Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education 9781350006126, 9781350006133, 9781350006119

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of Illustrations
Abbreviations
Series Editors’ Foreword
Introduction
Part A. Core Concepts for Higher Education, Leadership and Sustainability
1. Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability
2. Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses
3. The Higher Education Sector
Part B. Decision-Making for Sustainability
4. Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures
5. Decision- Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability
Part C. Sustainability and the Leader as Individual
6. Leadership Context and Sustainability
7. Leadership and the Individual
8. Leadership Actions and Sustainability
Part D. Case Studies in Sustainability Leadership
9. Measuring Impact and Success in Sustainability: Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom
10. Architecture for Sustainability Success: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States
11. Sustainability Success and Working with Academics: Macquarie University, Australia
12. Sustainability Advocacy and Leadership: The University of Kerala, India
Conclusion
Appendix – Survey Instrument (Questionnaire) for Part C
References
Index

Citation preview

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education Series Editors: Camilla Erskine, Tanya Fitzgerald and Jon Nixon Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education provides a forum for distinctive, and sometimes divergent, ideas on what intellectual leadership means within the context of higher education as it develops within the 21st century. Authors from across a number of nation states critically explore these issues with reference to academic and research-informed practice and development, institutional management and governance, the remapping of knowledge as well as sectorwide policy development. Also available in the Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education series Cosmopolitan Perspectives on Academic Leadership in Higher Education, edited by Feng Su and Margaret Wood Exploring Consensual Leadership in Higher Education, edited by Lynne Gornall, Brychan Thomas and Lucy Sweetman Leadership in Higher Education from a Transrelational Perspective, Christopher M. Branson, Maureen Marra, Margaret Franken and Dawn Penney Mass Intellectuality and Democratic Leadership in Higher Education, edited by Richard Hall and Joss Winn

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education Janet Haddock-Fraser, Peter Rands and Stephen Scoffham

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 Paperback edition first published 2020 Copyright © Janet Haddock- Fraser, Peter Rands and Stephen Scoffham, 2018 Janet Haddock- Fraser, Peter Rands and Stephen Scoffham have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. Cover image © Jobalou / GettyImages All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-0612-6 PB: 978-1-3501-4319-7 ePDF: 978-1-3500-0611-9 eBook: 978-1-3500-0614-0 Series: Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of Illustrations Abbreviations Series Editors’ Foreword Introduction

vii ix xi 1

Part A Core Concepts for Higher Education, Leadership and Sustainability 1 Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

15

2 Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

37

3 The Higher Education Sector

53

Part B Decision-Making for Sustainability 4 Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

71

5 Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

89

Part C Sustainability and the Leader as Individual 6 Leadership Context and Sustainability

115

7 Leadership and the Individual

135

8 Leadership Actions and Sustainability

151

Part D Case Studies in Sustainability Leadership 9 Measuring Impact and Success in Sustainability: Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom 10 Architecture for Sustainability Success: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States

167

175

vi

Contents

11 Sustainability Success and Working with Academics: Macquarie University, Australia

183

12 Sustainability Advocacy and Leadership: The University of Kerala, India

193

Conclusion

201

Appendix – Survey Instrument (Questionnaire) for Part C References Index

209 211 219

List of Illustrations Figures 0.1 A.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 C.1 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 12.1

Structure of Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education 8 13 Core concepts by chapter 21 Situational Leadership Model 24 Mintzberg’s organizational types 34 Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model Different elements of sustainability can be seen as combining in 38 different ways 40 Global human population growth Links between climate change and the social issues 44 highlighted in SDG goals A model for conceptualizing and applying the healthy 50 settings approach to higher education 60 Examples of university mission statements 76 The CBI-S framework, highlighting the roles of the CCOS and AOS 78 CCOS and AOS merged engagement Development and influence of the Futures Initiative at Canterbury 79 Christ Church University 83 Living Lab case study – Masdar Institute, Abu Dhabi 96 The Five Capitals framework 98 Integrated Reporting  – the value-creation process 107 Framing decision-making for sustainability 112 Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model 141 Traits identified by university sustainability leaders 142 Styles identified by university sustainability leaders 153 Percentage of respondents by type of sustainability success Internal actions for sustainability success by percentage 155 of respondents External actions for sustainability success by percentage 159 of respondents Reflections on leadership at the University of Kerala 196–198

viii

List of Illustrations

Tables 1.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 7.1 7.2 8.1 11.1

Types of power and influence Higher education trends worldwide Staff and student priorities for higher education Attributes of CCOS and AOS Different dimensions in the discussion of sustainability in higher education Materiality Matrix for Campus Brussels GRI sustainability report 2014 Existing value versus value created: Green Chapel Ale, CCCU Categories of social benefit from universities Trait lists for sustainability leadership, a comparison of findings in the literature List of skills and knowledge required for sustainability leadership identified in the Cambridge Model Internal actions and individual leadership attributes Initiatives and actions in Macquarie Sustainability

23 54 63 77 85 95 100 105 139 144 163 186

Abbreviations CBI-S

Core Business Integration for Sustainability

COO

chief operating officer

CoP

Communities of Practice

CR

corporate responsibility

CSR

corporate social responsibility

DVC

deputy vice-chancellor

EAUC

Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges

ENoLL

European Network of Living Labs

ESD

Education for Sustainable Development

FI

Futures Initiative

GRI

Global Reporting Initiative

HE

higher education

HEFCE

Higher Education Funding Council for England

HR

human resources

KPI

key performance indicator

MDG

Millennium Development Goals

NHS

National Health Service

PVC

pro-vice-chancellor

REF

Research Excellence Framework

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals

SMT

senior management team

x

Abbreviations

SROI

social return on investment

SSMG

Sustainability Strategic Management Group

TEF

Teaching Excellence Framework

WWF

Worldwide Fund for Nature

Series Editors’ Foreword What are universities for in the twenty-first century? This is a question that is now debated not only within universities themselves but also within the wider society and across the political spectrum: We can no longer assume a consensus regarding the ends and purposes of higher education or the role of universities in fulfilling those ends and purposes. Consequently, leadership within higher education cannot simply be a matter of managing the status quo:  Leadership necessarily involves an understanding as well as an analysis of the twenty-firstcentury world and of how the university might contribute to the economic, social, cultural and political challenges that we face. In short, it requires leadership that is both visionary and programmatic: visionary in its understanding of the past as well as present and future impacts of globalization and programmatic in its grasp of how universities might respond to that impact. What might such leadership look like? This series aims to address that question with reference to academic practice and development, institutional management and governance, the remapping of knowledge, and sector-wide policy development. Central to each of these areas of concern is the importance of interconnectivity in a context of increasing institutional and global complexity: interconnectivity within and across institutions, regions and cognate fields. The gathering of agreement is one of the prerequisites of leadership at every level  – and that requires an understanding of different viewpoints and opinions, some of which may be in direct conflict with others. The capacity to balance, respect and contain these differences is what constitutes leadership. This inevitably raises important ethical questions regarding leadership in a more complex and subtle setting, where leadership goes beyond the ‘command’ model of telling others what to do and expecting them to do it. The twin themes of interconnectivity and ethics cut across the series as a whole. Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education addresses one of the most pressing issues facing humankind in the twenty-first century. It explores the role that leaders in higher education institutions can play in rising to that challenge through their activities, from teaching and research to estate management. The Introduction sets out and contextualizes the multiple dimensions of sustainability. The authors then take the reader through different levels from systems to

xii

Series Editors’ Foreword

processes, and then to individual attributes and behaviours. In so doing, they offer a thorough examination of the connections between appropriate theory on sustainability and on leadership, seen through the lens of higher education institutions and their practices. The book makes a compelling case for universities to stand up and take action. It is both inspirational and aspirational, offering a strong intellectual framework for understanding the complexities and interrelated aspects of sustainability and the implications for leadership. Additionally, it is informed by the authors’ wealth of experience and primary research, which is rooted in contemporary practice. The case studies from Australia, India, the United Kingdom and the United States provide helpful illumination of how some of the theory has been applied in practice in institutions. This book is relevant to all leaders within higher education, whether new to leading sustainability initiatives within their institution or more seasoned.

Introduction

Aims This book is about leadership for sustainability; how and why sustainability can be relevant, vital or a distraction to the higher education (HE) sector and how good leadership can navigate this messy and contested space. Sustainability, sustainable development or maybe its antonym, unsustainability, is a core concept relating to the current phase in Earth’s history which is dominated by human activity and environmental stress. Although the term sustainability came into widespread use in the mid-1990s, we are still faced with key indicators relating to climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, social systems, resource consumption and social justice going in the wrong direction from that needed to secure a sustainable world. Until now government interventions, business and corporate engagements, enhanced education and better understanding of the science and social science surrounding it have failed to reverse current trends. Growing geopolitical unrest further risks undermining any progress made. Universities worldwide, with their privileged role in creating new knowledge and education for the current (and future generations of) citizens, occupy a unique position to address this contested and complex yet crucial space. Sustainability is a notion which excites powerful emotions and which is sometimes associated with party political agendas. We want to make it clear from the outset that we do not regard it as a left- or right-wing issue. The continued well-being of the natural environment matters just as much to landowners and business executives as it does to the disadvantaged and the unemployed. Religious leaders from Buddhist, Christian, Islamic or other faith traditions from around the world are contributing proactively to current debates and resolutions on climate change and pollution control, commanding international support. Furthermore, finding ways to reform and reconstruct economic policies to take account of planetary limits draws on theories and models which are necessarily neutral

2

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

and free from ideological bias. Just as aspirations such as peace or prosperity are essentially ideals which only become partisan at a tactical and policy level, so is sustainability an idea which has universal relevance and application. In essence, sustainability is about how people around the world can find ways of living within planetary limits. Narrow definitions focus on ecological and environmental dimensions. Wider definitions embrace economic, social, cultural and political aspects. It is recognized that beliefs and values are embedded in sustainability discourse and that this can be problematic. However, exploring the principles which guide our actions and the notions we hold about ourselves is fundamental to initiating a long-term change. We argue that a deeper understanding of sustainability is essential if universities and the societies to which they belong are going to embrace it wholeheartedly. We are also aware of the scale of the challenges which lie ahead and the need for creative and imaginative strategies and solutions. Building institutional capacity and capability will be crucial to successful sustainability leadership and the essential bedrock in the process of refashioning universities in the years ahead. Current literature usually calls for a complete paradigm shift in universities and related organizations in order to achieve sustainability objectives. This is a hugely demanding request which is easy to make but extremely difficult to implement in practice. The concept of the paradigm was brought to public attention by Thomas Kuhn (1962), whose work on developments in science acknowledged the cluster of achievements – shared concepts, values, techniques and so forth  – which enable a community to make continual progress in its practice and thinking over a period. According to Kuhn, changes of paradigms occur in discontinuous, revolutionary breaks which involve a fundamental realignment of ideas. While we acknowledge that it is increasingly untenable for universities (and society at large for that matter) to continue with a ‘business as usual’ approach in the face of growing environmental threats, we recognize the need to be realistic about the role of individual institutions and the part they can play in initiating change. As a result, our vision of a sustainable university is tempered  – some would say strengthened  – by adopting a pragmatic and practical approach. We do not shy away from the need for a paradigm shift but we recognize that, in the absence of major disasters affecting large numbers of people, change is liable to happen gradually over several decades rather than abruptly over just a few months or years. As an author team, we draw on a wealth of experience from our careers in HE. In our various roles as pro-vice-chancellor (PVC) and professor of Sustainability and Leadership, Sustainability director and visiting reader in Sustainability

Introduction

3

and Education, we have detailed knowledge of university structures, academic thinking and managerial and organizational issues. This experience underpins one of the key assumptions which shape this book, namely that it is essential for universities to remain financially viable, but hopefully thrive. A  polemic stance on sustainability could be that the primary purpose of a university is to educate staff, students and hence society at large, on the need to operate within sustainable guidelines. Such an institution would put sustainability at the forefront of its research, knowledge exchange, learning, teaching and campus operations, in line with its remit to be a public good for the public good. We concur with this  – albeit idealistic  – view. However, in most nations around the world, universities now operate in a market (or quasi-market) environment, relying on models of competition for income generation rather than government subsidy or grant; this challenges their responses to multiple competing and conflicting agendas, including the place and priority for sustainability. In this book, we take the current context of HE as a given and concentrate on how sustainability, and leadership for sustainability, can maximize its achievements within this given framework. We also recognize that we draw on our experience of working within a Western European context to develop our arguments and proposals. Notwithstanding these caveats, we believe that academics and their students have the capability within their research to produce new knowledge and ways of thinking that can challenge current science, systems and society to enable the paradigm shift required for a sustainable future. It is our intention that Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education will help the reader (whether manager, academic, research student or policymaker) understand and question the role of universities with regard to sustainability, and how leadership in this area can navigate through this complex environment. Sustainability, leadership and HE as themes or concepts, in isolation, face a labyrinthine scope, construct and external drivers. This makes understanding and forging actions in each challenging for those operating in this space. Together they present an extreme challenge (and opportunity) to universities as they look to their purpose, position and values in a global market. We start our undertaking by describing and analysing core aspects of: (i) leadership and leadership theory; (ii) sustainability concepts and (iii) HE sector dynamics separately. Following this we undertake to explore their combined role in decision-making and good practice. We aim to help leaders, practitioners and academics lead and manage sustainability within universities in a well-informed way, whereby each can translate and appreciate the others’ perspectives. Some readers will be aware of

4

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

the babel fish, an imaginary creature from Douglas Adams’s A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (1979). The babel fish enabled any person who put it in his or her ear to immediately understand any other language. We liken our role to that of a HE babel fish, whose role it is to interpret sustainability objectives in a manner which is appropriate to an operational context where multiple ideologies, perspectives and priorities abound. Our intention is for those reading this book to be able to take forward decision-making regarding sustainability in their universities using an approach which is theoretically sound yet practice based, and where key stakeholders are in accord with the agenda. As a tool for translation, we have sought to find means by which sustainability can be seen as the missing link in terms of the modern-day purpose of HE. We draw on the work of the well-known educationalist, Ronald Barnett (2011), who undertook a descriptive analysis of the historical, and future, purpose and perspectives of universities since their inception in the monastic traditions 600 (or more) years ago. We share his view that university typologies need to develop away from the purely commercially led, utilitarian, private goods focus, towards more authentic and responsible typologies. Barnett (2011) describes the development of the ‘ecological university’, defined as a university which takes seriously the world’s interconnectedness and the university’s interconnectedness with the world, to enable: (i) students as global citizens; (ii) care and concern for the world and (iii) students and faculty to understand their own possibilities in the world and towards the world. Barnett identifies opportunities for universities to be authentic to the HE calling, while contributing to the advancement of learning in ways that can permeate society, linking with society for the benefit of physical and human needs. This sense of the university ‘for the other’ contrasts with former models of the research university ‘in itself ’ (i.e. the Ivory Tower) or the entrepreneurial university ‘for itself ’ and provides legitimacy in the long term for the HE remit. In tandem with the ‘massification’ of HE, indicated by higher percentages of young adults attending university, there are extensive potential benefits to be leveraged from this approach to help greater global understanding of the issues of economic, social and environmental sustainability facing us.

Leadership challenges Universities, like most organizations, are not homogeneous entities, as could be suggested from the discourses in organizational behaviour, which have titles suggesting an institutional mindset with individuals fitting to this.

Introduction

5

Organizations do not ‘behave’ – the people within them do. They are a collection of individuals who are brought together by the same employer (through a contract of employment) with expectations of complying with organizational norms. As noted by Buchanan and Huczynski (2004: 5), ‘An organisation is a social arrangement for achieving controlled performance in pursuit of collective goals.’ Like most organizations, universities are an amalgam of individuals, each with a religious, political and moral stance. Unlike most organizations, however, these multiple individuals are engaged in knowledge creation, critique and dissemination across multifaceted disciplines within which exist a wide range of ontologies and epistemologies, ranging from the theoretical to the empirical and vocational. This provides a melting pot for creativity, disparate views, ideologies and priorities, some of which may be to rail against the values and remit of the very institution employing them. While most institutions – as noted by Buchanan and Huczynski earlier – operate on the basis of controlled performance in pursuit of collective goals, this is more challenging to achieve in universities while respecting ‘academic freedom’ quocumque modo. It is not surprising that many in the sector describe leadership of academics in terms of ‘herding cats’ (Garrett and Davies 2011), with broad recognition that traditional command and control models of leadership are not effective or helpful. Despite this and in parallel, all universities need to engage in core business processes to support their knowledge creation, critique and dissemination (research, knowledge exchange and learning and teaching), including finance, human resources, marketing and communications, information systems and estates and facilities. They are large businesses which cannot escape the need for hierarchy, order and procedure, ones which need to work within what can be distinct academic versus professional service cultures. A particular challenge for leadership for sustainability in this regard is that its remit is cross-institutional and must work within and between the two. Sustainability within universities can be viewed through multiple lenses. It can be seen as a: 1. subject in its own right for research, knowledge exchange or teaching 2. process or concept to apply or critique within other disciplines (e.g. engineering, English literature, sociology, psychology) 3. business process within estates and facilities 4. cause to rally staff and students 5. state of mind and institutional value 6. combination of all of the above.

