Since the Brundtland Report (1987), its definition has anchored sustainable development. An EBSCOhost co-mention scan (1987–2025) finds 259,112 records linking “sustainable development” with the Brundtland Report—used only as a descriptive attention proxy, sensitive to coverage, indexing, keywords, and residual duplicates. We then analyze concept-to-implementation barriers in building governance and propose an update pathway: explicit boundaries, minimum disclosures, and assurance logic. Yet in the built environment—characterized by long-lived assets, carbon lock-in, and net-zero commitments—the definition is difficult to operationalize without explicit boundaries, measurable indicators, and auditable trade-offs. We identify two concept-level weaknesses: (1) the definition reflects late-twentieth-century socio-technical conditions and offers limited guidance for practice shaped by digitalized delivery and operations, accelerated climate policy, and whole-life carbon accounting; and (2) its openness around “needs,” “harm,” and trade-offs enables boundary ambiguity (e.g., operational versus embodied emissions), fragmented standards and certifications, and greenwashing risks. We propose a built-environment update pathway that (i) operationalizes “needs” and “harm” through a minimum life-cycle indicator set linking affordability and occupant well-being with operational energy performance and whole-life carbon outcomes; and (ii) strengthens concept-consistent implementation via harmonized boundary declarations and verification principles across existing net-zero and green building tools, supported by targeted AEC capacity building.
Li et al. (Sat,) studied this question.