Wint Mon Swe
Margarida Ribau Teixeira
Laura Smuleac3
Luís M. Nunes
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for Sustainability Center, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
- 2CENSE, Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research & CHANGE, Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
- 3University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I”, Timisoara, Romania
This article explores how ecodesign can help enhance environmental assessment methods (EAMs) employed by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Current EAMs primarily offer resource management evaluations or sustainability rankings but lack holistic and actionable solutions for institutional improvements. The proposed method integrates ecodesign tools, such as Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), environmental benchmarking, and parametric design tools, with existing EAM frameworks. This synergy allows HEIs to quantitatively assess their environmental and social impacts while identifying targeted strategies for improvement. By embedding ecodesign into institutional practices the approach provides a structured pathway to align HEIs with global sustainability goals, fostering innovation and continuous improvement. The paper emphasizes a multi-tool integration strategy, offering a cohesive solution to advance sustainability comprehensively within HEIs.
1 Introduction
The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It is a holistic concept built on three main pillars: economic, social, and environmental (Brundtland, 1987). Therefore, sustainability must define economic and social development goals, involving a progressive transformation of the economy and society, without overexploiting resources and endangering the natural life systems (Brundtland, 1987). Sustainability requires equitable access to constrained resources and reorienting technological efforts to relieve the presume (Brundtland, 1987). Therefore, sustainability was highlighted as a complex model impacting various areas and activities (Berzosa et al., 2017). Ecodesign, under sustainable development, focuses on creating environmentally friendly products and methods to minimize harm, conserve resources, and promote sustainability. It incorporates environmental considerations into the design process, accounting for impacts throughout a product’s lifecycle to reduce resource use, energy consumption, waste, and pollution (Bovea and Perez-Belis, 2012; Ahmad et al., 2018; Schäfer and Löwer, 2021). The concept has expanded beyond products to include applications in organizations and services (McAloone and Pigosso, 2017). Many similar concepts exist in the same realm as ecodesign, such as Design for Environment (Kapur and Graedel, 2004), Life Cycle Engineering (Alting, 1995; Hauschild et al., 2017), and Sustainable Product Design (Ahmad et al., 2018), which all share similar objectives: to design products and services with the goal of reducing negative environmental impacts throughout their lifecycle (Pardo et al., 2011; Schäfer and Löwer, 2021). The Ecodesign Directive (Directive 2009/125/EC) (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2009) sets a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (Bovea and Perez-Belis, 2012). However, the term is not limited to energy-related products. It can be widely applied to other products and systems such as consumer goods, industrial equipment, transportation, food and agriculture, and services.
Ecodesign tool’s main function is to reduce the environmental impacts of a product or service, and they are available in different levels of complexity and input requirements (Lofthouse, 2006; Ahmad et al., 2018). Numerous tools are available on the market, so it is a challenge for engineers and designers to select a tool that best fits their needs (Pardo et al., 2011). Many of the ecodesign tools are mainly associated with production industries, such as manufacturing and product design, consumer electronics, automotive, and textile and fashion to name a few (European Commission, 2024). However, these tools are insufficient when it comes to an area such as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Managers of such institutions frequently face difficulties analyzing their organization’s capability for innovation and mapping viable ecodesign techniques due to the lack of specific tools and internal competencies.
HEIs have a moral responsibility to promote the knowledge, skills, and values needed for a sustainable future (Gomez et al., 2012). HEIs play a crucial role in integrating sustainability into education, research, and operations (Mapar et al., 2022). They also help equip students with the tools to build a sustainable society (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015). At the 2012 UN conference, HEIs committed to sustainable development through action, not just policies or statements (United Nations, 2024). Adopting sustainability initiatives and ecodesign is key to addressing environmental impacts. However, scientific experiments are designed to reduce bias and ensure consistent conditions, which makes them resource intensive. This often requires constant energy supply for temperature control and reliance on disposable items like gloves, plastic tubes, and pipette tips (LABMATE, 2019). Laboratory waste, especially biohazardous materials like blood, cells, or pathogens, poses risks to humans and the environment and must be carefully handled (Dolski, 2022; Manufacturing Chemist, 2022). Biohazard waste incineration at 1,200°C (Webber, 2024) leaves a significant environmental footprint. The extensive use of disposable plastics is a major issue in research. For instance, a McGill University study found that 16 of their labs produced over 100 tons of plastic and 275 tons of glass waste in one year (Akbari et al., 2015). Globally, academic labs generate about 5.5 million tons of plastic waste annually, despite scientists representing only 0.1% of the population (Urbina et al., 2015; Manufacturing Chemist, 2022). Plastic waste harms marine life and persists in the environment. In ecology studies, only 11–18% achieve full informative value (Purgar et al., 2022), meaning many environmental costs are not justified by the benefits. Therefore, both individuals and institutions must take steps to reduce scientific waste, and many HEIs use tools to assess advancement toward sustainability.