6

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Success in implementing sustainability has many different measures:  for one, university carbon reduction per staff/student may be seen as it meeting its objectives; for another, nothing less of a paradigm shift in its operations, staff– student psyche and management priorities would be considered success. In every case, sustainability is never going to be something that has been completed – a boundless ideal maybe. Notwithstanding many great success stories of projects or schema progressing sustainability (which we draw on in this book from our interviews), there are barriers, challenges and frustrations slowing, halting or even reversing the agenda too. These include: 1. the priorities and values of senior management, and particularly the vicechancellor/president or the governing body 2. lack of staff and/or student engagement, maybe stemming from a valuesbase, pressure on time or conflicting priorities 3. non-compatible priorities for the institution and short-termism in decision-making 4. lack of understanding of the sustainability agenda 5. the often contradictory nature of decision-making within sustainability at individual and institutional levels. The challenge is to take forward the sustainability agenda within a changing HE dynamic, with the consequent pressures on universities to operate in a competitive, market environment. Bearing in mind the complexity and contested nature of the concept of sustainability in its own right, assessing and untangling what makes for effective leadership for sustainability within the HE sector could seem an overwhelming task but one that is much needed to navigate it successfully!

Structure of the book In writing this text, we are providing a much-needed reference for any manager or academic leader in HE seeking to initiate or lead a sustainability agenda in their institution. It is also intended for any academic, student researcher or policy maker researching (or teaching) leadership or organizational theory, combining the use of theoretical constructs with practice-based experience. Sustainability is – in itself – a messy concept, and the challenge of understanding it, applying it and leading for it, in a complex, multi-agent, organizational setting with

Introduction

7

its potentially conflicting priorities cannot be underestimated. To assist this, we have used our own key learning from our extensive academic, leadership and practitioner experience in this area, as well as results of primary research through interviews and engagement with many successful leaders within the sector, using a structured, theoretically based approach to draw out thoughts on good practice and challenges within their leadership roles. Unlike other texts, this book brings together, in a logical and structured way, the wide range of influences and considerations that need to be understood to succeed in implementing sustainability in HE, including: 1. an understanding of what is (and is not) sustainability and the range of perspectives through which to view it 2. activities and actions undertaken in HE to date 3. influencers on the sustainability agenda, whether policy or demand led, external or internal 4. barriers to success. All these provide context for the reader within which to consider leadership for sustainability, both at an individual level and within the HE culture and organizational norms. Given all of the aforementioned, the first question is where to start? We have structured Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education to provide a logical progression in two dimensions (see Figure 0.1). We recognize that readers may have diverse starting points of knowledge in each of the areas we consider, and we have addressed this by providing what we believe are the core ideas and principles early on in each chapter before taking forward the discussion. As a result, theory and practice are interwoven and amplify each other as the argument develops. Figure 0.1 presents the structure of the book. It is structured around two key dimensions – operational context and practical application – which are explored in each different chapter from a leadership perspective.

Part A (Chapters 1–3) Part A defines, explains and develops understanding of three core elements: leadership theory, sustainability concepts and the HE sector. The objective of this part is to enable the reader to develop a common understanding of each of

8

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Part A – Core concepts for Higher Education, Leadership and Sustainability

Building knowledge of sustainability and leadership, from theory to practice

Part B – Decision making concepts and models

Part C – Leadership for Sustainability in practice

Specificity of context – global to institutional to individual

Part D – Case Studies in Leadership for Sustainability

Figure 0.1 Structure of Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

these elements of the discourse before we analyse and assess them together in the later parts of the book. In Chapter  1, we present core theories and concepts in leadership, before describing the prevailing views of what makes for successful leadership in sustainability. Leadership theories range from those that focus on the traits and characteristics of the individual to those which stress the context in which the leader is operating. Leadership itself can be seen as transformational and driven from the front or through acting as a servant for other people. The drivers for leadership come from both personal beliefs and institutional values. Comparing these different perspectives shows that although recent models favour situational leadership approaches, leadership for sustainability has not still properly embraced such thinking, and there is a lack of empirical work on theories for situational sustainability leadership. Chapter  2 provides a brief review of the sustainability agenda and the way that it has developed in recent decades in HE. Different definitions of sustainability are considered, ranging from a narrow focus on ‘green issues’ to a framework which encompasses human health and well-being as a central component of sustainable living. The urgency of concerted action to address

Introduction

9

global environmental problems is a key theme, and the importance of recent international agreements is stressed. The way that sustainability has developed as an increasingly important theme in HE is explored in the second half of the chapter. Early initiatives to set up professional associations and initiatives for ‘green’ university estates are set  alongside the more nuanced and holistic approaches currently being adopted. In Chapter 3, we describe the remit and scale of the HE sector, before outlining and discussing the national and international drivers impacting on its growth and development. Within this, the debate on whether universities are a public or private good will be synthesized, as a precursor to a contextualized discourse on how the current market dynamic, prevalent in higher education funding in most markets, impacts on stakeholder power and expectations, as well as universities’ responses to sustainability.

Part B (Chapters 4 and 5) In Part B, we move to describing and analysing how decisions are made in universities, in particular in relation to sustainability. Within this, we frame the institutional and sector context for decision-making for sustainability that leaders need to operate within. While the chapters in this part have core theoretical constructs as their basis, within this, we provide vignettes of practice from across the sector internationally, for illustration and example. In Chapter  4, we explore decision-making processes by discussing how to navigate organizational structures and decision-making norms to best effect and whom and how to engage as disparate stakeholder groups. The objective is to find means through which: (i) goals can be delivered at the institutional level; while (ii) creativity can be maximized in seeking sustainability solutions; and (iii) all relevant parties are engaged, involved and satisfied with the solutions proposed. In this chapter, we draw on methods for this being explored and tried in universities internationally, including a model devised at the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University, as well as evolving models such as Living Labs and Communities of Practice. In Chapter 5, we look at tools and frameworks which are not used for decisionmaking in HE currently, but which we believe need to be adopted to enable sustainability leaders to present their cases for sustainability using frameworks, language and drivers in the new HE context of mass market education. Within this, we discuss means of measuring and modelling sustainability to assign a

10

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

monetary value, or its proxy, enabling social and environmental measures to be compared alongside financial ones. These tools not only enable the development of a business case for sustainability at the institutional level, but can also be used to help the sustainability leader educate others in understanding that sustainability is just good business for universities.

Part C (Chapters 6–8) In Part C, we consider leadership within the domains of (i) the context; (ii) the individual and (iii) actions leading to success. For this, we draw on a conceptual framework (Visser and Courtice 2011), which we term the ‘Cambridge model’, which provides an amalgam of factors that need to be considered when assessing leadership for sustainability. Within each chapter, as with the previous parts of the book, we will draw on theoretical frameworks and models of relevance. In addition, we use empirical data gained from thirty-four semi-structured interviews from individuals in sustainability leadership positions in the sector (representing approximately 26% of UK universities) using a survey instrument based on Visser and Courtice’s conceptual model. Details of the research approach used is presented in the introduction to Part C. It is worthy to note here that the approach we used was not intended as a reductionist–positivist approach to ‘prove’ the best way to lead sustainability in HE, but rather to present trends, commonalities and examples of good practice through interviews with individuals who have been active, and to some degree successful, in taking forward sustainability in their institutions. From these, we have been able to present some common threads and recommendations based on trends and parallels between individuals’ experiences but we do not present a single model for success. The melting pot of sector, leadership and sustainability is a heady one, and too complex for such reductionist conclusions! Chapter 6 explores the leadership context for sustainability in universities. We draw on the internal leadership context dimension identified in the Cambridge model. This identified four key dimensions: (i) organizational reach; (ii) culture; (iii) governance structure and (iv) leadership role. To support our discussion, we describe and discuss the findings from interviews with sustainability leaders in the sector. We consider where and how sustainability fits within universities; how decisions are made within the context of the sustainability leadership role and how it is framed in the organizational structure and the governance and structures surrounding this. Finally, we tackle the enigmatic matter of culture,

Introduction

11

micropolitics and engagements beyond the formal, recognizing that what really happens in universities may not be happening through formal channels. Chapter  7 presents the research we have conducted that focuses on the specific, distinctive, individual attributes of the sustainability leader. For this, we formulated a set of likely attributes based on empirical data from the literature on the leader as an individual. This provided a list of traits, styles, skills and knowledge that are considered to contribute to success in sustainability leadership. We evaluated the findings of our enquiry against these to establish congruence and differences. Chapter  8 completes the triumvirate of factors determining sustainability leadership, as noted in the Cambridge model, that of successful leadership action. These could relate to actions within the organization, or those external to it, such as use of networking or out-of-sector engagement. Our inductive enquiry approach provided a list of actions most used by sustainability leaders. This was then evaluated against the most popular individual attributes found in Chapter 7 to seek congruence.

Part D (Chapters 9–12) In Part D, we present four in-depth institutional case studies, presenting each with reference to the ideas, theories and perspectives covered in the rest of the text. For this we have sought examples showing differing aspects of practitioner experience within the dimensions of our text. Additionally, the case studies provide international coverage, with contributions from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and India. Chapter 9 explores how a selection of the concepts and models for sustainability action and decision-making presented in Chapter 5 can be applied. We explore this through understanding practice and leadership at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU), based in the United Kingdom. This university has been selected as the ‘home’ university of two of the authors. Chapter  10 provides a formula for success in setting up a sustainability function in a university through repeated experiences of a sustainability leader working in multiple universities in the United States. The case presented here, an ‘architecture for success’, is based on the individual’s experience at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chapter  11 focuses on the importance of relationship building between professional services and academics. In this case, we explore the experience

12

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

at Macquarie University based in Sydney, Australia. The situation of the sustainability leader will resonate with many as the position is based within professional services, but has education for sustainability as the institution’s key initiative. Getting and keeping academics on-board, has been a key challenge. Chapter 12 looks at the experience of an individual advocate for sustainability and the extent to which success can be achieved in such a situation. For this, we look at the experience of an individual at Kerala University based in India. The case enables us to explore individual leadership attributes, and also constraints on successful development of sustainability in the institution.

Conclusion In the Conclusion to the book as a whole, we draw together the threads that have emerged from our discussion on theoretical concepts, combined with findings from our research to present thoughts, recommendations and provocations for future debate. Additionally, we outline the distinct contribution this book has made to knowledge, practice and theory in sustainability leadership.

Part A

Core Concepts for Higher Education, Leadership and Sustainability Most readers of this book will have some knowledge (and hopefully interest) in aspects of leadership, sustainability and the higher education sector, but may not have the same expertise or level of understanding of all three. The purpose of this first part of the book is to explain and develop understanding of each of these three core elements. Our aspiration is that it will provide all readers with a common understanding of each, before we analyse and assess them together in the latter part of the book. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 focus on one element each: Chapter 1 on leadership; Chapter 2 on sustainability and Chapter 3 on the higher education sector. Within each, we provide, at the outset, the core concepts, definitions and trends, before expanding the material in line with the context of this book, by discussing each aspect in the context of another. This is best explained diagrammatically in Figure A.1. Chapter 3

Higher Education Sector

Leadership Theories

Chapter 2 Sustainability

Figure A.1 Core concepts by chapter

Chapter1

1

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

Introduction Leadership as an activity, concept or mindset has been prevalent throughout human society. Pick up any history book or a current newspaper (or tweet) and the narrative will include reference to actions of leaders, in some sort of power relationship. When we think of leaders the names of kings, queens, presidents, generals or religious leaders may dominate in the first instance. This reflects the early leadership theory, the ‘Great Man’ theory (even when used for women) in the early twentieth century. In reality, leadership is pervasive in human interactions: the parent–child relationship, friendship groups and team working all show characteristics of leader–follower processes and leadership traits. A leader cannot lead unless he or she influences others, that is, he or she has followers. As Northouse (2016) reflects, leadership is a process that involves influencing others (i.e. followers) and involves common objectives or goals. He defines it as: ‘a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal’ (Northouse 2016: 6). This definition provides something of a de facto standard, but there are many alternative definitions across a plethora of literature on leadership:  a subject worthy of an academic series in its own right at the least. Many present common themes to the aforementioned definition, with others offering nuanced insights into other dynamics or factors of relevance. For example, Hersey and Blanchard’s (1988) definition incorporates the role of leadership context as well as individual attributes, and their thoughts encapsulate situational leadership theories. Zalenik (1992) notes the role of power in leadership. This could be conceived as a synonym for influence, but suggests a more formal, or even, hierarchical relationship between leader and follower, although individuals can hold personal power, through charisma or expertise, for example. Jacobs and Jaques (1990) include the concept of purpose to follower motivation, a notion

16

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

which resonates with our enquiry on leadership for sustainability. The notion of purpose could concur with the idea of a collective goal but could also include motivation based on beliefs and values, rather than goals as such. It is something of a misnomer to categorize leadership as being synonymous with management, although the two have common attributes, and the norm in organizations is for individuals to practice both leadership and management. Both require influence, power, followers and commonly understood goals or objectives. But management seeks order, efficiency and consistency to an organization, with leadership bringing change and constructive challenge. Kotter (1990) provides lists of functions for each. Management involves planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving. Leadership involves establishing direction, aligning people and motivating and inspiring others. This distinction is perhaps best summarized by Bennis and Nanus: ‘Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing’ (1985: 221). ‘Doing the right thing’ could be a somewhat contested concept of course, and moves us towards the emotive world of ethics, political views, faith and cultural values! Very few leaders actively seek to do the ‘wrong thing’ (although, sadly, there are some). Our focus in this book on leadership for sustainability is an area that presents strong notions and views on what doing the right thing is. In this case, it is moving the organization, its staff and stakeholders and society at large to lead sustainable lifestyles and embrace sustainability front and centre of their consciousness. The challenge for sustainability leaders is finding ways to achieve this in organizational settings where there are many competing priorities for resources and focus, notwithstanding untangling the complexities of acting sustainability, where delivering one aspect of sustainability may conflict with another. So, is there anything distinctive about leadership for sustainability? One view is that ‘leadership for sustainability is just good leadership’; an alternative is that leadership for sustainability is distinctly different and that existing models are not helpful to those individuals operating with such roles. Not surprisingly, we believe there are distinctive attributes, behaviours and skills required for successful sustainability leadership. We explore these through our research into practice in the higher education sector throughout this book. Within this chapter, we address this question by starting with a brief synopsis of core leadership theories and their development in the academic literature over the last 100 plus years, drawing out the role of (i)  individual and (ii) context as core components of leadership theory. We then explore theories and

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

17

perspectives on leadership for sustainability, commenting on whether and how these differ from, or mimic, general leadership theories. From these we select a recently developed conceptual framework for sustainability leadership, which is used in this book to structure our enquiries into leadership for sustainability in higher education.

Core leadership theories Leadership theories have a long provenance, with theories evolving for over a century on the drivers and characteristics of great leadership. During this time, profound differences have emerged in terms of notions of power, centralization, traits, process and transformation (Rost 1991). Most of these leadership theories have emerged in the cultural arena of twentieth-century Western cultures, at a time when Caucasian males dominated politics and businesses in the nations where leadership theories were spawned. The optimistic ones among us would like to think we have come a long way since Moore (1927) defined leadership as:  ‘The ability to impress the will of the leader on those led, and induce obedience, respect, loyalty and co-operation’ (1927:  124). There are still examples where this approach is evident in practice. This is becoming less the norm, however, as more recent theories and reflections of best practice focus on the notions of leader-as-servant, adaptive leadership and authentic leadership:  a turnaround from the commandand-control approaches of the past and ones more enabling of success for sustainability leadership. Many core texts describe the history of leadership theory and it is not the intention here to replicate these or to provide a chronological discourse on its development. Rather we have provided subsequently a brief discussion on the key components of the theories to aid understanding the context from a sustainability perspective. Our discussion has been divided into two sections. The first addresses the notion of leaders as individuals in terms of traits, styles, skills and knowledge. The second recognizes the importance of adapting to, and working within, the context in which the leader is working.

