SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: ALIGNING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGS) WITH CURRICULUM/CAMPUS/COMMUNITY

PurposeThis paper aims to assess the contribution of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) in higher education, covering education, research and outreach in Brazilian higher education institutions (HEIs) after becoming signatories.Design/methodology/approachTeachers representing Brazilian HEI signatories to the PRME were interviewed. The IRAMUTEQ software was used for content analysis, descending hierarchical classification and similarity tree, allowing to quantify the quality variables originating from the professors’ beliefs and opinions.FindingsThe PRME helps Brazilian HEIs to review or create disciplines related to responsible management education and adopt transdisciplinarity for sustainability. The signatories’ PRME-influenced research is interdisciplinary, focusing on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Social responsibility is promoted through local-community projects, while partnerships, initiatives and innovative pedagogies from foreign-signatory HEIs provide international experiences for teachers and students. However, within one initiative, which had 170 signatories in 2008 and over 800 in 2020, indicators should be formulated to analyze and enhance HEIs’ sustainability profile. The PRME contributes to educating young people and adults in Brazil via education, research or outreach; however, this contribution needs to be assessed.Originality/valuePrior studies have not collected data through interviews to consider professors’ perspectives on the PRME’s contribution to signatory HEIs in Brazil. This study interviewed professors involved with the PRME to broaden their understanding beyond bibliometrics and assess the alignment of the PRME and UN SDGs.

Academia in driving University Global Coalition development through mineral extraction, 83-86 Adaptive leadership, 42-43 approaches, 41-43 African climate and development initiative (ACDI), 78 African union's Agenda 2063, building networks of research towards delivery of, 76-78 Agenda 30, 60

Over the last decade a growing number of universities have committed to ensuring that sustainability is integral to higher education with the intent of preparing eco-literate graduates who can make positive contributions to the sustainability of the environment. With particular consideration for the increasingly internationalised teaching environment of many higher education institutions, this study sought to explore how academics' conceptions of teaching sustainability might differ across disciplines. This study builds upon the seminal work of Reid and Petocz (2006), Cotton, Bailey, Warren and Bissell (2009) and Cotton, Warren, Maiboroda and Bailey (2007) who explored the views of academics across a range of disciplines not traditionally associated with sustainability. This study extends their research by specifically identifying academics from a variety of disciplines who might be considered experts in the field of sustainability. The study takes a constructivist view of 'conceptions' which are developed through one's experiences, beliefs and interactions with community. The theoretical framing also identifies pedagogical approaches recommended in the fields of sustainability and intercultural education, and establishes eco-literacy and environmental ethics as integral to one's conceptions of sustainability. This research applied a multi case-study approach, including open ended interview questions with participants from four different faculties of Monash University namely: Science; Business and Economics; Education; and Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences. All four participants were selected on the basis of the synopsis of the unit they taught overtly stating that sustainability related content was included in the syllabus, and thus might be defined as experts in the teaching of sustainability. The data was analysed using descriptive followed by interpretative coding, which ultimately identified six different components that might contribute to the participants' conceptions about their teaching. These components included: discipline; conceptions of sustainability; ethical position; pedagogical approach; approach to intercultural education; and approach to eco-literacy. The findings of the study conclude that there indeed were likely to be disciplinary differences in the academics' conceptions of teaching sustainability. While there was no evidence of a disciplinary link to the academics' understanding of what sustainability is, the research did appear to support a correlation between an academic's previous education and their ethical position. Furthermore, the current discipline of their unit appeared to strongly reflect their pedagogical approach to teaching sustainability. The research also highlights that while there are clearly some innovative teaching strategies being utilised, there is room for more transformational learning to· be included in syllabus design. Additionally, as the number of unit outlines that overtly referred to sustainability was surprisingly low, and not all sustainability related units seemed to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to the teaching of eco-literacy, questions are raised about whether all students are actually engaging in sustainability education as signatories of the Talloires Declaration have pledged. The significant contribution of this study is represented by its implications for the development of curriculum and syllabus design in the field of sustainability education. Having highlighted the potential disciplinary differences between approaches to teaching sustainability, a range of stakeholders, including university faculties and individual academics, can review how sustainability education is taught in their curriculum and address areas which require greater attention to ensure students receive a comprehensive exposure to the skills and knowledge required to develop eco-literacy.

Currently, higher education (HE) institutions include sustainability concepts into their programs. Previous literature examined the opportunities and challenges of integrating sustainability at an institutional, curricular, and instrumental level. We administered the Sulitest (sustainability literacy test) and a survey to first semester students at one international hospitality management school in Switzerland. While our students scored slightly higher than the Swiss average, the lowest scores recorded derived from the category knowledge – role to play, individual & systemic change. The survey demonstrated students’ high interest and strong support of sustainability in their academic and professional careers. Over 67% of respondents rated sustainability for their professional lives as extremely important. HE institutions have the opportunity to teach sustainability concepts that resonate with students. While research promotes embedding sustainability in all courses, our results show that students’ sustainability knowledge can improve in one intensive course. Further studies must be conducted to confirm retention and engagement.