This brief aims to explore links between ecodesign and sustainability assessment tools (SATs), highlighting how specific ecodesign methods can support SATs. The paper summarizes common objectives, tools, and evaluation factors using select methodologies to illustrate its focus.
2 Overview of current widely used environmental assessment methods in HEIs
Environmental assessment tools are designed to evaluate sustainability in HEIs, but many focus on resource management rather than enabling campus-to-campus comparisons (Gomez et al., 2012). Some tools offer certification to highlight an institution’s sustainability efforts, while others provide ranking systems for comparison. Table 1 presents the widely applied sustainable assessment tools in HEIs; considering the variation in types, tools’ evaluation factors, and whether ecodesign tools exist that evaluate these factors. Commonly used tools include Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Green Lab Certification, and Times Higher Education rankings (THE). These tools were derived from the Google Scholar using the keywords “campus sustainability,” “HEI sustainability assessments,” and “sustainability assessment tools for HEIs” to identify and apply commonly discussed tools in higher education institutions.
Table 1
Table 1. Some of the widely applied sustainable assessment tools in HEIs.
Many environmental assessment tools, mainly ranking tools, utilized by HEIs allow for qualitative data analysis in their methodologies. Ranking tools provide an overview of the status of the participating university but do not provide, nor address overall sustainability aspects particularly Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) indicators (Veidemane, 2022), nor do they provide the path for improvement. Table 1 highlights that not all key factors of HEI sustainability have corresponding ecodesign concepts, making it easy to identify gaps and guide future studies to address them.
3 How Ecodesign can complement HEI environmental assessment methods
Ecodesign tools can be complementary to HEIs’ environmental assessment methods by providing academic and operational approaches with sustainable practices (Vallet et al., 2013). Moreover, ecodesign not only streamlines the environmental performance but also other sustainability aspects like social and economic performances that apply to institutes like HEIs. Ecodesign principles can add value to these assessments by integrating sustainable practices into both institutional infrastructure and educational programs.
Ecodesign tools can be summarized as Table 2:
• BIM (Building Information Modeling): For energy efficiency of the buildings, which helps design energy-efficient buildings with 3D representation that simulates geometric and energy use and optimizing designs for natural light and heat management (Lamé et al., 2017; Paolini et al., 2019);
• Checklists: A qualitative tool that allows a quick and easy evaluation of environmental impacts over the life cycle of a product or service (Ali et al., 2012);
• Environmental Benchmarking: Using environmental benchmarking parameters such as Key Environmental Indicators to compare the quality and meet the benchmarking target (Yim and Lee, 2002);
• LCAs (Life Cycle Assessments): Life Cycle Assessments are popular ecodesign methods for evaluating the environmental impacts of a product’s stages of life, through its entire life cycle. S-LCA (Social Life Cycle Assessment) evaluates the socio and economic impacts while O-LCA (Organization Life Cycle Assessment) evaluates the environmental impacts of the entire organization instead of focusing on a single product (UNEP, 2015; UNEP, 2020);
• Matrix-based tools: Structured tools that use grids and matrices to compare and analyze the relationship between different criteria. They are used in ecodesign methodologies where they are applied for decision-making, process improvement and problem-solving (Ali et al., 2012; Russo et al., 2014; Alemam and Li, 2016);
• MFA (Material Flow Analysis): Material Flow Analysis (MFA) tracks material use and waste generation, helping design processes that minimize waste and maximize recycling and reuse. It can be integrated as an ecodesign strategy part of design reconstruction to meet sustainability targets (Barkhausen et al., 2023);
• Parametric Tools: The tools are parameter-driven models that use parameters to simulate design models by automatically updating related components when one parameter is changed. This allows designers to explore environmentally friendly configurations (Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi et al., 2008; Kamalakkannan and Kulatunga, 2021; Campos-Carriedo et al., 2024).