The individual as a leader The traditional starting point for leadership theory is that of trait theory which basically propounds that successful leaders exhibit certain in-born attributes

18

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

that lead to their success. The seminal work on this by Stogdill (1948) presented the results of a meta-analysis that identified eight traits that differentiated a leader from an ‘average’ group member. These were:  intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence and sociability. Notwithstanding the difficulty of measuring these qualities, the list seems somewhat intuitive (particularly if you consider the antonyms as not being a leadership trait). Subsequent research revealed many other traits of successful leaders, such as social intelligence, integrity and the popularly cited ‘big five’ from Goldberg (1990) of low neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, all of which fit with an intuitive sense. A spurious research result included the identification of height (Judge and Cable 2004), and others have reported culturally imbued associations such as masculinity (Mann 1959). Over the years, so many traits have been listed that it would be impossible to find the leader who meets all these. To adapt Elizabeth Bennett’s response (in Pride and Prejudice) to Mr Darcy’s listing all the attributes of an accomplished lady, ‘I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six . . . I rather wonder now at your knowing any’ (Austen 1813). While the traits-based theories became unfashionable for many years, it has seen a re-emergence in applied forms: for example, through acceptance of the importance of emotional intelligence in leadership (Goleman 1995). It could also be argued that values-led approaches through authentic leadership, for example, is trait related (Luthans and Avolio 2003). Both of these theories are relevant to the context of leadership for sustainability in higher education, and is covered in more detail later in this chapter. In recognizing the role of traits or personality in leadership few today would consider these to be the sole factor impacting on leadership, with the more recent theories recognizing the interplay of intrapersonal, interpersonal and situational factors. Luckily for most business schools and leadership training providers, there is now general acceptance that leadership is something that can be learnt to a greater or lesser extent through the development of specific skills and acquisition of relevant knowledge. Indeed, it would be disheartening to think that individuals cannot change through experience and/or education bringing an enhanced skill and knowledge base. As with trait theory, lists on skill requirements for leadership have proliferated. Early models listed these as being technical, human and conceptual, with the balance among these differing depending on the hierarchical context (Katz 1955). Further later, Mumford et al. (2000) developed a capability model, linking leadership skills and knowledge with their performance, through five components. These were:

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

19

competences individual attributes leadership outcomes career experiences environmental influences.

Within these, components such as problem-solving skills and social judgement skills were required to be a high performing leader. The model is helpful as a starting point for anyone looking to scope learning needs for leadership, but it does suffer from contextualization:  It was developed using a large sample of military personnel and may not be relevant to higher education or sustainability. It does provide an indicator of the potential to learn and develop relevant skills, and parallels reflections from Lucas and Claxton (2010), whose neurosciencebased research suggested that inherited traits and characteristics provide a ‘broad, envelope of opportunity’ within which we can develop and grow our abilities. Indeed, the ability of the human brain to program itself to match the environment and circumstances in which it finds itself is one of its outstanding characteristics. The aforementioned models provide a wonderful simplicity about two extremes of intrapersonal leadership attributes:  the inherent and the learned. Many other models, theories and leadership types exist in the intrapersonal domain that blur the boundaries between these. Emotional intelligence, for example, could be seen as a trait  – inherent in an individual’s personality. Others argue for a more nuanced, subtle, approach. This sees a learning process between leaders and followers, with an emotionally intelligent leader having the capability, or personality trait, to work through a complex set of interactions in the best interest of the organization and followers. This idea is developed by Schein (2015) in relation to sustainability leadership, who notes that: ‘emotionally intelligent leaders have the unique capacity to create a shared way of interpreting and making sense of any given situation confronting their organizations, especially in times of chaos or crisis’ and that the emotions of leaders have a disproportionally high impact on their staff (Schein 2015: 93). The notion of authentic leadership has also gained prominence more recently. Although it has no single definition, it combines the intrapersonal, interpersonal and developmental perspectives in leadership, combining the inherent and the learned. The definition of authentic leadership by Walumbwa et al. (2008) as a useful, but rather inaccessible, one is, ‘a pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, and internalised moral

20

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

perspective, balanced processing of information and relational transparency of the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development’ (Walumbwa et al. 2008: 94). This complex definition sparked much discussion about the elements of authentic leadership, including the feasibility of achieving it (particularly in challenging, deeply hierarchical situations), and debate is ongoing as to the efficacy of such an approach. As with most newly developing concepts, authentic leadership also has its critics. Not least is this counterfactual to authenticity: who would admit to being an ‘inauthentic’ leader? Additionally, does the ‘positive psychological’, values-based approach arise from inherent traits in the leader or learned behaviour, or both? Regardless of such a debate, authentic leadership behaviour such as that outlined in the definition could offer a useful insight for sustainability leadership in higher education. There are two factors that particularly recommend this approach. First, it takes account of values-led goals (in this case, that of sustainability) and, second, it recognizes the complex nature of a learning organization (higher education).

Situational context At a fundamental level, leadership is about interactions and influences with followers. Understanding followers and the context they work in seems an obvious requirement for competent leadership. Of course, how a leader interacts and influences also depends on intrapersonal characteristics, whether inherent or learnt, so the boundaries between studying a leader’s context and his or her individual attributes can get blurred. Notwithstanding these caveats, we highlight and briefly describe core theories relating to leadership context, or situational leadership, in this section. Many leadership theories recognize the importance of situation, particularly the leader–follower relationship. The starting point for these models was Blake and Moulton’s Leadership Grid (1964), where a leader was categorized according to whether he or she operated on a task – or people – orientation. Task-oriented leaders simply want to get a job completed, whereas people-oriented leaders try to ensure harmony and good team working. Blake and Moulton suggested that the style of leadership should match the needs of the specific situation. Other models moved this basic idea forward, recognizing, for instance, that follower motivation was important to success (expectancy theory), and that leaders, followers and situation goals needed to align for success. This was termed pathgoal theory by House and Mitchell (1974). Later models of leadership that consider the context the leader is operating in resonate particularly for sustainability leadership. The best known of these

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

21

is Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model (1988), presented in Figure 1.1. The model shows that the most appropriate style is determined by the interaction of leader, follower and task complexity. This may result in directive or supportive responses from the leader, determining the most appropriate leadership style to adopt on the basis of this. Leadership for sustainability in higher education speaks to situations where there may be high follower readiness (i.e. competence and motivation) and high levels of complexity in the subject area being considered. Of course, the extent to which this is explicit may differ by cultural context. In the United Kingdom, the model would likely point to S3 (supporting) or S4 (delegating) styles for leading those staff who are committed to, and understand, sustainability. Directive approaches are less likely to be seen, although coaching approaches (S2) have resonance where commitment needs to be fostered. The model categorically does not point to task-oriented command and control approaches as appropriate for the sustainability leader. The Situational Leadership Model highlights the importance of motivating, valuing and incorporating the perspective of followers. Another leadership model that takes a similar approach is the Leader-as-Servant Model, where the leader’s actions and approach are heavily follower-centric, with a strong focus on listening, empathy, community and stewardship (Greenleaf 1970). A criticism of this model is that, as with Blake and Moulton’s people-oriented leadership

Supportive behaviour

High S2 Coaching: High directive and high supporting behaviour

S3 Supporting: High supportive and low directive behaviour

S4 Delegating: Low supportive and low directive behaviour

Low

S1 Directing: High directing and low supporting behaviour

Directive behaviour D4 High Competence High Commitment

developed

D3 Moderate To High Competence Variable Commitment

D2 Low to Some Competence Low commitment

Developmental needs

Figure 1.1 Situational Leadership Model Source: Adapted from Hersey and Blanchard (1988)

High D1 Low Competence High Commitment

developing

22

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

style, it does not guarantee delivery of results where time may be the essence, and may not be seen as a legitimate way to lead in some cultures where greater direction is expected. Taking the idea of follower-centric leadership further, the Adaptive Leadership Model (Heifetz 1994) provides a means to mobilize action in followers. It focuses on the leader in relation to the work of followers and their need to adapt to changing environments. For this, it provides a set of constructs to help decide the type of challenge faced and strategies for managing them, providing guidance for action. The Transformational Leadership Model (Burns 1978) takes account of potential inertia arising from follower-centric approaches and brings balance between delivery of goals and follower buy-in into balance. It identifies that the goals of the organization and its leaders can be met through the leader changing and transforming followers through assessing their motives, satisfying their needs and enhancing their morality to help them achieve their fullest potential. As such, it speaks to action orientation but through a deep leader–follower commitment and motivation, and in many ways represents an ideal for enduring change. Each of the aforementioned models recognizes the complex interaction between leader and follower, with the dynamic between each varying from leader-centric in the context of follower, to follower-centric as a context for the leader. Factors affecting each of these will be an amalgam of personality, cultural norms and learnt styles in all, so that situational or context-specific leadership cannot really operate without consideration of the individuals concerned. What is also missing from them is the recognition of the role of power and whether or how a leader has power over followers. This is a crucial omission as power is a dimension in many human relationships whether in the home and family, place of work or regional and national government. In a higher education context, where there is a mix of academic freedom and managerial control, it is especially important to recognize hierarchies and power structures and to understand how they operate. Sustainability leadership is only likely to be successful where sustainability leaders understand the subtle interplay among the different agencies with which they work and the ways in which they interrelate, both formally and informally.

Power and leadership Power and leadership can be seen as synonymous by many, and to some extent they are interchangeable. Power is broadly considered to be the ability, or licence, to influence others, and leadership is defined through the phrases ‘influence’

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

23

and ‘followers’. Of course, leadership definitions also incorporate the notion of ‘goal’ or ‘vision’, which are not prerequisites to demonstrating power. The de facto standard means to categorize types or bases of power is that developed by French and Raven (1958). This has been debated, discussed and marginally modified since, but has stood the test of time nonetheless. The categorization is provided in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Types of power and influence Type of power

Description – how the leader exerts influence on the follower

Reward power

Through their ability to provide a reward to the latter upon compliance with an instruction Through the application of sanctions for undesired behaviour

Coercive power

Referent power

Legitimate power

Expert power

Information power (added later by French and Raven)

Example within university

Staff receiving performancerelated bonus; student achieving a high-degree classification Staff member or student undergoing a disciplinary sanction from manager/ supervisor, e.g. research misconduct, leading to dismissal Based on the belief of the Successful sustainability followers that the leader leadership is likely to rely has desirable attributes that on this, through follower can and should be copied, attractiveness to the individual’s regardless of his or her position values and facilitative approaches in the organization. It can also to progressing activities in the be called charismatic power. institution. Through the belief of follower Head of department requests that the leader has the to staff, or policies arising from authority to issue orders that the ‘Vice-Squad’ (McCaffery they have to follow. It can also 2010, referring to the executive be called position power. group of the institution, with vice-chancellor, deputy vicechancellor, pro-vice-chancellor etc.) Based on the belief of followers Typically seen among academic that the leader has superior hierarchy with research ‘stars’ or knowledge relevant to the the professoriate offering this, situation or task separate from line management (legitimate power) Derived from the leader Information on how to possessing knowledge that the undertake a process successfully, follower wants or needs e.g. apply for a research grant, get promoted, from those who have been successful.

24

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

In Table  1.1, we have used the term ‘leader’ to describe a person who has influence or power over another, and we usually think of this in terms of the position a person may hold in a hierarchical relationship. By transposing the term ‘power’ to its form as verb, it frees us from the natural tendency to link power to a leader operating with legitimate, reward or coercive power in an organizational hierarchy. In considering power outside of the hierarchy, and as an action undertaken, this exposes the opportunity for individuals or groups to have influence through other means. In relation to the development of the sustainability agenda and its leadership in universities, growth and increasing influence have been achieved through referent and expert types of power, where the leader does not hold line management influence over followers. The successful leaders are mindful, though, to work with the sources of legitimate, reward or coercive power as part of organizational structures and the hierarchy. Understanding power dynamics in organizations requires an appreciation of the type of organizational structure operating. The prominent strategy and organizational theorist, Henry Mintzberg (1989) devised a framework to categorize types of role in organizations, which he considered affected the organization’s operation. The prominent types are described as follows and depicted in Figure 1.2, which shows schematically how they relate to each other. 1. Strategic apex – executives who attempt to ensure the organization performs its primary purpose (e.g. board of directors, executive committee)

Strategic apex

Support staff

Techno structure Middle line

Operating core

Figure 1.2 Mintzberg’s organizational types Source: Mintzberg (1989)

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

25

2. Operating core – the bulk of employees who perform the basic work related directly to the production of products and services 3. Middle line of managers who connect the core and the apex 4. A techno-structure that designs, plans and changes the work flow (e.g. finance, human resources) 5. Support staff who provide support outside of the operating work flow (e.g. law, public relations, food services). Mintzberg further proposed five ideal or pure forms of organizational structure which varied according to the type of work done. Of pertinence are those reflecting how forms of organizational structure have changed in universities over time. Until the recent past, universities ran as ‘professional bureaucracies’, similar to professional organizations such as law firms with partnership models. These had a small techno-structure, middle management and support service and largely autonomous operating core (the lawyers or academics). In contrast, many universities now operate on the lines of the ‘machine structure’. This form is also used in large manufacturing organizations and public-sector entities. It is characterized by formalized procedures in the operating core, a proliferation of rules and regulations, a relatively centralized power for decision-making and an elaborate administrative structure with sharp distinctions between line and staff. While Mintzberg’s model has been criticized, particularly for its lack of empirical validation (Krabberød 2015), it still holds wide-scale acceptance through its intuitive appeal. In terms of power and organizational types, Mintzberg’s organizational forms suggest (at a simplistic level) the likelihood of legitimate sources of power prevailing in the ‘machine structure’ with licence for other power types, such as referent and expert power, to surface in ‘professional bureaucracies’. Linking this to leadership reiterates the value of considering leadership context as well as individual attributes. In other words, where power is held may differ depending on the organizational form at play. In the context of the modern university, it could challenge the notion of power prevailing outside of management hierarchy.

The best way to lead? Unsurprisingly, there is no ‘one best way to lead’ arising from these models as the range and variety of human interactions for a leader (self, followers, organization) are extensive. Indeed, much leadership advice arising from theory is conditional upon the multifaceted elements of the situation. Partly because of this complexity, there is little empirical evidence verifying the leadership

26

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

models. Does this lead then to a leadership model of suggesting that ‘it depends’ is best and if so, how is this helpful? Drilling down into the specific focus for this text, that of leadership for sustainability in higher education, we will now explore whether general leadership theories and models can inform leadership for sustainability, and whether there is a ‘best way’ to lead for sustainability.

Leadership for sustainability Is leadership for sustainability different from ‘good’ leadership? Many texts on leadership for sustainability start with the premise that sustainability is a ‘good thing to do’, and the issue for leadership is just to convince everyone else of that. As an example, Epstein (2008) starts with the contention that the chief executive officer (CEO) supports the concept of sustainability in his or her organization. Suggestions for how to lead then focus on its communication and implementation, hopefully at a transformational level which transcends corporate instrumentalism and achieves value congruence and mutual respect between leader and followers (Shriberg 2012). However, for many sustainability leaders in higher education, this approach is not helpful as they do not start from the situation where the senior leaders in the university prioritize sustainability. Even within the higher education sector, much of the research to date starts with the premise that sustainability, in itself, is the right thing to do. Suggestions and recommendations on leadership flow from this belief without reference to competing priorities within the institution, or competing views (Bowers 2001; Jones, Selby and Sterling 2010; Scott et al. 2012). Although there are many sound recommendations in these outputs, sustainability leaders in practice face a wide range of messy, seemingly intractable, challenges. These fall into three categories: 1. Goal definition 2. Competing priorities in the institution 3. Complexity of the decision-making process.

