MCDA for sustainability assessment of energy technologies and systems – Identifying challenges and opportunities within the Helmholtz Association

Kurzfassung

Abstract Background: Sustainability assessment comprises many different forms of assessment – from Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment to freely chosen indicator assessment – with often con-tradicting results. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods have been recognized as a powerful and – in the field of energy – frequently applied supporting tool guide and enable decision-making. This study analyzes the application of MCDA in the sustainability assessment of energy technologies and systems within the Helmholtz Association, a network of German research centers with focus on today’s most important topics from cancer research to polar science. Energy technologies are one of the major topics within several Helmholtz research centers. Based on 20 case studies performed by Helmholtz researchers we identify trends, challenges, and opportunities in criteria selection, MCDA method application, and stakeholder engagement Results: The selection of criteria and indicators often reflects the Triple Bottom Line frame-work, emphasizing environmental and economic dimensions, with limited focus on social cri-teria due to methodological gaps. Preferred methods for indicator aggregation were the Weighted Sum Method (WSM), the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for compensatory studies because of their ease of application and simplicity and the Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) due to their non-compensatory attributes, aligning with the principles of strong sustainability. However, inconsistencies in weight elicitation methods, with frequent misalignment between chosen methods and underlying MCDA principles were found in the analyzed studies. Stakeholders’ integration remains underutilized, with most studies involving experts but lack-ing broader societal involvement. Participatory techniques such as workshops and surveys are mainly applied for criteria weighting, but their implementation across all MCDA stages re-mains limited. Analysis of group decision-making approaches shows a predominance of input-level aggregation, with few studies exploring comparative or output-level techniques. Conclusion: This paper highlights the need for methodological advancements in social sustain-ability assessments and more robust stakeholder engagement strategies. In addition, further education on MCDA methods to bridge knowledge gaps of practitioners is necessary. By com-paring Helmholtz MCDA practices with best practices from other research, this work aims to strengthen sustainability assessment of energy technologies and systems.