Table 2
Table 2. Relationship between sustainability assessment tools and ecodesign tools.
Table 2 shows where the different ecodesign tools can contribute to improving environmental performance of the environmental factors summarized from sustainability assessment tools listed in Table 1.
Most ecodesign tools focus on the environmental aspects of tangible products, with very few focusing on social aspects (Table 2). This is because ecodesign tools were initially intended to focus on product specific environmental impacts and have never been utilized on an institutional level that provides multiple service streams. Hence, the integration of such tools and their application to multilevel institutions can be another mean to address sustainability issues in a more streamlined and quantitative approach.
4 Integration of assessment tools and ecodesign solutions
Ecodesign tools that overall assist and evaluate the integrity of many different sustainability indicators do not exist. Implementing such an approach to multifunctional institutions like higher education and research institutes requires thorough steps in design development and implementation. The aim is to integrate essential aspects of characterization tools, e.g., S-LCA and O-LCA, university sustainability ranking tools and ecodesign tools in a methodology that provides an allrounder evaluation so that HEIs can benefit from such integration.
The integrated tool is inclusive in assessing both environmental and social concerns, quantitative by assessment, and allows for comparison and guides solutions for improvements, being the latter imported from ecodesign. Figure 1 illustrates the simplified concept of integration of ecodesign strategies to HEI assessment tools. The very first step is to assess the state-of-the-art sustainability status of the HEI; assessment tools and ranking tools such as THE Impact Ranking or GreenMetric provide the means of understanding sustainability using graphs or final ranks (Caeiro et al., 2020). For more comprehensive and quantitative assessment, variations of LCA tools are recommended, i.e., S-LCA, O-LCA, or Social Organizational LCA (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2015; Martínez-Blanco and Finkbeiner, 2017; Cimprich, 2022). For instance, O-LCA can be applied to an institution on an organizational level to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the organization’s operations (UNEP, 2015). However, these assessments do not provide solutions for improvement, per se. Some guidance is needed to choose the optimal path to more sustainable management of HEI. This would be where the integration of ecodesign tools comes into play (Zhu and Liu, 2010). A step forward would be building quantitative checklists and solutions tools, which provide an assessment of material and energy inputs/outputs, and impacts (e.g., using LCA, or the Material Input per Unit of Service approach; Ritthoff et al., 2002), and also guide the user to optimal management solutions; examples include eco-design checklists, of which the Ecodesign Pilot1 is developed for products and services. The key evaluation factors in HEI have already been identified (see Table 1), being necessary only to identify which ecodesign tool is best adapted given the available data. In complement, linkage with the databases built for measuring environmental performance of HEI would further improve the integrability of tools [data collection and storage (database), performance assessment, and ecodesign target solutions]. Veidemane (2022) has thoroughly explained the lack of validity in international HEI rankings and the need for the development of indicators that are internationally comparable, i.e., pointing out the need for benchmarking, a common ecodesign tool for product and service improvement.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed framework for integration of assessment tools and ecodesign strategies.
The final step needed is combining the individual tools into a unified, cohesive solution.
5 Conclusion
Like in the industry, by adopting ecodesign principles (Rodrigues et al., 2017), HEI institutions can innovate with sustainability in mind from the outset, leading to products and processes that are inherently more efficient and less harmful to the environment. Ecodesign encourages the use of sustainable resources, efficient processes, and the use of better conceptual designs toward more sustainable products. The tools are solution-oriented, thus helping in finding the way. When combined with environmental assessment tools, which many institutions already use, ecodesign may enable the institutions to not only mitigate existing environmental impacts but also prevent future ones by proactively integrating sustainability into their core operations, including in teaching (Thürer et al., 2018). This synergy may help foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation, contributing to the long-term sustainability of the institution.