Goal definition For a sustainability leader, the reality of being able to define, tangibly, goals in the short or long term can be extremely challenging, albeit an ideal. Parkin notes, with respect to the quality of sustainability leadership: ‘Being able to imagine

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

27

and visualize what good might look like in the future is critical to the successful design of any strategy or implementation plan’ (2010: 211). The difficulty is due, not least, to the overwhelming complexity of sustainability, combined with realism about what can be achieved in the short term, and the need for solutions that may move beyond the institution’s norms. A sustainability leader may need to set goals relating to process, small steps and changes in others’ mindsets, rather than outcome-related goals. In other words, they may need to focus on goals relating to the journey not just the destination. For many, this may be frustrating, and some will resonate with the apocryphal story of the lost traveller who stops a passing merchant to ask the way to their destination, with the response being ‘well, I wouldn’t start from here if I were you!’.

Competing priorities in the institution Unless an institution has adopted sustainability as a core driver, it is likely that the sustainability leader will need to work within other core priorities for the institution. In universities, these are likely to relate to learning and teaching satisfaction and quality, as well as research quality and impact, and, of course, financial viability. Silos may exist in some functions, or disciplinary areas, in the organization (although this is becoming less common). Regardless, a sustainability leader, more than any in the organization, needs to lead through taking a whole institutional perspective, finding ways in which the sustainability agenda supports what is perceived as the ‘core’ business.

Complexity of decision-making processes The sustainability leaders need to not only understand what sustainability means in itself, but also appreciate how it relates to institutional goals and objectives. To add to this heady mix, they generally do not have large ‘legitimate’ power bases, but need to affect cross-institutional change nonetheless. As such, leadership approaches are needed which combine understanding of complexity with facilitation rather than command and control.

Theories in leadership for sustainability There is no single theory (or theories) for sustainability leadership. Rather, some of the contemporary leadership theories offer ideas which are relevant. These are discussed in this section, and include consideration of individual characteristics of a sustainability leader, as well as the leader’s context. The two are not bifurcated

28

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

neatly though, as boundaries blur between cause and effect between individuals’ behaviours and the environment they are influencing.

Traits, styles and skills Much of the literature on sustainability leadership concentrates on specific traits and skill requirements. Given the fickle nature of fashion in leadership theory and the legitimacy (or otherwise) of trait theories of leadership, this is something of a surprise. An example is provided by Christensen Jr (2012), who articulated the attributes of an environmental (sustainability) leader from his position of dean of the School of Environmental Sciences, Duke University, in the United States. He saw the value of a mix of ‘good leadership’ (such as clear vision, clear and compelling communication, conflict resolution and negotiation skills) and individual attributes specific to sustainability. The latter included the need for the leader to accept and celebrate the journey to sustainability, bringing followers along with the leader’s value sets and enthusiasm for it. Additionally, the leader needed to ensure goals were determined by ethical principles or values, and to recognize that all actions towards sustainability, whether large or small, actually mattered. Christensen Jr presented his thoughts on leadership for sustainability in a specific organizational context (a university in the United States) so that organizational contextual factors could be implicit. Researching in a higher education organizational context, Shriberg (2012) notes – from his PhD thesis on organizational factors affecting effective environmental performance – that sustainability leadership requires the following skills: 1. Systems intelligence – the ability to analyse complex decisions that cross traditional boundaries. In the case of leadership for sustainability, the organization needs to understand itself from the perspective of an integrated whole system with cross-disciplinary and cross-functional boundaries being transgressed. 2. Visioning – balancing of shorter-term institutional goals with longerterm thinking, and for the sustainability leader to understand and embrace both. 3. Humility – an inclusive and diverse approach, to enable meaningful, and creative, stakeholder dialogue. This has been termed ‘self-transcendence’ by Egri and Herman (2000) 4. Embracing and capitalizing on change – central to good leadership generally, but Shriberg argues that the change landscape is heightened

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

29

for sustainability leadership, largely through the multitude of factors and uncertainty that the leader needs to take into account. 5. Orientation towards enlightened self-interest – used for those who are able to balance long-term thinking about sustainability yet retain self-interest in decision-making. It is based on the premise that values-led leader will seek to reconcile his or her personal values with organizational goals (Gladwin, Kennelly and Krause 1995).

Transformational leadership Many writers on leadership for sustainability identify theories of transformational leadership as relevant to sustainability leadership. Transformational leadership theory is attractive as it supports mobilizing action in an organization, while transforming values, attitudes and behaviours of followers. Interestingly, there are diverse views on the requirements for successful transformational leadership, with some citing individual attributes, and others noting the importance of context. For instance, Waldman, Siegel and Javidan (2006) identified that the ability to intellectually stimulate others as well as mobilize (or persuade) a change in followers’ beliefs and values as correlating with positive environmental sustainability outcomes. In his description of sustainability leadership at Duke University, Christensen Jr also identified the relevance of the transformational leadership approach, and described it through the lens of individual leader attributes: A leader’s central challenge is not to convince others that he or she can change the world; it is to convince others that they can change the world by giving to or working toward that leader’s vision. To do this requires empathy, an understanding of what others care most about, and the ability to match your needs to their passions . . . The most successful [sustainability] leaders share a hopeful sense of the possible. (Christensen Jr 2012)

Research evidence supports Christensen’s contention. A large-scale international study involving over 500 university staff in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and mainland Europe (Scott et  al. 2012) found that the top capabilities required by sustainability leaders focused on both personal and interpersonal capabilities. The results also highlighted a sense of urgency. With respect to individual leader attributes, personal capacity included passion, perseverance, enthusiasm for sustainability and being true to one’s values and ethics. Interpersonal capability included being willing to give credit to others,

30

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

empathizing and working productively with diversity and listening to different points of view before coming to a decision In contrast, Shriberg (2002) noted the acceptance of transformational leadership in organizational culture as an important component in effective environmental performance. Within this, he recognizes the importance of collaboration, diversity and power bases beyond those played out through the hierarchy. He notes: Collaborative decision-making structures, progressive/liberal political orientation, a collegial atmosphere, and image-seeking behaviour represent strong positive conditions for success in campus sustainability. Initiatives are most successful when driven by diverse stakeholders – with the support of top leaders – acting in a coordinated manner and capitalizing on or creating a ‘spark’. Change agents are most effective by appealing to personal ethics at low levels in the organizational hierarchy while appealing to institutional strategic positioning (e.g., reputational and recruitment benefits) at higher levels. (Shriberg 2002: 1)

Transformational leadership requires the happy union of individual leadership attributes and an organizational context that is supportive and embracing of its approach. In discussing the higher education context, Shiel (2013) enthuses about the opportunity for a transformational leadership approach for sustainability with attention given to communicating the vision, and sustainability leaders operating as inspiring, motivated role models of sustainability. The stalling point comes, she notes, within the existing hierarchical structures of universities, which we can take to include governance and decision-making processes. For a transformational leadership approach to work for sustainability in higher education, she suggests that such barriers need to be understood and navigated with sensitivity.

Deep systems leadership Operating in a systems-oriented manner has been part of management and operational decision-making literature for some time. Its genesis lies in systems theory  – this informs a management approach that recognizes the need for action at the task level, but does not take into account follower buy-in, as we have seen with transformational approaches. While management speaks to efficiency of current processes, this is not an unreasonable approach, but does not help in situations where leaders seek to mobilize change. Systems-based approaches have received a degree of criticism, in relation to their task orientation. One example is Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000) writing

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

31

about complexity and management, but commenting on leadership. They considered that a complex responsive process was required between leader and followers, where an ongoing process of people relating to each other was required to support successful leadership. This harks back to the notion of individual attributes of leadership and especially interpersonal skills and style. We could describe this as emotional intelligence (Goleman 1995) or systems intelligence (Hämäläinen and Saarinen 2008), the latter combining other forms of intelligence (e.g. emotional intelligence) with systems thinking. Such an approach enables the leaders to place themselves in the context of others and their operating environment – seeing each as interconnected and interdependent. This works best in organizational settings which work on a non-hierarchical basis, where the leader works collaboratively with peers. Deep systems leadership is a manifestation of this approach, recognizing the complexity and interdependence needed for decision-making for sustainability, and that decisions need to be taken when certainty and full information are lacking (Satterwhite 2010). Like systems intelligence, it sees the leaders as non-hierarchical and non-positional within the area they are leading, working with and influencing others through non-positional power. As such, it is an approach to leadership that recognizes both the complexity of the subject matter of sustainability and the need for creative space for leaders and followers alike outside of the norms of command-and-control hierarchies. It therefore speaks to the need for alignment of clear individual leadership attributes (handling complexity and uncertainty for instance) as well as organizational context (structures and cultures). Deep systems thinking is closely aligned to earlier ecological theories of leadership, where ecological systems are used as a metaphor for organizational systems (Wielkiewicz & Stelzner 2010). It champions a ‘sustainability first’ approach, with individual responsibility and long termism, and as noted by Western (2010):  ‘Eco-leadership conceptualizes leaders as being agents distributed throughout organizations (of all kinds) taking a holistic, systemic, and ethical stance’ (Western 2010: 37). As with deep systems thinking, the sustainability-first approach seeks consensus through non-hierarchical engagements, operating as a trait or value system, rather than a skill that can be learnt. This offers a powerful way of thinking about leadership that offers a paradigm shift in sustainability within organizations, but risks an element of ‘group think’ among those successful in implementing it. The issue with this is that group think (where individuals work together towards a common goal) can result in reinforcement of views

32

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

within the group with no challenge to that thinking. When ideas are presented outside of the group and found not to be accepted, it can be difficult for them to understand why. The deep systems leadership models intuitively seem to offer a sound approach on which to base sustainability leadership. They embrace the complexity of the subject area and recognize and provide a framework within which the sustainability-as-facilitator can operate across the institution, regardless of his or her position in the hierarchy. It also recognizes that deep systems intelligence is something that can be learnt, and is not necessarily an in-born trait, which is helpful for a leader looking to influence a wider group of followers and advocates. This approach can be seen in practice in higher education already through, for example, the development of communities of practice (within universities or among the sector run by membership associations for sustainability professionals such as the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) in the United Kingdom). However, as Shiel (2013) notes, the challenge is to find ways to embed this approach into existing hierarchical structures and organizational cultures, unless it is encouraged from the top of those hierarchies. This is a question that is considered further in Chapter  4, where we review decision-making processes for leading sustainability in the sector.

Individual and contextual approaches to leadership Academics, management practitioners and commentators have identified a large range of attributes, behaviours, approaches and value systems affecting leadership in general and leadership for sustainability. With such a smorgasbord of options, how best could we determine the model that resonates with what is required for successful leadership for sustainability in higher education? Clearly the answer is ‘it’s complicated!’ Any single model provides insight, but not necessarily complete insight to answer our question. Most models point to the role of the leader as individual, through traits, styles and skills (which may include how they relate to followers and others). Some recognize the role of the context the leader is operating in – the culture, organizational structures, power bases – as an influential factor of how the leader operates. When it comes to sustainability leadership models, we need to identify the distinctive issue of complexity and uncertainty within sustainability itself, noting the need for the leader to possess individual attributes that can navigate this complex space. What is needed is a composite approach which recognizes the roles of all these factors.

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

33

Leadership more generally is not simple either, with a large range of variables and influences at play affecting success. Charles Handy (1993), a well-established management and leadership commentator, recognized the need for a hybrid approach and developed a model of leadership, dubbed the ‘best fit’ approach. For some, this was seen as an ‘umbrella model’ incorporating other theories. For others it was too deterministic in its application, but it has provided a leadership model that recognizes that the ‘best’ approach to leadership depends on the particular situations and interactions among leader, followers, task and environment. Within sustainability leadership, Visser and Courtice (2011) have used a similar, all-embracing approach to modelling the factors that make for sustainability leadership success. Their model identifies factors of (i)  external environment (over which it is recognized that there may be little influence, but much understanding needed) and organizational context and (ii) individual leadership attributes. These when combined impact the internal and external actions (and success) of the leader. As with Handy’s model, this approach loosely adopts the ‘contingency’ approach, which recognizes that sustainability leadership is a complex symbiosis between individual and context. The model is provided in Figure 1.3. Although Visser and Courtice’s model identifies individual leadership attributes for sustainability, and the context they are operating in, it does not test context empirically. Arising from interviews with a range of senior business staff, it does however list individual leadership attributes that successful sustainability leaders possess. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Systemic understanding Emotional intelligence Values orientation Compelling vision Inclusive style Innovative approach Long-term perspective.

The model speaks to the transformational leadership approaches, combined with deep systems leadership through these attributes, and largely concurs with lists of individual attributes produced elsewhere. The model does not demonstrate how these combine with the organizational/external context for the leader or demonstrate successful actions arising from these. Conceptually, though, it provides an attractive and comprehensive approach.

34

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

CAMBRIDGE SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP MODEL INDIVIDUAL LEADER

LEADERSHIP CONTEXT EXTERNAL Ecological Economic Political Cultural Community INTERNAL Sector/industry Organisational reach Organisational culture Governance structure Leadership role

TRAITS Caring/morally-driven Systemic/holistic thinker Enquiring/open-minded Self-aware/empathetic Visionary/courageous STYLES Inclusive Visionary Creative Altruistic Radical SKILLS Manage complexity Communicate vision Exercise judgement Challenge & innovate Think long term KNOWLEDGE Global challenges/dilemmas Interdisciplinary connections Change dynamics/options Organisational influences/impacts Diverse stakeholder views

LEADERSHIP ACTIONS INTERNAL Informed decisions Strategic direction Management incentives Performance accountability People empowerment Learning & Innovation EXTERNAL Cross-sector partnerships Sustainable products/services Sustainability awareness Context transformation Stakeholder transparency

Figure 1.3 Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model Source: Visser and Courtice (2011)

Conclusion Reflecting on the quotation from Bennis and Nanus (1985) on the difference between leadership and management, where ‘leaders do the right thing’, is never more true than it is for leadership for sustainability. Such a worthy intent is fraught with complexity though. Not least is the question ‘what does the “right thing” look like?’ in a subject as complicated as sustainability. Add to that the myriad of influences and influencers within and on the organization the leader is operating in and the question of ‘how best to lead for sustainability’ become ever more challenging. The discussion in this chapter has brought increased understanding of the complex web of factors influencing successful leadership, and leadership for sustainability. In summary, it is a balancing act, bringing together: 1. individual leader attributes (innate, learnt, personal and interpersonal) 2. leadership context (organizational cultures, structures and decisionmaking processes)

Leadership and Leadership for Sustainability

35

3. knowledge of sustainability, and individual attributes that enable interconnectedness in thinking for an uncertain, complex subject matter. More recent leadership theories (such as transformational leadership, leaderas-servant, authentic leadership) speak to approaches to leadership that are more aligned to sustainability leadership in higher education. The task-oriented approaches and ‘great man’ theories of the past risk a simplistic approach to goal delivery, and make it unlikely that influence can be achieved through deeptransformational value adjustment for followers and decision-makers. Likewise, sustainability leaders need to do much more than just explain why they believe sustainability is important: They need to frame it in the context of followers’ and decision-makers’ priorities, world view and organizational context. Most of the theories on leadership for sustainability highlight attributes at the level of the individual which, in combination, are distinctive to it. They require not only competent interpersonal skills, but also alignment of the leader’s values with those of sustainability. Given the challenges faced by them in taking such a complex agenda forward, with a range of disparate stakeholder groups, this volition provides support at times when progress may be unclear. The theories presented are less than fulsome in their recognition of organizational and external context impacting on leadership for sustainability. This is somewhat surprising given that popular leadership theories have focussed increasingly on situational or contingency models for leadership, identifying the role of organizational context, readiness of followers, type of activity the leader is undertaking and so on. Although the Cambridge Model mimics this approach, it has limited empirical validation but offers a potentially powerful means of understanding and determining the factors that make for successful leadership for sustainability. In the following chapters, we rise to the challenge of exploring and explaining what makes for successful leadership for sustainability in higher education and will use the triumvirate of individual, context and subject matter (sustainability) as keystones to this, applying the Cambridge Model in our empirical enquiry presented in Part C (Chapters  6–8). The starting points are to provide more detail on, first, sustainability (in Chapter 2) and higher education (in Chapter 3), before discussing decision-making processes and models that can be used in higher education in Part B (Chapters 4 and 5).