Conceptualization of sustainable higher education institutions, roles, barriers, and challenges for sustainability: An exploratory study in Portugal

Higher educational institutions play an important role in the realization of SDGs as an institution and as a member of a society. San Beda University launched the realignment of its programs and projects with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) starting the academic year 2019-2020. An Office was created to oversee the promotion and realization of the SDGs in the University’s programs and projects. This study was conceptualized primarily to look into the extent of implementation, promotion and realization of SDGs in the University’s programs and projects. The University is in infancy stage when it comes to the implementation of SDG. However, at this stage it has demonstrated practices that are aligned with SDGs particularly with SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnership for Goals). But it has to overcome and improve on particularly in the areas of faculty research citation, formulation and implementation of policies and programs on Climate Action (SDG 13), documentation of pertinent information that will demonstrate commitment to reducing inequality (SDG 10), and the documentation of programs and activities that fall under other SDGs.ReferencesAleixo, A.M., Azeiteiro, U. M., & Leal, S. (2018). The implementation of sustainability practices in Portuguese higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(1), 146-178, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2017-0016Alshuwaikhat, H.M. and Abubakar, I. (2008), An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1777-1785.Amaral, L.P., Martins, N. and Gouveia, J.B. (2015), Quest for a sustainable university: a review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16, 155-172.Cortese, A.D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U.M. & Filho, W.L. (2013), Sustainability Science and Education for Sustainable Development in Universities: A Way for Transition. In S. Caeiro, W. Leal Filho, C. Jabbour and U.M. Azeiteiro (Eds.) Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World. Springer International Publishing. 3-28.Findler, F., et. al. (2019). The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable developments: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 20(1), Emerald Publishing Limited, 1467-6370. https://www.doi.org/10-1108/1JSHE-07-2017-0114.Francis. (2015). Laudato Si. Paulines Publishing House.Gual, C. (2019). Ready to house a real impact on achieving the sustainable development goals (SGDs)? Implementing the 2030 Agenda at the Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Responses. Global University Network for Innovation.Jorgensen, T. (2019). Universities to achieve the SDGs and approach the next hurdle. Implementing the 2030 Agenda at the Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Responses. Barcelona: Global University Network for Innovation.Leal Filho, W., Manolas, E. and Pace, P. (2015), The future we want: Key issues on sustainable development in higher education after Rio and the UN decade of education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16, 112 - 129.Lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12, 67-78.Lozano-Ros, R. (2003). Sustainable development in higher education. Incorporation, assessment and reporting of sustainable development in higher education institutions, Lund University. National Economic Development Authority. (2019). The 2019 voluntary national review of the Philippines: Review of the status of the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in the Philippines focusing on empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and equality.Sammalisto, K., Sundstrom, A. and Holm, T. (2015). Implementation of sustainability in universities as perceived by faculty and staff e a model from a Swedish university. Journal of Cleaner Production 106, 45-54.Tilbury, D. (2019). Beyond snakes and ladders: Overcoming obstacles to the implementation of SDGs in higher education institutions. Implementing the 2030 Agenda at the Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Responses. Global University Network for Innovation.United Nations. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020.United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A. and Taddei, J. (2006), Sustainable university: what can be the matter?. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14(9 &11), 810-819.Weiyou Xiong and Ka Ho Mok. (2020). Sustainability practices of higher education institutions in Hong Kong: A case study of a sustainable campus consortium. Sustainability 2020, 12, 452; https://www.doi.org//10.3390/su12020452, www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability.

PurposeThis study aims to explore the extent and types of E-Learning used, as method and tool, to support education for sustainable development (ESD); and to understand the coverage of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in massive open online courses (MOOCs).Design/methodology/approachThe study extends the morphological box of ESD in higher education by nonformal and informal education, exploring the types of blended and online learning and adding the SDGs as a new criterion. The study subjects are Nordic UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) members. Through content analysis and thematic coding of reports by higher education institutions (HEIs), different E-Learning methods are identified; furthermore, 30 MOOCs are analyzed.FindingsHEIs apply a variety of blended and online learning to advance ESD for formal and nonformal education. The MOOCs offered by Nordic HEIs predominantly cover four SDGs (9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; 13: Climate Action; 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities; and 16: Peace, Justice and strong Institutions), but there is nothing on SDG 2: No Hunger. That is in line with the Nordic countries’ status as developed economies, where these topics are often framed as political and societal priorities.Practical implicationsThe study’s results suggest that to avoid overlaps and fill gaps in ESD, the offer of open online courses should be orchestrated. Furthermore, HEIs can use our method to analyze their E-Learning courses related to SDGs.Originality/valueThis study shows how business schools, especially Nordic UN PRME members, contribute to the SDGs by their MOOC coverage.