By aligning with global sustainability initiatives and adopting proactive strategies, higher education institutions can act as pioneers in addressing climate and societal challenges, and adopting ecodesign offers a clear, actionable pathway to sustainability goals. This brief reflects the authors perspective on the needs and importance of HEIs to adopt ecodesign measures and not only rely on the assessment tools that give the simple rankings.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
WS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MR: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. LS: Validation, Writing – review & editing. LN: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The funding for this research was provided by the European Project Sustainable Horizons.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
Abdul-Azeez, I. A. (2018). Developing sustainable university campus index. FUTY J. Environ. 12, 66–80.
Ahmad, S., Wong, K. Y., Tseng, M. L., and Wong, W. P. (2018). Sustainable product design and development: a review of tools, applications and research prospects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.020
Akbari, A., Chandrasekar, S., and Isazadeh, S. (2015). Laboratory sustainability initiative: recycling glass and plastic wastes from research and teaching laboratories. Available at: https://www.mcgill.ca/sustainability/files/sustainability/sp0131_labsustinitiative_finalreportfull_march2015.pdf (Accessed October 11, 2023).
Alemam, A., and Li, S. (2016). Matrix-based quality tools for concept generation in eco-design. Concurr. Eng. 24, 113–128. doi: 10.1177/1063293X15625097
Ali, M., You, H.-C., and Suh, S.-H. (2012). Characterization of eco-design checklists. Korean Soc. Precis. Eng. 29, 964–970. doi: 10.7736/KSPE.2012.29.9.964
Alonso-Almeida, M., Marimon, F., Casani, F., and Rodriguez-Pomeda, J. (2015). Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 144–154. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.008
Alting, L. (1995). Life cycle engineering and design. CIRP Ann. 44, 569–580. doi: 10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60504-6
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2024). Technical manual. Available at: https://stars.aashe.org/resources-support/technical-manual/ (Accessed November 24, 2024).
Atici, K. B., Yasayacak, G., Yildiz, Y., and Ulucan, A. (2021). Green university and academic performance: an empirical study on UI GreenMetric and world university rankings. J. Clean. Prod. 291:125289. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125289
Barkhausen, R., Rostek, L., Miao, Z. C., and Zeller, V. (2023). Combinations of material flow analysis and life cycle assessment and their applicability to assess circular economy requirements in EU product regulations. A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 407:137017. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137017
Berzosa, A., Bernaldo, M. O., and Fernàandez-Sanchez, G. (2017). Sustainability assessment tools for higher education: an empirical comparative analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 812–820. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.194
Bovea, M. D., and Perez-Belis, V. (2012). A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 20, 61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.012
Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future report of the world commission on environment and development. Geneva: United Nations General Assembly Document A/42/427.
Caeiro, S., Hamón, L. A. S., Martins, R., and Aldaz, C. E. B. (2020). Sustainability assessment and benchmarking in higher education institutions—a critical reflection. Sustain. For. 12, 1–30. doi: 10.3390/su12020543
Campos-Carriedo, F., Pérez-López, P., Dufour, J., and Iribarren, D. (2024). A parametric life cycle framework to promote sustainable-by-design product development: application to a hydrogen production technology. J. Clean. Prod. 469:143129. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143129
Chester County Planning. (2025). Home » planning topics » utilities, Infrastructure & Energy » clean energy » measuring energy efficiency in buildings. Available at: https://www.chescoplanning.org/uandi/Leed.cfm (Accessed November 24, 2024).
Cimprich, A. (2022). Improving organizational life cycle assessment (O-LCA) through a hospital case study. Available at: https://dspacemainprd01.lib.uwaterloo.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/beb32695-81e5-4c5d-8697-ffc0200ea70c/content (Accessed November 27, 2024).
Conway, T. M., Dalton, C., Loo, C. K. J., and Benakoun, L. (2008). Developing ecological footprint scenarios on university campuses: a case study of the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9, 4–20. doi: 10.1108/14676370810842157
Dolski, H. (2022). The role of science in waste. The Oxford scientist Hilary term 2022. Regeneration :28.
Drahein, A. D., de Lima, E. P., and da Costa, S. E. G. (2019). Sustainability assessment of the service operations at seven higher education institutions in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 527–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.293
European Commission (2024). Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs. Available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/sustainability/sustainable-product-policy-ecodesign_en (Accessed September 18, 2023).