2

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

Introduction Easter Island is one of the most remote places on Earth. It lies several thousand kilometres off the coast of South America surrounded by the waters of the Pacific Ocean. In the past, the islanders grew rich, and the evidence of their flourishing culture is preserved in the hundreds of huge stone statues which they erected to protect their people. However, when Captain Cook landed on Easter Island in 1774, he found it was inhabited by just a few people living lives of abject poverty. What had happened to bring them to this state? One theory suggests that as the number of islanders increased, they overexploited the available resources. The trees were cut down, food became scarce and fighting broke out between different groups. Here is an example of what can happen in a finite world where people fail to respect ecological limits. Could a similar scenario play out on a planetary scale if we fail to take heed of this salutary warming? This chapter introduces the reader to the larger forces that underpin the sustainability agenda and the way that different challenges interact. It also reviews the initiatives taken to date to promote sustainability in higher education.

Introducing sustainability: An evolving concept Linguistically, ‘sustainability’ is a relatively new term, which first appeared in English dictionaries in the 1970s. It is derived from the Latin verb ‘sustinere’ which means ‘maintain’, ‘hold’ or ‘endure’. There is a sense in which sustainability represents a relatively static state of balance and harmony where a range of forces unite in a stable combination. However, sustainability has a number of other meanings such as ‘living within one’s means’ and ‘respecting the laws of nature’ which introduce an ecological perspective. In its broadest sense, it also incorporates the notion of human flourishing and well-being. In addition,

38

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

sustainability has a global dimension as it seeks to explore the idea of planetary living  – something which previous generations had not been able to fully recognize due to limitations of transport and communication. Sustainability is sometimes represented visually in models and diagrams. One approach is to think of sustainability as having three dimensions or pillars – social, environmental and economic. The pillars are often portrayed as the columns on a temple supporting a pediment which represents sustainability. An alternative approach is to think in terms of a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles which denote the same three themes. In this model, the area where the circles overlap represents sustainability, and the size of the overlap area indicates the extent to which sustainability has been embedded or realized. A  third visualization portrays sustainability as a set of nested relationships, rather like the rings on a dart board. Here the economy is the smallest circle, surrounded by society which itself is encompassed by the environment, neatly making the point that we depend on the natural environment for our survival (Figure 2.1). Although sustainability is hard to characterize, its opposite state – unsustainability – is much easier to recognize. Examples could include environmental pollution, hunting animals to extinction or inequities in availability of fresh drinking water in society. Unsustainable behaviour thus serves to highlight the way that sustainability implies a certain set of dispositions or character traits. It draws attention to the way that questions about values and principles are integral to sustainability discourse, and it highlights the importance of respecting both the people around us and the environment which supports us. It seems certain that the difficulties of encapsulating and communicating notions about sustainability will continue to provide rich ground for ongoing

Environment Sustainability Society Economy

Environment

Society

Society

Sustainability Economy

Environment

Economy

Figure 2.1 Different elements of sustainability can be seen as combining in different ways

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

39

debate and discussion in the years ahead. Sustainability lacks the parameters and accumulated understandings of an established discipline and carries a burden of different meanings. It is contested, ambiguous and sometimes even contradictory. Furthermore, it is understood in different ways by different communities and cultures. This is not, however, a reason for it to be sidelined or marginalized. At a basic level, sustainability is an extremely simple, even elegant, idea. Fundamentally, it is about finding the best possible way to live our lives and to flourish within the limits of the planet which supports us. The quest which results from this endeavour leads in all manners of directions and touches every academic discipline and every aspect of university life.

The present context Sustainability awareness first became manifest in a growing appreciation of ecological and environmental issues, seen through problems such as land degradation, species loss, pollution and climate starting to be reported in news stories and media headlines. In recent years, it has become apparent that people have been using natural resources faster than the Earth can replenish them and creating waste faster than it can be absorbed. The statistics make sober reading. For instance, surveys by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 2014 indicate that numbers of many species have declined by 60% since 1970. Losses on this scale are of geological significance and scientists have coined the term ‘Anthropocene’ to characterize the current era when the decline of biodiversity due to human activity is occurring on a scale not seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs. At the same time, we now know that human activity is causing global climate change. The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide which can be dated to the early years of the Industrial Revolution has already resulted in an average temperature increase of about one degree centigrade, with much greater changes in polar regions. If temperatures were to rise three or four degrees  – an irreversible change that could quite possibly happen within the next century – there are fears that powerful multiplier effects will trigger runaway feedback resulting in further uncontrollable temperature rises. Agriculture and food security are a further area of concern with potentially devastating impacts in the medium to longer term. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations survey (FAO 2016) reports that one-third of the world’s soils are already moderately to highly degraded. These different global environmental problems all interact in ways that could reinforce their impact. This has led John Beddington, one-time chief scientific advisor to

40

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

the UK government, to conclude that we face a ‘perfect storm’ of planetary environmental threats (Beddington 2009). Environmental problems have a direct link to living conditions and hence social conflict. As natural resources grow scarcer and the quality of the natural environment declines, there are more likely to be serious disputes between nations and different social groups as poorer people around the world are less able to protect themselves from the harmful effects of shortages and deprivation. There are already indications that such scenarios are starting to be played out in different parts of the world. Disputes over water supplies are commonplace in arid regions and drought, such as in Middle Eastern Europe. Indeed, the UN World Water Assessment Report indicates that ‘droughts can have very significant socio-economic and environmental consequences. The crisis in Syria was, among other factors, triggered by a historic drought (2007–2010)’ (WWAP 2017). The resulting refugee crisis has shaken countries and governments across Europe. In an interconnected world, no nation is immune from events that happen elsewhere. There is one further factor to consider: that the social tensions and stresses which are brought about by environmental decline are exacerbated by population growth. While human numbers remained relatively stable until the Industrial Revolution, the last 200 years have seen exponential growth (Figure 2.2). Fears about current trends were crystalized in the 1960s by Paul Ehrlich, author of The

2012

7

World population, billions

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10,000 BC

8000

6000

4000

Figure 2.2 Global human population growth Source: US Census Bureau

2000

AD 1 1000 2000

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

41

Population Bomb (1968). Although Ehrlich has been criticized to be an alarmist, he drew attention to one of the key issues which lies beneath any discussion about the future living – how can a finite world go on accommodating more and more people? This fundamental question is all too often ignored in discussions about sustainability and the environment. Even if environmental problems turn out to be less serious than currently anticipated, we know that we are already committed to certain irreversible consequences, particularly with respect to climate change and habitat loss. Dave Hicks, a specialist in futures education, concludes that whatever the scenario we should expect the world to change ‘dramatically and permanently during the twenty first century’ (Hicks 2014:  7). This is a disquieting thought as it suggests a period of uncertainty and deteriorating living conditions. However, great challenges may also be great opportunities. The choices that we make now will undoubtedly affect the future, and there is plenty of scope for creative and imaginative thinking. Universities have an important role to play in engaging students in a positive manner.

The origins of sustainability thinking Global environmental awareness emerged with the development of new industrial technologies in the aftermath of the Second World War. At that time, new plant varieties supported by agrochemicals were boosting agricultural production in the developing world, leading to what came to be known as the ‘Green Revolution’. However, it soon became apparent that the widespread use of fertilizers, insecticides and other pesticides was having dangerous and unexpected consequences. The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) documented a range of threats to wildlife and human health in the United States. The public outcry which resulted served as a wake-up call which led to the birth of the modern environmental movement. Further landmark events were to follow. The idea that natural resources, rather than being more or less inexhaustible, are actually finite and in danger of running out, was neatly encapsulated in The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Randers and Behrens 1972). A decade later, E. O. Wilson coined the term ‘biophilia’ to describe the deepseated affinity which many people feel for the natural world. Such thinking drew attention to the way that the health of the environment is linked to human welfare and psychological well-being. Alongside these developments, ideas about the Earth were radically transformed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

42

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

space program. The early astronauts sent back images during the 1960s showing the Earth as a blue and white globe floating in the deep darkness of space. These extraordinary photographs not only illustrated the fragility and beauty of the planet we inhabit, but also captured the public imagination and provided a metaphor for the emerging global ecology movement and the change from a terrestrial to an astronomical perspective. It was clear that humanity only has one home – planet Earth – and that life is circumscribed by ecological boundaries. In the 1980s, two high-profile inter-government reports added a new dimension to global thinking. The Brandt report (Brandt 1980) highlighted global economic and social welfare differences and identified stark contrasts between a relatively small number of richer ‘developed’ nations (the ‘North’) and a much larger number of poorer ‘developing’ nations (the ‘South’). A few years later, the Brundtland report (WCED 1987) explored ways in which notions of sustainability and development could be brought together in a constructive synthesis. Both reports focused strongly on welfare, equity and justice, and were motivated by a clear desire to create a better world. The Earth Summit (United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 drew on these reports to devise a global action plan with sustainable development at its heart. Known as Agenda 21, this plan was widely adopted around the world and provided a blueprint which could be implemented at a local, national or global level. The international cooperation and global consensus which these initiatives encapsulated showed that for the first time in history world leaders were starting to work together to find strategies to support more just and sustainable ways of living.

Sustainability in the twenty-first century In the present century, attempts to forge international agreements have continued. The vision of a fairer, more peaceful and equitable world which heralded the start of a new millennium was encapsulated in a declaration from the United Nations. This asserted that every individual has dignity, and hence the right to liberty, equality and a basic standard of living that includes freedom from hunger and violence, tolerance and solidarity. A  set of eight goals, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), emerged from this declaration which was supported by nearly every country in the world (United Nations, 2010). The MDGs were supported by twenty-one targets and a series of measurable health and economic indicators to help monitor implementation and progress over the period 2000–15. The UN secretary general at the time, Ban Ki-moon,

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

43

described the MDGs as ‘the greatest anti-poverty push in history’. However, the goals were criticized for representing an international tradition of ‘development by declaration’, as well as lacking theoretical foundation. In 2015, after an extensive process of consultation, world leaders updated the MDGs with a new set of global development targets known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These too are designed to operate over a fifteenyear period, making them operative from 2015 to 2030. There is considerable continuity between the MDGs and the SDGs. Almost all of the new goals, for example, address poverty reduction. Improved nutrition, health and gender equality are highlighted, and many of the old MDG targets have become goals in their own right. There is also a more direct focus on sustainability given the challenges of global warming. The SDGs are a major step forward, expanding to a more comprehensive set of 17 goals and 169 associated targets. The goals could be regarded as being very ambitious, messy and complicated, as well as contradictory, because they fail to reconcile the tension between economic growth and environmental limits. This perpetuates the shortcomings which are inherent in the concept of sustainable development itself. The SDGs also decontextualize and fail to address the power relations and political forces which dominate world affairs. Despite these reservations, the goals have the potential to become a driving force around which people can coalesce in creating a better future – much depends on how people respond, individually, collectively and institutionally, but even more especially at corporate and government levels. One further landmark agreement has also contributed to the international policy framework. The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 has established a global response to climate change with an aspiration to limit the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade worldwide. There are serious doubts as to whether such a target is realistic (Jackson 2017) and important questions as to whether nations will adhere to their commitments, but the agreement is in itself a hugely significant milestone. As Thornton and Goodman (2017) point out, the promise of Paris is that it can mobilize action on a global, national, corporate and individual scale. And these actions could cohere into a shared experience of caring for the future and saving the world. The fact that the Paris Agreement and SDGs were adopted at almost the same time can be seen as rather more than a coincidence. What unites them is an explicit understanding of the links between climate change and global poverty. An article commissioned by the Overseas Development Institute set this out explicitly in the following terms:

44

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education Climate change can exacerbate existing development challenges, exposing the vulnerability of the poor and pushing those living on the margins closer to the edge. It has the potential to reduce and reverse development gains made in eradicating poverty and to make achieving additional gains even harder. The post-2015 process is an opportunity to shape future development efforts for many years to come. However, if climate change and shocks are not tackled simultaneously to such development efforts, we risk failing in our efforts to eradicate poverty. (Gutierrez, McFarland and Fonua 2014)

To summarize, climate change has both direct and indirect consequences. It has direct impacts on food security, health and water. Via these, it has indirect impacts on wider social issues such as gender equality, education and human rights. These various aspects can be represented diagrammatically in a ‘billiard ball model’ which shows how sustainability and human welfare are inextricably intertwined (see Figure 2.3). What is particularly significant is all the impacts shown in the diagram are themselves SDG goals. Further support for linking human welfare and environmental sustainability comes from an ongoing debate about the nature of prosperity among

Jobs and prosperity Food security Income poverty Climate change

Conflict and security

Energy and water Education

Health Gender equality

Figure  2.3 Links between climate change and the social issues highlighted in SDG goals Source: Gutierrez, McFarland and Fonua (2014)

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

45

economists. If growth is limited by the finite confines of the planet, in what form will it be possible to continue to pursue economic development in the years ahead? Taking account of planetary boundaries means recasting many of the assumptions which underpin modern economics. This led to a new thinking which includes the notion of a steady state economy (Daly 1980), the nature of prosperity (Jackson 2017) and the quest for a safe and just place for humanity within ecological limits (Raworth 2017). These ideas are reflected in discussions in Chapter 5, where we consider measuring value for sustainability.

Developments in higher education In educational circles, environmental awareness was initially exclusively directed towards ecology and the natural world in parallel with the wider understanding in society at large. Lessons on nature study began to appear on school timetables in the 1960s, and courses on environmental science were developed in universities and places of higher education. However, as ideas matured during the 1970s and 1980s, the focus gradually shifted. New educational initiatives emanating from the ‘development education’ and ‘global education’ movements began to draw attention to socio-economic issues. The influence of politics and power began to be included along with a growing appreciation of global inequalities. These trends have continued into the present century as a more mature understanding of global issues has developed. Although higher education institutions have been slow to respond to embrace sustainability, the last twenty years have seen an accelerating response from around the world, which is evidenced especially in: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The growth of professional associations The ‘greening’ of university estates The development of the concept of the sustainability literate graduate New ideas about the role and purpose of the university.

Thirty years ago, sustainability issues were a peripheral interest restricted to a few committed and often isolated individuals. Today they have begun to permeate university thinking and practice at a structural and systematic level. These developments need to be viewed alongside changes in business practice and a reframing of political agendas. The urgency of living within planetary limits is now bringing about major shifts in policy and practice. However, as will become apparent in the following pages, bringing about wholesale institutional

46

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

change is not only a major challenge in its own right, but is made much more complicated by competing and conflicting agendas.

National and international associations The first national and international associations devoted to environment and sustainability issues only emerged in the last few decades. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) was formed in 1996 to raise the profile of environmental management and facilitate improvement of environmental performance in member institutions. This has now grown into an influential voice on national environmental and sustainability matters for post-16 education. In Europe, the Copernicus Alliance originated in 1993, in response to Agenda 21, to promote transformational learning and change for sustainable development in higher education. In North America, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) has roots which stretch back to 2001 and works alongside the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which is committed both to the scientifically necessary goal of climate neutrality and to preparing students to develop the solutions for a just, healthy and sustainable society. Meanwhile, in Oceania, Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) was initiated in 1990 and has taken a broadly similar route as the EAUC in the United Kingdom. The range of associations and alliances that have developed since the early 1990s illustrate a growing interest in sustainability education. Beginning with student pressure and tentative professional links, there is now increasing support for sustainability in professional practice. In England, the strategy articulated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has been instrumental in driving forward the sustainability agenda, although the focus has tended to switch and change according to circumstances. Driven in part by the UK HEFCE Sustainable Development Strategy, the Quality Assurance Agency/ Higher Education Academy (QAA/HEA) guidance on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) which was issued in 2014 is another good example of official support and validation. In addition to providing practical help to higher education providers, this also offers a framework for use in curriculum design and general guidance on approaches to teaching, learning and assessment. The guidance is not without its critics, but it does provide an inclusive and holistic framework that helps academic staff to engage in the conversation about the appropriateness and applicability of education for sustainability within their

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

47

courses. What is particularly useful is the way in which the broad outcomes support the more instrumental task of preparing young people for the workplace and their role in society, without compromising the more traditional academic remit of universities.