Over the last decade, a growing number of universities have committed to ensuring that sustainability is integral to higher education with the intent of preparing eco-literate graduates who can make positive contributions to the sustainability of the environment. With particular consideration for the increasingly internationalised teaching environment of many higher education institutions, this study sought to explore how academics’ conceptions of teaching sustainability might differ across disciplines. This study builds upon the seminal work of Reid and Petocz (2006), Cotton, Bailey, Warren, and Bissell (2009) and Cotton, Warren, Maiboroda, and Bailey (2007), who explored the views of academics across a range of disciplines not traditionally associated with sustainability. This study extends their research by specifically identifying academics from a variety of disciplines who might be considered experts in the field of sustainability.The study takes a constructivist view of ‘conceptions’ that are developed through one's experiences, beliefs and interactions with community. The theoretical framing also identifies pedagogical approaches recommended in the fields of sustainability and intercultural education, and establishes eco-literacy and environmental ethics as integral to one's conceptions of sustainability.This research applied a multi case-study approach, including open-ended interview questions with participants from four different faculties of Monash University, namely: Science; Business and Economics; Education; and Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences. All four participants were selected on the basis of the synopsis of the unit they taught overtly stating that sustainability-related content was included in the syllabus, and thus might be defined as experts in the teaching of sustainability. The data was analysed using descriptive followed by interpretative coding, which ultimately identified six different components that might contribute to the participants’ conceptions about their teaching. These components included: discipline; conceptions of sustainability; ethical position; pedagogical approach; approach to intercultural education; and approach to eco-literacy.The findings of the study conclude that there were likely to be disciplinary differences in the academics’ conceptions of teaching sustainability. While there was no evidence of a disciplinary link to the academics’ understanding of what sustainability is, the research did appear to support a correlation between an academic's previous education and their ethical position. Furthermore, the current discipline of their unit appeared to strongly reflect their pedagogical approach to teaching sustainability. The research also highlights that, while there are clearly some innovative teaching strategies being utilised, there is room for more transformational learning to be included in syllabus design. Additionally, as the number of unit outlines that overtly referred to sustainability was surprisingly low, and not all sustainability-related units seemed to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to the teaching of eco-literacy, questions are raised about whether all students are actually engaging in sustainability education as signatories of the Talloires Declaration have pledged.The significant contribution of this study is represented by its implications for the development of curriculum and syllabus design in the field of sustainability education. Having highlighted the potential disciplinary differences between approaches to teaching sustainability, a range of stakeholders, including university faculties and individual academics, can review how sustainability education is taught in their curriculum and address areas that require greater attention to ensure students receive a comprehensive exposure to the skills and knowledge required to develop eco-literacy.

Sustainable practices of selected publiclylisted higher educational institutions in ensuring good health and well-being

PurposeThis paper aims to propose a framework to map partnerships as practiced in higher education institutions (HEIs) and trace the current mode of engagement between HEIs and their partners. This paper reflects on the alignment between current practices and what is understood in the literature as “true” partnerships. We are interested in the different modes of engagement that are labeled by the HEIs as partnerships and consider the plasticity of the term. The interest is in how the term is operationalized by HEIs and how variations in approach can be accounted for while still maintaining some stability and common understanding of the term partnership.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on extant literature in the field of cross-sector partnerships, a three-dimensional framework is proposed to map partnerships as practiced in HEIs. Furthermore, this paper draws on insights gained from the partnership stories of 13 leading principles of responsible management education (PRME) signatories to evidence examples of how this framework can help us to categorize the different types of engagement that the HEIs call partnerships. These case stories were gathered in the fall of 2019, based on a brief inquiry form sent to the 39 PRME signatories who were part of the PRME Champions Cycle 2018–2019.FindingsThis paper sees cases where faculty drive interaction on sustainable development goal-related issues with external stakeholders, but where the impact of these interactions seems to reside within the main business of the HEI (teaching and research). In contrast, much partnering work addresses broader social impacts. Of particular, interest in partnerships that seek to address a specific local issue, first and foremost and doing so in such a way as to apply the unique resources of the HEI working in multi-stakeholder networks. This paper also notes important variation between individual faculty-driven initiatives and initiatives where the school provides a strategic framework to support these efforts.Research limitations/implicationsBy focusing on the academic sector and its stakeholder partnerships, this paper contributes to the literature on cross-sector partnerships. In particular, the specifics of this context and the importance of, for example, academic freedom have been under-researched in this field. Furthermore, the framework presented is novel in that it helps us to grasp the nuances of external university partnerships that can form out of individual, programmatic and other institutional levels.Practical implicationsFrom a practice perspective, the framework offers a useable tool for HEI partnership managers to position themselves and their activities and reflect more on how they organize external partnerships. Further, this tool offers a more precise framework for the discussion on partnerships within the PRME to sharpen the partnership instrument and bring more clarity about what is meant by the partnership for the goals.Originality/valueThe paper offers a novel partnership portfolio framework that contributes both to theory and practice. The framework aids in mapping the locus of benefits/outcomes and the material and affective commitments made by the HEI to bring these collaborations about. In dimensionalizing partnerships in this way, this paper can conceptualize a balanced portfolio in an HEI’s partnerships for the goals.

The Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME): The first decade – What has been achieved? The next decade – Responsible Management Education's challenge for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Modeling global transfusion medicine education.

Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack?

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore knowledge management (KM) initiatives for achieving sustainable development goal (SDG) 4.7 and to investigate enablers and barriers to insert KM to prepare higher education institutions (HEIs) ready to contribute to SDGs’ performance. At the end, this paper provides a practical perspective of KM initiatives for higher education for sustainable development (HESD).Design/methodology/approachThis is an exploratory study. It applies a descriptive-interpretative-qualitative approach. The analysis is based on the opinions collected from 170 HEIs’ stakeholders. Discussions among participants have been organized through zoom meetings, telephone interviews and focus group discussions in three phases. In the first phase, a total of 113 informants took part in the discussion on various dates. In the second phase, 10 interviews were conducted with university officials using three open-ended questions; and in the third phase, three focus group discussions were organized to interact about the effectiveness of the Masters in Business Administration in Global Leadership and Management programme and curriculum with teachers, students and the programme initiators.FindingsFrom the analysis of stakeholders’ views, it appears that Nepalese HEIs have yet to move forward with integrating KM activities into their aims, structure and functions to address the government’s policy guidelines applicable to maximizing SDG’ performance. A KM cultural framework that values intellectual capital is urgently needed to fill the knowledge-doing gap for the benefit of society. HEIs appear to require multidisciplinary teaching, learning and research methods to play a civic role in society. They have to improve their rules and regulation, develop a boundary-spanning structure from a conventional structure and apply KM initiatives to support achieving SDGs’ performance. Understanding and inculcating these initiatives in the academic programmes could provide a value-adding higher education in the country.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper is entirely based on the perspectives of stakeholders in higher education. So, understanding their points of view and perspectives may have resulted in vague explanations. Furthermore, because the setting of Nepal’s HEIs differs from that of developed countries, the results should only be interpreted in Nepalese contexts.Practical implicationsThis paper acknowledges the gaps and complexities in Nepalese HEIs from the standpoints of HEIs’ leaders, teachers and students for the application of KM initiatives to reform HEIs, with HESD in consideration, and enhance SDGs’ performance.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, the paper is the first of its kind in the context of Nepal, exploring KM initiatives for SDGs. It provides a new perspective on KM and comprehends KM initiatives in the case of Nepalese HEIs transformation into HESD for achieving SDG 4.7.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have voiced growing concerns about sustainability issues since Agenda 2030 was approved, but this is not enough for societal stakeholders seeking and delivering innovation and excellence. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by all UN Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action, and pose a challenge for HEIs as for the efforts made to fulfill them and knowing how to assess their performance. However, the metric management system implemented by HEIs quickly led to rankings emerging, which compare HEIs to metrics not related to the sustainability dimensions of the 17 SDGs. The main aim of the paper is to assess the level of reporting and alignment of SDG achievements with the overall the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking score. For this purpose, our study (i) models and quantifies the impact of HEIs’ disclosure of SDG information on HEIs’ overall THE Impact Rankings score, (ii) analyzes whether the best ranked universities are indeed significantly related to different SDGs than other not-so-well-ranked ones, and (iii) models the differences in the overall score and its alignment with distinct SDGs by dimensions, subjects, and geographical regions. In order to do so, a descriptive analysis, non-parametric tests, and linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. Our results reveal that the overall ranking is related to the reporting of HEIs’ SDG achievements. Moreover, the more positive actions related to health, education, industry, responsible consumption and production, climate action, and partnerships there were, the higher the position of HEIs in the general ranking was. However, we found differences between top-ranking universities and others in geographical location, disclosed information, and impact. Thus, the best-ranked universities are more committed to transferring knowledge to industry to satisfy its needs (SDG9), support strong institutions in their countries, and promote peace and justice (SDG16). Finally, SDG9 and SDG17 are the most relevant and constant SDGs when modeling the alignment of SDGs with HEIs’ dimensions (teaching, research, citations, industry income, international outlook) and subjects (technological and social sciences and humanities). HEIs integrating SDG actions into the strategic management of universities and, consequently, reporting their SDG performance to promote sustainability and contribute to sustainable development, is advisable.