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2009). Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products. Luxembourg: Official Journal of the European Union.
Ferreira, A., Pinheiro, M. D., de Brito, J., and Mateus, R. (2023). A critical analysis of LEED, BREEAM and DGNB as sustainability assessment methods for retail buildings. J. Build. Eng. 66:105825. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105825
Gomez, F. U., Saez-Navarrete, C., Lioi, S. R., and Marzuca, V. I. (2012). Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 475–485. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
Hauschild, M. Z., Kara, S., and Kara, S. (2017). An integrated framework for life cycle engineering. Proc. CIRP 61, 2–9. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.257
Ibrahim, H., Elsayed, M. S., Moustafa, W. S., and Abdou, H. M. (2022). Functional analysis as a method on sustainable building design: a case study in educational buildings implementing the triple bottom line. Alex. Eng. J. 62, 63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.07.019
Kamalakkannan, S., and Kulatunga, A. K. (2021). Optimization of eco-design decisions using a parametric life cycle assessment. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 27, 1297–1316. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.03.006
Kapur, A., and Graedel, T. E. (2004). “Design for environment” in Industrial ecology s.l. ed. C. J. Cleveland (Elsevier Science).
LABMATE (2019). How much waste does science produce? Available at: https://www.labmate-online.com/news/laboratory-products/3/breaking-news/how-much-waste-does-science-produce/50494 (Accessed October 13, 2023).
Lambrechts, W., and van Liedekerke, L. (2014). Using ecological footprint analysis in higher education: campus operations, policy development and educational purposes. Ecol. Indic. 45, 402–406. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.043
Lamé, G., Leroy, Y., and Yannou, B. (2017). Ecodesign tools in the construction sector: analyzing usage inadequacies with designers' needs. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 60–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.173
Liu, H., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhou, X., and Liu, Y. (2017). The ecological footprint evaluation of low carbon campuses based on life cycle assessment: a case study of Tianjin, China. J. Clean. Prod. 144, 266–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.017
Lofthouse, V. (2006). Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 1386–1395. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.013
Manufacturing Chemist (2022). Solid waste in the lab: where does it go when we throw it 'away'? Available at: https://www.manufacturingchemist.com/news/article_page/Solid_waste_in_the_lab_where_does_it_go_when_we_throw_it_away/198292 (Accessed October 11, 2023).
Mapar, M., Bacelar-Nicolau, P., and Caeiro, S. (2022). “Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions” in The Wiley handbook of sustainability in higher education learning and teaching, s.l. eds. K. A. Gamage and N. Gunawardhana (John Wiley & Sons, Inc).
Martínez-Blanco, J., and Finkbeiner, M. (2017). Organisational LCA. In: Life cycle assessment. Cham: Springer, 481–498.
Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Chang, Y.-J., and Finkbeiner, M. (2015). Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1586–1599. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0960-1
McAloone, T. C., and Pigosso, D. C. (2017). “From Ecodesign to sustainable product/service-systems: a journey through research contributions over recent decades” in Sustainable production, life cycle engineering and management (Cham: Springer), 99–111.
My Green Lab. (2025). Y green lab certification: a commitment to sustainable science. Available at: https://www.mygreenlab.org/green-lab-certification.html/#certificationprocess (Accessed November 24, 2024).
Nunes, L. M., Catarino, A., Teixeira, M. R., and Cuesta, E. M. (2013). Framework for the inter-comparison of ecological footprint of universities. Ecol. Indic. 32, 276–284. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.007
Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, H., Bey, N., and Wimmer, W. (2008). Parametric Ecodesign-an integrative approach for implementing Ecodesign into decisive early design stages. International Design Conference: Dubrovnik.