Greening of estates One of the simplest and most immediate ways that universities have responded to sustainability issues has been to focus on university grounds and campuses. University estates, often the size of small towns, being independently built and operated, provided an ideal opportunity, not only to impact on waste, energy efficiency and resource use, but in doing so to educate and inform the graduates and leaders of the future. In the United Kingdom, the formation of the EAUC was a direct response to the need for sector-wide support and guidance on how best to manage and enhance the natural environment and reduce waste and energy use. One of the problems which hindered the first initiatives was that environmental management was seen as a low priority by senior university leaders. Without a clear business case showing cost or efficiency savings, initiatives frequently failed to gain traction. It was not until demonstrable evidence that investing in such programmes saved operational costs and made environmental sense, that the sustainability agenda began to take hold in higher education. Similarly, while the development of a consumerist society was resulting in the overproliferation of waste, it appears that the drive towards recycling and waste reduction was brought about as much by the increasing costs of waste disposal and the overwhelming growth in landfill as a disposal mechanism, as it was in response to the sustainability agenda per se. Enhancing biodiversity across the expanses of university campuses has served as a focus for some universities. This may have a negligible impact on the global ecosystem but given that campuses are places in which people live, work and play, it has both direct and indirect positive impacts on the staff and students who use them. The recognition that campuses provide actual and subliminal learning environments has provided a much more instrumental reason to enhance local biodiversity. This is particularly the case when areas of land are provided for student and staff food-growing initiatives, that build experience, knowledge and skills around food and food security. Another way to support the sustainability agenda is to focus on transport. The benefits of exercise through cycling and walking on human health and

48

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

well-being, as well as in reducing air pollution because of reducing the reliance on personal car travel, are well understood. With the publication of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005), the Stern Review (Stern 2006) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change (Solomon et al. 2007) universities began to recognize the impact and danger of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. In the United Kingdom, HEFCE, instructed by the government, made an explicit link between capital funding allocation in 2008 and the publication of an institutional carbon management plan. As a result, the carbon reduction agenda became a priority, and while many estate officers focused on reducing direct impacts – with clearly quantifiable benefits – sustainability teams also emerged which focused on student and staff engagement. Waste, travel, energy efficiency, procurement and biodiversity began to be scrutinized with plans to ‘reduce and learn’ embedded within engagement strategies. Overall, the operation of and engagement with environmental sustainability in university estates across the world have been transformed over the last twenty years. From tentative beginnings, the ‘greening’ process has proceeded apace. In many cases, universities have become models of best practice that are beginning to provide holistic learning environments and models for future living that integrate social and environmental sustainability into learning, teaching and research.

The sustainability-literate student With respect to the curriculum, the first moves towards sustainability education can be traced back to lessons on nature study with younger pupils and courses on ecology for pupils in secondary school and students in higher education. In general terms, educational practice has evolved along with new thinking within the discipline. For example, programmes relating to ‘development education’ and ‘global education’ began to be developed from the 1990s onwards following the holistic stance adopted in the Brandt and Brundtland reports. As these initiatives took root, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) became increasingly recognized as a discrete area of study. Today sustainability and environmental awareness feature not only within specific courses but have also started to permeate the curriculum as a perspective or way of thinking. This has led to the notion of a sustainability-literate student – that is, a student who has engaged with sustainability at some considerable depth and understands how it applies to his or her discipline or area of study.

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

49

There are those who question this trend and ask whether it is appropriate for higher education to stray into exploring issues which link with ethics and values. Ecclestone and Hayes (2009), for example, argue that it is the role of the academy to promote the disinterested pursuit of wisdom and truth which can easily be muddled by exploring current trends and events. Others such as Hirsch (1996) suggest that there is a concealed anti-intellectual bias in courses and programmes which deviate from traditional subjects and disciplines. Knight (2005) highlights concerns about academic freedom when he warns that that it is not the role of the university to promote particular orthodoxies. Meanwhile, the American Association of Scholars (Wood and Peterson 2016) goes even further and contends that sustainability has become higher education’s new fundamentalism. These concerns need to be acknowledged. Historical precedents demonstrate that when education aligns itself with ‘good causes’, there is always a risk of bias and indoctrination. However, they also miss the point, as what matters most is the way that sustainability is approached rather than the decision to include it in courses and programmes in the first place. The challenge of living within planetary means is arguably the defining issue of the age. Rather than turning away and pretending that nothing is happening, universities are beginning to square up to the challenge by bringing critical and creative perspectives to current sustainability issues.

New ideas about the role of higher education Strategies for promoting sustainability in higher education have also been informed by concepts, models and frameworks relating to public health in recent decades. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) provides a touchstone. The charter asserts that: Health is created and lived by people within the settings of their everyday life; where they learn, work, play and love. Health is created by caring for oneself and others, by being able to take decisions and have control over one’s life circumstances, and by ensuring that the society one lives in creates conditions that allow the attainment of health by all its members. (1986: 4)

This statement identifies many elements which would now generally be regarded as prerequisites for sustainable development. It also recognizes the impact of a range of interrelated and interacting elements. A holistic or settings approach

50

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

to health promotion is directly applicable to university and higher education settings. Dooris et al. (2010) illustrate diagrammatically how both public health and education drivers can be brought together in a ‘whole university’ (see Figure 2.4). The notion of the health-promoting university has gained ground in recent years. In the United Kingdom, central government funding has strengthened and supported a national university-wide network. Meanwhile, in 2015, delegates from thirty-three countries devised an international charter for health promoting universities (Okanagan Charter 2015). This defines healthpromoting universities as those which ‘transform the health and sustainability of our current and future societies, strengthen communities and contribute to the wellbeing of people, places and the planet’ (Okanagan Charter 2015:  2). Furthermore, the charter articulates how health-promoting universities create campuses centred on a culture of ‘compassion, well-being, equity and social justice’, thereby strengthening the ecological, social and economic sustainability of both local communities and wider society. The statements in the Okanagan Charter provide a helpful and very meaningful reframing of the sustainability agenda, which chimes with ongoing debates about happiness and well-being. It also fits neatly with the notion of the ‘ecological university’ proposed by Barnett (2011). Barnett brings together the concept of the authentic university (one that is true to itself and confident

Create healthy and sustainable working, learning & living environments for students, staff & visitors

WHOLE UNIVERSITY APPROACH Increase profile of health & sustainable development in learning, research & knowledge exchange

WHOLE UNIVERSITY APPROACH Contribute to the health, well-being & sustainability of the wider community

Deliverables & Impacts

KEY FOCUS AREAS

Underpinning Principles

Higher Education Drivers

Public Health Drivers

Figure 2.4 A model for conceptualizing and applying the healthy settings approach to higher education Source: Dooris et al. (2010), ‘Healthy Universities’

Perspectives on Sustainability and Higher Education Responses

51

of its purpose and values) with that of a responsible university, which heeds to the expectations of its ‘stakeholders’. Barnett further highlights the tensions between these two types of university, indicating that authenticity implies an inward quality, while responsibility points outwards towards external services, engagement and values. But he goes on to suggest that the two dimensions of authenticity and responsibility can be brought together in the notion of the ecological university which takes seriously both ‘the world’s interconnectedness and the university’s interconnectedness with the world’ (Barnett 2011). The idea of both the ecological university and the health-promoting university focuses attention on the culture that lies at the heart of higher education institutions. They have the striking advantage of coalescing around the principles and values which are central to sustainability thinking. However, they also carry forward some of the problems and contradictions which characterize this terrain. One of these is the difficulty of reconciling ‘the traditional academic role of universities and the more instrumental role of preparing young people for the workplace and their role in society’ (Sterling, Maxey and Luna 2013). Another is the ambiguous nature of sustainability itself which, as we have seen, has multiple interpretations and affective as well as cognitive dimensions.

Conclusion In recent decades, there have been concerted international efforts to mobilize political energy and action behind the sustainability agenda. The MDGs, SDGs and Paris Agreement on climate change represent unprecedented political agreement and provide a framework for concerted future action. Different groups and sections of society are already exploring ways in which these initiatives can be implemented. Big business too is now aligning its activities to the UN goals and using them to provide focus to close the gap between voluntary and mandatory disclosure. Government agencies, whether at city, region or state level, have expressed their willingness to implement them. It is against this background that universities are engaging with sustainability and environmental issues. The accelerating level of activity which began with student pressure and professional associations over twenty-five years ago has now spread across universities and research communities to a more strategic level. It is particularly noteworthy that many higher education institutions are using the SDGs to make explicit links between existing activities and to drive forward hitherto untouched aspects of sustainability. This is raising awareness

52

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

of the SDGs within the student and staff communities, providing a real sense of connection between education and the external world, and supporting the development of innovative and connected curriculum. If we are to find ways to live successfully on a finite planet, the next generation of students will need to be much more sustainability literate than were their predecessors. It is immensely difficult to accumulate enough knowledge to keep abreast of all the issues and topics that relate to sustainability. We agree with Parkin (2010) that what students need is to have ‘sufficient knowledge and understanding to make a good enough choice or decision’ (2010: 10). However, what matters most is not so much how much you know but how you use the knowledge and understanding that you have at your disposal. Orr has pointed out that students who had learnt about sustainability and environmental issues might apply their knowledge either to protect or to exploit the planet (Orr 1992). This led him to argue that without critical reflection about aims and principles, sustainability education might help graduates simply to be more effective vandals of the Earth. This was a timely reminder that learning about sustainability is predicated on a particular set of beliefs, values and principles. Exploring these from different angles and perspectives is an urgent task for universities today. It is the responsibility of universities in their unique positon to aid students’ knowledge and critical evaluation of sustainability, and also to find means by which the subject of sustainability can be used as a mechanism through which their skills in understanding complex problems, and making decisions with incomplete information can be honed. These skills are increasingly essential to future leaders and decision-makers and are an essential element of graduate attributes.

3

The Higher Education Sector

Introduction At the risk of alienating readers, this chapter starts with the phrase that ‘higher education is big business globally’, one that has expanded exponentially over the past thirty years, and has plenty of further potential for expansion before ‘market saturation’. In England alone, total revenues from the sector amounted to £23.3 billion in 2013, employing 270,000 staff, with total student registrations over 2 million (Universities UK, 2014). With average revenues at £180 million and staff numbers averaging 2,000 per institution, they count among the larger employers in the country and the city regions where they are based. High participation rates are not universal, as Table 3.1 shows, which provides percentage rates for relevant age groups entering higher education (usually seventeen- to nineteenyear-olds). The table broadly suggests that with economic development comes higher levels of educational participation. Despite high student numbers, the direct impact of higher education, if measured in terms of monetary value to the national economy rather than by participation rates, sees its value pale into insignificance. Within the United Kingdom, the whole education sector accounts for a mere one per cent of the economy by revenue/income. National statistics in the United Kingdom show that the life sciences sector turnover is worth nearly triple at £61 billion; the media and communications sector at £87 billion (UK Office of National Statistics 2016). Individual organizations, such as the multinational retailer Tesco with a revenue of at about £70 billion in 2016, are 2½ times that of the English higher education sector. These ratios will not be untypical for other countries. We believe that measuring sector value in this narrow pecuniary manner is not helpful. It nullifies the value of higher education in providing significant additional value to the economy, society and environment, both in its presentday activities and in growing the potential of its students as future citizens and societal influencers. The higher education sector also provides research and

54

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Table 3.1 Higher education trends worldwide Year

Gross enrolment rate (tertiary, %)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013

10 12.26 13.63 19.02 29.39 32.88

Region

% Relevant age group enrolment rate

East Asia and Pacific Europe and Central Asia Latin America and Caribbean Middle East and North Africa North America South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Low middle income Upper middle income Higher income

33 63 44 36 86 21 9 9 23 37 73

Source: Worldbank (2016)

innovation support, engagement with business and government and plays an important role in civic society. It brings a public non-partisan space to bear for debate and discussion, as well as the vital role of disseminating knowledge, and the potential to act as a role model to leaders and influencers. This rich and varied range of opportunities for universities to influence and shape economics, business, policy, science and the arts at international, national and local levels calls for much broader ways to measure their value – and how their sustainability is measured – beyond simple metrics. In this chapter we explore the main drivers affecting higher education currently, before discussing the notion of the purpose and scope of universities (and their stakeholder hinterland). We also describe and reflect on prevailing organizational cultures, structures and decision-making norms within universities, as a key characteristic of their distinctiveness. As an author group based in the United Kingdom, we are mindful of the UK-centric stance and perspective within our understanding. To counter this, we have provided, where possible, a more generic or global perspective too.

Main drivers affecting higher education Discourses on the history and development of higher education show how radically it has changed over the centuries. It is generally agreed that higher education can be traced back to the later middle ages, with monastic centres

The Higher Education Sector

55

such as Oxford, Paris and Bologna setting the tone was adopted across Europe. These early universities have been described as having a ‘metaphysical’ tradition in that they sought understanding and knowledge through the religious/spiritual lens (Barnett 2011). In the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution (in the United Kingdom and then Europe) created a seismic shift towards civic universities with the development of training and research in the sciences, medicine and engineering, as well as the initiation of discrete disciplines and specialization in the sciences, humanities and social sciences. The prevailing mindset became that the university was a centre for specialization – the Ivory Tower. In the United Kingdom, this saw the development of the large civic universities (such as Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield becoming ‘research’ universities) as well as technical colleges and mechanics’ institutes. Globally, where European colonialism had influence, the tenor of higher education replicated the UK–European traditions described earlier. Since the early 1990s, the numbers of students enrolling in higher education has exploded across the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe, North America, Australasia and more recently South East Asia, as shown in Table 3.1. Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley (2009), in leading UNESCO’s report on the state of higher education globally, describes this trend as ‘massification’ of higher education, a trend that recent statistics has reinforced. It has seen a changing relationship between the university and government, community, student and business as a consequence. In broad terms, the general trend of funding is moving away from state funding (and subsidized student fees) to majority, or total, funding of teaching through payment by the student, although there are still systems (such as within Western European countries) where state funding still prevails. Meanwhile, the state may intervene to set ceilings on student fees, regulate teaching quality (and the curriculum to some extent) and set enrolment numbers at individual institutions. With most universities’ funding coming from student tuition fees, and the creation of a quasi–free market, behaviour change is occurring as institutions look to distinctiveness and position relative to their competitors regionally, nationally and internationally. Additionally, there is an imperative to seek alternative sources of funding – whether through research contracts, government funding or private enterprise. From this, it can be inferred that universities are having to move towards management practices, where terms such as market position, reputation, value for money, service expectations and benefit–cost are more likely to be heard in the boardroom than they were ten years ago. Currently higher education growth rates are highest in the People’s Republic of China. With over 2,500 universities and nearly 7 million students graduating

56

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

each year, it is the single-largest national provider of higher education globally and has grown substantially in the last ten years, with a doubling of student numbers between 2005 and 2015. The sector has been influenced by a mix of Confucian cultural traditions (which strongly value education) combined with its more recent political history of communism, Soviet influence and state ownership. The sector is still in ‘catch up mode’ in terms of its maturity, following its collapse during the Cultural Revolution (1967–76) where student numbers fell to ten per cent of previous numbers (from about 0.5 million students in the 1960s). As with other countries discussed earlier, student tuition fees are paid directly by students, although bursaries and other support are available on a means-test basis. The high levels of state funding for higher education is not evenly distributed throughout the sector, with much going to elite institutions, with the aim of creating world-class quality, rather than the money being used to support all students. Student admission to an institution depends on school results, with the elite institutions only available to the highest achievers. The challenge for many Chinese universities include attracting students, finding government funding and securing alternative sources of finance, in parallel with trends in the ‘West’.

