, Enhanced Air Quality, Air Quality Testing and Monitoring, No Smoking or Vehicle Idling, and Resilient Spaces achieve high materiality due to their strong environmental and social contributions, supported by minimal, moderate to high economic impacts. Conversely, Fundamental Air Quality, Occupant Experience, and Accessibility and Inclusion exhibit moderate baseline materiality, reflecting more balanced or less differentiated TBL profiles.

Across the alternative scenarios, Construction Management, Enhanced Air Quality, Resilient Spaces, and Air Quality Testing and Monitoring maintain high materiality in most scenarios and reach high to very high materiality in Scenario 3. Occupant Experience ranges from moderate in the baseline scenario to consistently high in all alternative scenarios except for Scenario 2, while Fundamental Air Quality also reaches very high materiality in Scenario 3. Accessibility and Inclusion demonstrate the greatest positive variation, increasing from moderate in the baseline to high in Scenario 3, highlighting its increased relevance when social equity is prioritized. In contrast, No Smoking or Vehicle Idling maintains high materiality until Scenario 3 before declining to moderate in Scenario 4. Overall, Scenario 3 reinforces strategies related to occupant health, safety, and well-being, whereas Scenario 4 represents the most restrictive condition for the category.

5. Final Considerations

This study’s principal contribution lies in the proposed Triple Bottom Line-based materiality matrix, a strategic decision-support tool that organizes and prioritizes sustainability practices for logistics buildings according to their relevance to stakeholders and their impacts across environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

Rather than viewing sustainable building practices as isolated interventions, the matrix frames them as interconnected strategies, linked across the planning, design, construction, and operation phases of logistics buildings. However, the present study does not empirically assess the performance of buildings implementing these practices, nor does it quantify their individual or combined impacts on sustainability outcomes. Therefore, they should be interpreted as indicative assessments rather than direct measurements of performance in real-world building projects. In addition, the Integrative Process and Regional Priority categories were not incorporated into the materiality matrix, as they require distinct, project-specific analytical approaches not addressed in this study, representing a further boundary of the proposed framework.

From a practical perspective, the proposed tool provides valuable insights for architects, engineers, project managers, policymakers, certification bodies, and building owners. By prioritizing practices according to their materiality, the matrix supports decision-making during the planning, design, construction, and operation phases of buildings, facilitating compliance with sustainability standards, including the integration of complementary digital tools such as geospatial analysis. Nevertheless, the study does not evaluate the effectiveness of these practices in specific projects, nor does it measure their influence on economic performance, resource allocation efficiency, investment decisions, or environmental outcomes. It is also important to emphasize that the impact classifications presented in the materiality matrix are based on expert judgment and evidence synthesized from the literature. Therefore, they should be interpreted as indicative assessments rather than direct measurements of performance in real-world building projects.

Practical application of the proposed materiality matrix in a real building project could further demonstrate its usefulness and facilitate the interpretation of the results. This study focuses on the development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic synthesis of the literature and expert-based assessment, complemented by a sensitivity analysis to assess its robustness. However, the implementation of the matrix in real projects would require access to project-specific operational, environmental, social, and economic data, as well as longitudinal monitoring to evaluate actual outcomes. These requirements were not available within the scope, resources, and timeframe of the current research. Therefore, the absence of a practical case study should be considered a limitation of this work. Future research is encouraged to apply and validate the proposed materiality matrix in real-world building projects, allowing for the assessment of its applicability, robustness, and potential contributions to sustainability-oriented decision-making processes.

Future research can also focus on evaluating the long-term performance of sustainable building practices through empirical case studies and longitudinal analyses. Additional studies could also investigate the integration of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, digital twins, smart sensors, and Internet of Things (IoT) systems, to further improve building sustainability. Moreover, comparative analyses across different regions and building types would help identify context-specific strategies and support the development of more effective sustainability frameworks for the built environment. Future studies could also validate the proposed materiality matrix through applications in real projects and assess whether the identified practices lead to measurable environmental, social, operational, or economic outcomes.

Overall, rather than demonstrating causal effects or performance improvements, this study provides an evidence-based and expert-validated tool for organizing and prioritizing sustainability-related practices in the logistics construction context. The results emphasize the importance of adopting a holistic and integrated perspective when considering sustainable construction and offer a foundation for future empirical investigations into the implementation and impacts of these practices in the built environment.