Paolini, A., Kollmannsberger, S., and Rank, E. (2019). Additive manufacturing in construction: a review on processes, applications, and digital planning methods. Addit. Manuf. 30:100894. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894
Pardo, R. J. H., Brissaud, D., Mathieux, F., and Zwolinski, P. (2011). Contribution to the characterisation of eco-design projects. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 4, 301–312. doi: 10.1080/19397038.2011.560293
Purgar, M., Klanjscek, T., and Culina, A. (2022). Quantifying research waste in ecology. Nat. Ecol. & Evol. 6, 1390–1397. doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01820-0
Ridhousari, B., and Rahman, A. (2020). Carbon footprint assessment at Universitas Pertamina from the scope of electricity, transportation, and waste generation: toward a green campus and promotion of environmental sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 246:119172. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119172
Ritthoff, M., Rohn, H., and Liedtke, C. (2002). MIPS berechnen Ressourcenproduktivität von Produkten und Dienstleistungen : Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie.
Rodrigues, V. P., Pigosso, D. C., and McAloone, T. C. (2017). Measuring the implementation of ecodesign management practices: a review and consolidation of process-oriented performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 293–309. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.049
Russo, D., Rizzi, C., and Montelisciani, G. (2014). Inventive guidelines for a TRIZ-based eco-design matrix. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 95–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.057
Saeudy, M. (2014). “Triple bottom line: an academic perspective on sustainability practices and accountability” in Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. ed. W. L. Filho (Cham: Springer).
Schäfer, M., and Löwer, M. (2021). Ecodesign—a review of reviews. Sustain. For. 13:33. doi: 10.3390/su13010315
Slaper, T. F., and Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus. Rev. 86, 4–8.
The Anlalytical Science (2023). The 2050 lab of the future: sustainability. Available at: https://theanalyticalscientist.com/techniques-tools/the-2050-lab-of-the-future-sustainability (Accessed November 24, 2024).
THE Reporters (2024). Impact ranking 2024: methodology Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/impact-rankings-2024-methodology (Accessed 24 November 2024).
Thürer, M., Tomašević, I., Stevenson, M., Qu, T., and Huisingh, D. (2018). A systematic review of the literature on integrating sustainability into engineering curricula. J. Clean. Prod. 181, 608–617. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.130
UNEP (2015). Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment : United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
UNEP (2020). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations : United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
United Nations (2024). United Nations conference on sustainable development, Rio+20 Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20 (Accessed December 11, 2024).
Urbina, M. A., Watts, A. J., and Reardon, E. E. (2015). Labs should cut plastic waste too. Nature 528:479. doi: 10.1038/528479c
Vallet, F., Eynard, B., Millet, D., Mahut, S. G., Tyl, B., and Bertoluci, G. (2013). Using eco-design tools: an overview of experts’ practices. Des. Stud. 34, 345–377. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2012.10.001
Valls-Val, K., and Bovea, M. D. (2021). Carbon footprint in higher education institutions: a literature review and prospects for future research. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 23, 2523–2542. doi: 10.1007/s10098-021-02180-2
Veidemane, A. (2022). Education for sustainable development in higher education rankings: challenges and opportunities for developing internationally comparable indicators. Sustain. For. 14, 1–20. doi: 10.3390/su14095102
Webber, K. (2024). How a medical waste incinerator works Available at: https://www.trihazsolutions.com/how-a-medical-waste-incinerator-works/ (Accessed December 14, 2024).
Wenzel, E. (2021). How my green lab is cleaning up R&D Available at: https://trellis.net/article/how-my-green-lab-cleaning-rd/ (Accessed November 24, 2024).
Yim, H.-J., and Lee, K.-M. (2002). Environmental benchmarking methodology for the identification of key environmental aspects of a product. San Francisco, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Zhu, B., and Dewancker, B. (2021). A case study on the suitability of STARS for green campus in China. Eval. Program Plann. 84:101893. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101893
Keywords: higher education institutions, ecodesign for services, environmental assessment methods, multi-tool integration strategy, sustainability in HEIs
Citation: Swe WM, Ribau Teixeira M, Smuleac L and Nunes LM (2025) Ecodesign and environmental assessment: a synergy for higher education institutions. Front. Sustain. 6:1550102. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2025.1550102
Edited by:
Omaima Hassan, Robert Gordon University, United KingdomReviewed by:
Teresa Nogueiro, University of Evora, PortugalProfessor Adel Ahmed, Amity University Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Copyright © 2025 Swe, Ribau Teixeira, Smuleac and Nunes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Wint Mon Swe, d21zd2VAdWFsZy5wdA==