Universities and the notion of ‘public good’ As this brief review indicates, the higher education sector around the world is moving towards a market-based mass-market system (for school leavers). Metrics and measurement of quality drivers and distinctiveness by institution have become main stream in many countries. It is not uncommon for those in the sector to criticize this approach in relation to the ‘substance’ of what a university is and to question whether the stakeholder-led, market-driven, approach dilutes the opportunity and need for universities to operate beyond instrumentalism. Radical perspectives relate to a general critique of the implementation of neoliberal policies and the wider discussion as to whether universities are a public good or not. An example of this is provided by Pashby and Andreotti (2016) in relation to education for sustainability. They postulate alternative, liberal and critical approaches as ones providing opportunity for radical knowledge development and dissemination but their implementation would require the dismantling of the current systems, policies and mechanisms. The nub of the debate on the veracity of liberal versus neo-liberal approaches to the university sector centres around the notion of whether higher education

The Higher Education Sector

57

should, and does, operate as a public or private good. The popular view is that universities have moved from being public to private goods resulting from market-led policy approaches. In the United Kingdom, for instance, this move was crystalized with the implementation of the recommendations of the Browne Review in the United Kingdom in 2010, where tuition fees became payable wholly by the student rather than the mixed government grant/fee model previously in operation. Bifurcating the public–private good debate is, in reality, more complex than this. To understand why, it is helpful to start with understanding the notion of ‘public good’ from an economics perspective. The definition of public goods points to them being: 1. non-excludable (i.e. the benefits from their consumption is not limited to those who have paid for them) 2. non-rival consumption (i.e. the consumption by one person does not exclude consumption by others, it is available to all) 3. non-rejectable (i.e. it is part of society) 4. funded and provided through public sources, such as through government funding (i.e. not funded through private means) Private goods are deemed to be the converse of the aforementioned. From a purist sense, it would be difficult to argue that universities have ever been wholly public goods. Even when universities were fully funded by government they were the domain of the elite, so it would be difficult to argue that it was ‘available to all’, as entry depended on academic achievement above a threshold. In fact, the desire to widen participation to higher proportions of young adults has resulted in its transfer to private funding (through fees) to avoid punishingly high taxes on citizens. Non-excludability presents an interesting, and enduring, question as to the purpose of university. These debates started in the nineteenth century, with the frequently cited Cardinal Newman, an Oxford academic debating the ‘idea of a university’. His lectures during 1852 called for universities to be communities of thinkers, with debates and discourses for and of itself, not necessarily for instrumental purpose, other than to create students and scholars with critical analytical skills within a secular, pluralist and inclusive ideal. Two hundred years ago, the few universities that existed were the domain of the elite and decidedly anti-instrumental. Their value to the public good could be deemed to be the furtherance of debate, philosophy and critical thinking in society’s future leaders. This concurs with the commonly held, but possibly simplistic, view that educated citizens are a positive social force, in that graduates provide benefit to the wider society throughout their adult life post-university.

58

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Back in the nineteenth century, universities were not funded through public means (taxes) but through church, endowments and income from land ownership. The first secular university in the United Kingdom, University College London, was established as a joint stock company in the early nineteenth century. It was not until the 1960s in the United Kingdom that state funding for universities (through guaranteed maintenance grants for students) led to the sector being ‘publicly funded’, with some institutions totally reliant on these funds for income. Publicly funded models still operate in some nations (e.g. Norway, France, Germany and Scotland in the United Kingdom), but the trend is towards the student-pays model through fees or tax liability on the individual (e.g. Australasia, the United States, China). This puts into historical perspective the notion that university education has long been a public good in the sense that it is under government funding control. For many nations, including the United Kingdom, this approach was at its height in the 1960s and 1970s, but has been eroded by gradual student ‘fee’ contribution proportions since the 1990s. The current environment universities operate in has led to debate, discussion and proposals describing alternative forms of university. These focus on ways to incorporate the notion of the university for the public good with its quasimarket policy context (Barnett 2011). They do not call for the dismantling of the prevailing trend of competitiveness, value for money and impact as challengers to the current ‘neo-liberal’ paradigms do, but build on it to incorporate the wider responsibilities of a higher education system in society. Of resonance to this book, Barnett called for consideration of an ‘ecological’ university model. We have reflected and referred to this in Chapter 2 also as being a core concept relevant to sustainability in higher education. The model is one which brings together authenticity and responsibility in the following manner: This is a university that takes seriously both the world’s interconnectedness and the university’s interconnectedness with the world . . . It hangs onto and, indeed, widens its traditional concern with the advancement of learning in wanting to permeate society with enhanced enlightenment and understanding; and so it is authentic to its inner calling. And in so taking forward and giving life to ‘the learning society’, the ecological university acknowledges and discovers, all at once, a responsibility to society. (Barnett 2011: 451–2)

Barnett goes on to argue that such universities take networking very seriously and that they engage actively with both society and the physical environment in order to bring about a better world, noting its wider responsibility beyond that of the institution alone: ‘As the ecological university, it does all this by forming and

The Higher Education Sector

59

widening its networks across society, a task which – unlike the entrepreneurial university – it performs not in its own interests but in the interests of the world; indeed, worlds, for it acts in the interests of both the human and physical world’ (Barnett 2011:  451–2). This powerful call does not detract from  – indeed it embraces – the current drivers of quality, impact, relevance and employability through knowledge generation, critique and dissemination, yet merges it with the core principles of higher education being for public good. Sustainability as a concept and theme offers a compelling and legitimate bridge here, offering a touchstone to the multiple philosophies on the role of higher education. We believe that the concept of the ecological university has particular resonance as it recognizes the growing link between the university and its external environment with the emerging symbiotic relationship between universities and the society and environment they exist in. It also seeks relevance to the age-old question of ‘what is the purpose of higher education?’ and the disparate views that abound across the sector on this.

Universities ‘for the public good’? A further question arises. Rather than asking whether universities are private or public goods per se, we need to consider the extent to which universities are for the public good. In the United Kingdom, universities are trying to balance operating as businesses with operating for the public good, as measured through government-led metrics in research or teaching. These measures include graduate employability, research impact (and benefit to wider society) and knowledge exchange between academics and industry. In some cases, incentive compatibility exists such as those where a university which offers great graduate prospects is likely to be more attractive to prospective students. However, other public benefits may not be felt by students, even though they are the key source of income generation for the institution. For example, the investment of current student fees into future estates-provision offers valuable facilities and the chance to reduce carbon emissions, but the benefits are long-term and will only accrue after the current student has left. Attempts to disentangle ‘value for money’ in this context is manifestly unhelpful though! Most universities across the globe implicitly recognize their obligation to operate for the public good these days. Look at any university mission statement and it is likely to make reference to ‘community’, ‘impact’ and so forth. Figure 3.1 shows extracts from the mission statements of a range of universities internationally.

60

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

“The University of Hong Kong, as a leading international institution of higher learning in Asia, strives to attract and nurture outstanding scholars from around the world through excellence and innovation in teaching and learning, research and knowledge exchange, contributing to the advancement of society and the development of leaders through a global presence, regional significance and engagement with the rest of China.” (http://www.sppoweb.hku.hk/sdplan/eng/visionand-mission), accessed 15 January 2018 “La Trobe (Australia) will be a University known for its excellence and innovation in relation to the big issues of our time, and for its enthusiasm to make a difference. We will be one of the top three Universities in Victoria, one of the top dozen nationally and one of the top 500 internationally.” (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ about), accessed 15 January 2018 “Peking University (Republic of China) has effectively combined research on important scientific subjects with the training of personnel with a high level of specialized knowledge and professional skill as demanded by the country’s socialist modernization. It strives not only for improvements in teaching and research work, but also for the promotion of interaction and mutual promotion among various disciplines.” (http://www.mastersportal.eu/universities/11760/peking-university. html), accessed 15 January 2018 “University of Agder (Norway) seeks to be an open and inclusive university that is characterized by a culture of cooperation. Knowledge is successfully co-created when staff, students and the larger community challenge each other. It wishes to further develop education and research at a high international level. Knowledge development will take place in a field of tension between close cooperation and critical distance. Together with the larger community, the University will develop new methods for internal and external cooperation. Regional, national and global cooperation set up new perspectives and solutions for the society of the future, and UiA is to be a driving force for developing society, culture, and industry and commerce.” (https://www.uia.no/en/about-uia/organization/strategy-2016-2020), accessed 15 January 2018 Figure 3.1 Examples of university mission statements Source: University websites

Particularly noteworthy is the mission statement from the University of Manchester, which provides a powerful and emotive example of a mission statement with an implied commitment to supporting the ‘public good’. Its strategic mission provides congruence with many of the others in Figure 3.1 being: ‘a world-leading university recognised globally for the excellence of its research, outstanding learning and student experience, and its social, economic and cultural impact’. However, the tenor of the institution’s focus on being ‘for the public good’ is captured through its compelling pride in the achievements of former staff. When Alan Turing created the first calculating machine, at the root of all future digital technology; when Ernest Rutherford split the atom to redefine modern

The Higher Education Sector

61

physics; when Arthur Lewis wrote his seminal works on economic development; or when Jean McFarlane led the establishment of a nursing department at Manchester and became England’s first ever professor of the subject, they were not motivated by breaking records or fame. They wanted to solve fundamental problems and make changes to improve our everyday lives. (University of Manchester strategic plan, 2016).

Stakeholder power and influence Universities operating for the ‘public good’ require greater scrutiny of who or what is encapsulated within it. In reality, it is composed of a smorgasbord of different priorities, views and power bases through its multifarious group of stakeholders. Identifying who the powerful stakeholders are and aligning with their priorities (legitimation) have become vital for universities, yet the scope of their stakeholders ranges across funding bodies, government agencies, students, professional bodies, sponsors, staff and the business community. Additionally, the power and influence of these groups have fluxed over time, depending on the prevailing political orthodoxy towards higher education, as well as its size and scale. The underlying trends are: 1. a multi-stakeholder landscape for higher education 2. shifting power bases between stakeholders as the sector moves towards funding through fees from students rather than block grants from the state 3. a greater competitive landscape, not least with provider opportunities widening to include private providers, and technology-enabled learning that is not geographically dependent. The influence of specific stakeholders will differ by country, as will the extent of their power. In each country, the mix of stakeholders is likely to include government, businesses, professional bodies, students and staff. The role of government and regulators has been discussed already, so the discussion now turns to the generic role of other stakeholders.

Employers, business community and professional bodies The role of external ‘employer’ stakeholders has become increasingly prevalent in higher education, whether through 1. degree requirements to enter professions (e.g., health, accountancy, teaching)

62

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

2. degree specificity relating to employment paths 3. sources of income for research or knowledge exchange. As increasing numbers of people undertake higher education, it has become necessary to tailor programmes to employer requirements to help position students to be ‘work ready’ on graduation. Graduate employers have increasingly called for employability to be prevalent in graduate attributes. These attributes often include numeracy, literacy and communication skills, as well as the need to operate across disciplinary boundaries, deal with decision-making in uncertain situations and handle complex people dynamics. Connecting the ‘skills supply chain’ in this way may seem laudable, but it has also caused disquiet among those who desire universities to operate for the public good in its widest sense. Barnett (2011) labels this current trend as the ‘entrepreneurial university’, one where the university supplants ‘knowledge for knowledge’ with ‘knowledge for impact, application and revenue’ and gives higher priority to the needs of their external income providers. With this he notes ‘social and cultural capital rivals, but does not supplant economic capital’ (Barnett 2011: 444), identifying the role of the institution within its community while noting its need for its own economic viability, or sustainability.

Students and staff Looking at the experience of universities through the lens of staff and students shows how priorities have changed over time with the changes outlined earlier. At the risk of generalizing and simplifying views and experiences of millions of students and staff, it seems the dynamics of these relate to a wide range of factors, as itemized in Table 3.2. The dynamics of the policy and external environment have created a system whereby student choice is influenced by metrics, measurement, quality assurance, reputation and value for money, leading to a somewhat instrumental approach to prioritizing objectives within higher education. In particular, the following are key factors driving for the need for change in the United Kingdom, although many of these have general applicability across the global higher education sector: 1. The need to adapt to the sector facing a period of far-reaching change and uncertainty through cuts in government funding, higher tuition fees and removal of student number controls in England; international competition; the open access movement; developments in the use of

The Higher Education Sector

63

Table 3.2 Staff and student priorities for higher education Staff priorities

Student priorities

• Security of tenure and competitiveness for positions, higher percentages of fixed-term contract staff • Increased engagement with quality assurance and regulatory compliance • Increased trend towards research or teaching focus, increasing specialization • Increased expectations on outcomes and diminution of work–life balance • ‘No space to think’ • Measurements and metrics (TEF and REF in the United Kingdom) • Need for teaching qualifications • Diminished role of trade unions • Changing pedagogical approaches such as through more use of online, blended models of learning, more prescribed curricula, less informal engagement with students

• High levels of student debt • Graduate employability as a driver affecting choice of course and university • Part-time work during studying (debts plus good curriculum vitae) • Assessment results and a ‘good’ degree (2:1 plus) • Increased student voice in assessment and curriculum design, student experience initiatives, university governance • Need for flexible curricula and delivery modes, such as through online or blended models of learning • Retained importance of student voice in politics, global issues and student rights

REF, Research Excellence Frameworks; TEF, Teaching Excellence Frameworks Source: Adapted from Locke et al. (2016), Bray (2016) and UK National Union of Students (2012)

information technology (e.g. massive open online courses (MOOCs), blended learning) and changing student expectations 2. Funding pressures which could lead to rationalization in the number of institutions and provision, and the need for each to seek market share, position and value for money/economy of scale 3. Leading and managing academics through the changes and associated challenges must involve striking a balance between preserving academic autonomy and introducing a culture of greater accountability, recognizing the imperative to maintain the essence of ‘what a university is’ in a changing market dynamic. Additionally, professional development and sharing best practice play important roles in motivating and supporting staff, helping to create an innovative culture that will make it easier for institutions to achieve their goals. In sharing best practice, networking is vital, both within and among institutions. Unfortunately, one of the greatest barriers to sharing best practice and collaborative ventures is increased competition between institutions.

64

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Organizational culture, structures and decision-making It is something of truism to say that the higher education sector and its employees are unique. Rather, it is a sector which has a heady mix of characteristics which together make for a distinctive environment (Lumby 2012). It is not the only sector which wrestles with the tensions of meeting public good goals within a quasi-market environment, or being at the whim of government policy. These attributes may be shared with the health, transport and energy sectors. Furthermore, other sectors and industries rely on the expertise and creative potential of key individuals as higher education does with its academics. For example, pharmaceuticals, the health services and large parts of the legal and financial sectors see similar dynamics. Anyone looking at the higher education sector from the outside is likely to be struck by a number of features that characterize the sector. In particular: 1. There is a plethora of nomenclature that is used to describe processes, groups and roles that are specific to the sector, and differs by type of institution (its history and geography). 2. Universities differ in how they are structured, managed and governed. 3. Academics tend to exhibit disciplinary allegiance as much as, if not more than, institutional allegiance. There are multiple hierarchies in universities, although they generally fall into two formal types: one relates to management structures, with the institutional lead (president, rector, vice-chancellor) supported by a senior team for professional services functions (e.g. services/resources, administration, learning and teaching, research and knowledge exchange, human resources and so on); the second relates to academic hierarchy and academic title (professor, reader, associate professor, lecturer, research fellow etc.) where there is implicit hierarchy based on academic achievement and esteem, regardless of whether the individual holds a formal ‘leadership post’ within the organization. This implicit dual-track system does create issues for management, as noted by Bolden et al.: Academics tend to be sceptical of explicit organisational leadership by those in formal positions of authority (such as vice-chancellor, dean and head of department) and frequently look elsewhere for the leadership of academic work; often to people with whom they have informal relationships within and beyond their own institution . . . much of what is described in both scholarship and practice as ‘academic leadership’ is in fact regarded as ‘academic management’,

The Higher Education Sector

65

i.e. associated with the practicalities of running a large, complex organisation such as a university. (Bolden et al. 2015: 6)

The way that functions are grouped in universities is similarly varied but tends to relate to academic disciplines, professional services or specialized areas of work. Academic areas are broadly split by discipline for the delivery of core academic provision, which are managed by academics, with professional support activities either integral within these or increasingly managed through departments with non-academic reporting lines. For professional service staff, there are opportunities for significant specialization (e.g. within finance, marketing) or for wider-scoped roles, including administration management at school or faculty level, or through student support roles. Interestingly, boundaries between academic and professional service roles blur – for example, in academic programme management. Of notable relevance here is that, in leadership and management of sustainability, the role encompasses engagement across multiple academic and professional service areas. Communication mechanisms abound in universities, both internally and with external parties. Within universities, traditional communication down the hierarchy is common through line management relationships (and these have become more formalized and measured in recent years), as well as through committee structures, which may follow management structures and needs or academic power bases or themes through academic committees. Of course, the boundaries between these become blurred as members of academic management also hold academic titles. Informal communication is, in common with many other sectors, rife in universities, and much productive progress is made by academics through informal and non-hierarchical means. This approach speaks to that of complex adaptive systems, being ones in which the elements comprising them interact and mutually affect each other to generate new behaviours (Lowell 2016). This recognizes the importance of the co-creating, collegiate approach used for knowledge generation in universities, and increasingly in the corporate sector where organizations are learning to respond to unprecedented levels of change. As Lowell notes, the ways of the machine bureaucracy fail in these circumstances: ‘Business leaders who once believed that they could impact the success of their organizations through superior planning and performance now find that they have to cope with factors they can neither anticipate nor control . . . Mechanistic models of organizations based on predictable processes, linear exchange relationships, and hierarchical control structures have long been dismissed as simplistic’ (2016: 148).

66

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

At odds with Lowell’s call mentioned earlier, management control has increased in many universities in recent years, as adaptation has been required to deal with marketization and ‘massification’. Macaffery (2010) presents a good synopsis of these variations, providing examples ranging from Oxford and Cambridge where decision-making is based on participative democracy (a congregation in Oxford) with all staff having a voice within its federalist, organic and diverse structure through to the managerial-led structures of the new universities in the United Kingdom (those created after 1992). Systems and models of management control have morphed over time from collegiate, democratic systems dominated by academic voice and freedom to ones which are increasingly bureaucratic, leading to unintended consequences. Bolden notes: Strong competition for market position, brand, reputation and associated funding . . . are driving a top-down, managerial approach that limits opportunities for more emergent, opportunistic and entrepreneurial forms of leadership. [But] academics . . . placed high value on their own sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose and reported feeling disengaged and demotivated by changes in the sector. (2015: 9)

Decision-making processes are also becoming increasingly bureaucratic. This offers the potential for standardization and efficiency (the original aim of bureaucracy), but can result in grinding slowness in change, stifle innovation and result in risk aversion. As the percentage of academic staff relative to total numbers of staff has decreased significantly in the last thirty years, so has surveillance, information processing, data gathering and decision-making based on the increase in core business key performance indicators. The following excerpt from Barnett (2011) will resonate with many in the sector: Just some of the features of academic life that are subject to bureaucratic procedures are student admissions, the appointment of staff, the balance of academic activities, examinations, research applications, curricula structures, recording of one’s activities (especially research activities and research publications), teaching hours, meetings with research students, statements of immediate plans, research student vivas, internal quality audits, statements of expenditures and weekly diaries. (45–6)

To balk from these models of control and operating and to be an ‘anarchist’ or ‘maverick’ can be a frustrating experience for staff in universities, setting themselves at odds with the hierarchy, norms of operating and tsunami of processes increasingly required to give the university and its regulators assurance

The Higher Education Sector

67

that the organization is offering quality and value for money to its funders (increasingly the students directly). Where the sector has differed previously is in the sense of autonomy felt by academic staff in developing their research and determining their teaching content and approach. There is a sense that this is eroding in the sector now, with the layering of mechanisms for accountability on academic staff. In the United Kingdom, this has transpired through the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework and Research Excellence Framework (TEF and REF), in addition to media league tables of ‘quality’, with other countries seeing equivalences to a greater or lesser extent. A central thread running through university culture (in Western society at least) is the influential, and distinctive, notion of academic freedom. This notion recognizes that academics need to operate outside the bounds of solely organizational interest for the advancement of their discipline. This offers distinctiveness to the sector. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) still applies the 1940  ‘Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, which provides a universally understood notion of the concept. It notes that ‘freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth, and in teaching “is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher . . . . and of the student to freedom in learning” ’ (American Association of University Professors 1940). Academic freedom does not give licence for academics to ‘speak freely’ unconditionally, however. In tandem with the application of academic freedom are the distinctive power relationships in universities, through intellectual leadership of faculty and particularly the professoriate. This strand brings expert power (professor as critic, professor as advocate on conceptual and theoretical issues, and professor as boundary transgressor). These bring expertise (and expert power) through academic status. This may, and regularly does, challenge line management authority and relationships in the organization, whether through direct dispute or through operating under a different set of motivations to those of the institution. With the rise of managerialism and line management in the sector in recent years, with increases in numbers of professional service staff and functions and greater accountability and monitoring for academics, the power base of the professoriate and the freedoms of academia have become challenged (Macfarlane 2012). This power struggle has arisen from government policies on accountability for activities in the sector, increased ‘marketization’ and explicit challenges as to how universities operate for the public good.

68

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Conclusion It is now clear that the trend towards ‘marketization’ and ‘massification’ is embedded; universities as a baseline need to be profitable (or not loss making) in the medium and long term. Economic viability or sustainability is not something that is ‘nice to have’ but is essential. In our discussions in this book, we take this assumption on board, not just as a prerequisite, but also as a means through which options for social and environmental sustainability need to be framed. While this approach could be seen as supporting neo-liberal perspectives, we believe that the sustainability agenda in higher education is most likely to progress and have lasting impact if it is grounded in everyday operational realities. Rather than being a ‘sell-out’, a pragmatic approach is a meaningful call for action which gains its strength by working alongside rather than in opposition to current trends. Within this environment, sustainability leaders may be seeking to implement creative solutions and to steer a course towards a paradigm shift. If this does not readily fit core process or priority, they risk finding themselves the maverick as a result, just not talking the same language as the core decision-makers in the new quasi-corporate world of universities. The next part (Chapters  4 and 5) looks to means by which sustainability and the modern-way of universities can be incentive compatible, for the benefit of both.

Part B

Decision-Making for Sustainability In Part A, we described and discussed core concepts relating to leadership, sustainability and the higher education sector. The purpose of this was twofold: first, to provide a common framework for understanding with which to frame the rest of this book; second, to describe and explore how, in a pair-wise manner, each overlaps (leadership with sustainability, sustainability with higher education and higher education with leadership). In Part B, we explore the means by which leaders make decisions relating to sustainability. First, in Chapter  4, we explore decision-making processes through discussing how to navigate organizational structures and decisionmaking norms to best effect and who and how to engage disparate stakeholder groups. The objective is to find means through which: 1. goals can be delivered at the institutional level 2. creativity can be maximized in seeking sustainability solutions 3. all relevant parties are engaged, involved and satisfied with solutions proposed. We then explore, in Chapter 5, tools and frameworks which are not currently used for decision-making in higher education, but which we believe need to be adopted, to enable cases for sustainability to be presented using frameworks, languages and drivers in the new higher education context of mass market education. These tools not only enable the development of a business case for sustainability at the institutional level, but can also be used to help the sustainability leader educate others in understanding that sustainability is just good business for universities. Throughout this part, we will provide case studies and examples from across the higher education sector internationally to illustrate the use of concepts in practice. In presenting these processes, models and frameworks, we are

70

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

mindful of the complexities involved in implementing them in practice. The models themselves can seem conceptually simple, but their implementation is fraught with complexity, not least from dealing with multiple stakeholders, with differing priorities, in a subject area which is hugely complex, and which crosses many disciplinary boundaries. To give succour, it is worth bearing in mind the following quote from William McDonough (green architect, designer and ‘thought leader’): ‘Sustainability takes forever. And that’s the point’ (McDonough 2013). Merely saying ‘it’s complicated’ is not helpful to anyone trying to navigate and progress the agenda though. To counter this, our aspiration in this part is to provide principles and frameworks to help structure decision-making for this herculean challenge.

4

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

Introduction Trying to succeed as a sustainability leader in higher education can feel – for many and most of the time – like Alice in Lewis Carroll’s ([1865] 1920) nineteenthcentury classic, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Not only is the sustainability agenda complex and wide-ranging in scope, uncertain in terms of dynamic interaction and cause–effect, but also the sector itself is undergoing seismic shifts in cultures, policies and purposes, making trying to get anywhere a challenge. The following quote from the Queen of Hearts to Alice is likely to resonate with many: ‘My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that’ (Carroll [1865] 1920). Of course, if only it were that simple. For the sustainability leader, it may not even be clear where the ‘somewhere’ is where they are trying to get to. Is achievement based on progress made towards sustainability (however defined by you and your institution) or progress made despite the constraints faced by your context? Do your aspirations for sustainability development align with, transcend or contradict institutional priorities? Has your institution agreed on a definition of what sustainability means for them yet? Is this changing? These, and many more, uncertainties will resonate with many readers. In this chapter, we discuss decision-making processes for sustainability in a higher education context. There is a mass of literature, theories, models and concepts on decision-making processes in general. Rather than providing a synopsis of these, we have focused on practical models used in decision-making for sustainability within the sector. These are somewhat nascent in terms of their development and application at the time of writing, but offer helpful insights into principles behind how decisions are made, and can be made, in this area. The models and concepts discussed include:

72

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

1. Core Business Integration for Sustainability (CBIS) decision-making framework 2. Living labs 3. Communities of practice 4. Mutual competence building. In advance of discussion of these, we start by providing context through a synopsis of why decision-making for sustainability is fraught with uncertainty, complexity and boundary issues.

Decision-making for sustainability Sustainability thinking stands apart from traditional linear lines of thought in which cause and effect are linked sequentially. Where it is possible to focus on phenomena which can be measured and quantified, linear thinking has yielded remarkable discoveries over the centuries. Scientific methods have seen great progress in establishing facts, theories and certainty, so, too, has breaking problems down into smaller and smaller units so that they can be analysed in detail. For some aspects of sustainability, for example, in relation to the impact of pollutants, or human–environment interactions, these approaches have been helpful in progressing our understanding of our impact on the natural environment. However, this specialization approach has also resulted in increasing fragmentation of understanding which runs the risk of obscuring the larger picture. One of the ideas which is central to the notion of sustainability is that of links and connections. This suggests the need for new modes of thought which can both incorporate uncertainty and afford a more holistic understanding to aid decision-making. Two approaches which are proving particularly effective in accommodating these complexities are (i) systems thinking and (ii) the notion of wicked problems.

Systems thinking Systems thinking can be traced back to Aristotle but it developed in its modern form through the work of a biologist, Bertalaniffy, in the 1940s. It states that a living organism cannot be broken down into the properties of its parts. Instead it takes a holistic view and focuses on interactions and relationships. The theory

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

73

draws on key notions such as cycles, feedback, self-organization and selfregulation to provide a deep understanding of complex interactions and chaotic events. It has now developed into a new and coherent scientific understanding which can be applied to all forms of life. Capra and Luisi argue that systems theory provides a new ecological paradigm which matches current needs and circumstances. The metaphor at the heart of modern thinking, they declare, has shifted ‘from the world as machine to the world as a network’ (Capra and Luisi 2014: 12). Systems theory offers a way of understanding sustainability because it is based on the fundamental idea that all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent. While Darwin viewed life as a competitive struggle, systems theory champions cooperation. It also uses the notion of open-ended systems to take account of novelty, emergent properties and unexpected outcomes. This approach offers a way to reframe major environmental issues such as climate change and biodiversity. Indeed, rather than seeing them as problems in need of solutions, it may be more productive, as Speth (2009) points out, to think about how we can reposition ourselves in relation to other life forms. This suggests that we need to explore human values in order to address the crisis in the environment.

‘Wicked’ problems One of the features of mechanistic thinking is that it represents problems in terms of simple cause and effect, in which linear processes lead to predictable outcomes. While causal connections can be established in certain circumstances, there are other situations which are not amenable to such neat analysis and definite resolution. Social problems and policy issues, for example, are often much more complex than they appear on the surface and require multiple agencies and approaches. It was their dissatisfaction with the way in which traditional scientific processes were being used to address social issues that led Rittel and Webber (1973) to explore the characteristics of different problems. They identified two main categories. They used the term ‘tame’ to describe problems which are well defined, stable and linear in character and contrasted these with ‘wicked’ problems which are ill-defined, ambiguous and complex. One of the features of ‘wicked’ problems is that they are unique because they are context dependent. Wicked problems often have multiple causes and can only be addressed through a range of strategies, none of which can be shown to be better than another. A further feature is that they are difficult to understand

74

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

until a solution emerges, but the solution itself changes the nature of the problem. This means they are never really resolved as there are no ‘stopping rules’. Indeed, every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. It is important to note that wicked problems contain a significant subjective element and often have strong moral, political or professional dimensions. In real life, ‘tame’ and ‘wicked’ problems often tend to blend together. Bottery (2016) uses the analogy of a game of chess to illustrate this point. The rules governing the moves which individual pieces can make are ‘tame’ in the sense that they are precise and defined. However, each move changes relationships right across the board with unpredictable results which gives them a ‘wicked’ dimension. Environmental issues exhibit similar characteristics. Recycling paper or glass, for example, is a well-established, ‘tame’ process with a definite end result. However, the knock-on effects may be highly unpredictable. For example, if too many people decide to recycle their waste paper, the wholesale price is liable to drop and eventually the recycled product will become uneconomic to produce.

Decision-making processes for sustainability in higher education These new modes of thought can help sustainability leaders navigate the complexities of decision-making and the sustainability agenda. In particular, they provide scope for multiple interpretations and a range of cultural and social perspectives. A few initiatives in recent years have explored how sustainability can be incorporated into core university business. A  better understanding of the nature of sustainability thinking, coupled with an appreciation of organizational structures and cultures, opens the door to a win–win situation in which innovation can gather increasing momentum. Four different models are presented here to indicate a range of possibilities.

Core Business Integration for Sustainability (CBI-S) model The CBI-S model for decision-making has developed organically over the past two decades, and has gained significant traction globally in the private sector and more recently in universities. The model has been developed by Leith Sharp, the director of Executive Education for Sustainability with Harvard University’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. The CBI-S model is a central

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

75

component of an executive programme at Harvard currently. The programme is offered to senior leaders with the stated objectives declaring: Through these selective programs, leaders are introduced to a powerful new model for creating agile, innovative, and profoundly change-capable organizations that are inspired to rise to the greatest challenge of the 21st century – to move beyond ‘doing less bad’ to ‘doing good by doing well’. We call this critical work Core Business Integration on Sustainability (CBI-S). (http:// eesl.chge.hsph.harvard.edu/course, accessed 4 May 2017)

The model has developed through Sharp’s long-standing experience in sustainability, gained through campus sustainability roles in universities in Australia and the United States. She continues to refine the model in her current role at Harvard through participant feedback, industry networking and learning through multi–case study approaches. Whilst offered principally in the USA, in 2016 a CBI-S program was run for UK Universities through the EAUC (Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges). The first cohort brought together 21 sustainability leaders from across higher education sector along with representatives from industry, to develop skills and models to implement whole institutional approaches to sustainability. As noted by the CEO of the EAUC, Iain Patton on the EAUC website: ‘It was incredibly valuable having such a broad range of experience in the room and attendees learned a great deal from the sharing of ideas and lessons learned in individual careers. We look forward to the attendees of this first Lab continuing to share and develop together as alumni of the EAUC Driving Sustainability Leadership Programme.’ Subsequently, the model has been the focus of leadership training in decision making for sustainability in a number of other universities in the UK, with understanding of its relevance and use growing rapidly. The CBI-S model seeks to ‘do what it says’ in that it provides a means by which organisations can model decision making to ensure sustainability becomes integrated into core business processes. It does not seek to implement sustainability as an add-on or something that is part of a tick-box process but one where the leadership commit to: 1. Going beyond doing less bad to truly changing direction towards doing good 2. Integrating sustainability into core business-mission 3. Positioning sustainability as a driver of new operating system capacities for innovation, learning and change. (CBI-S creative commons, Sharp 2016)

The framework involves the interplay between two operating systems (or modes of organizational interaction). The first is the ‘command-control’ operating

76

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

system (CCOS), commonly seen as the organizational hierarchy as articulated through organizational structure charts. The second is described as the ‘adaptive’ operating system (AOS), which is the informal, non-hierarchical, project type of interaction that is more indicative of academic types of engagement. The second type would generally be framed as a type of shared leadership, working through systems thinking and participative processes, and resonates with the complex adaptive system outlined in Chapter  3 (Lowell 2016). The CBI-S framework draws on both operating systems being required for institutional-level change. Each has its distinct function, but operating in a dual mode ‘unleashes powerful new levels of employee engagement, organisational agility, change capability and innovation’ (Harvard website promotional material). Figure  4.1 provides a diagrammatic representation of the two operating systems, signalling the CCOS through the traditional hierarchal organizational structure on the right, and the AOS through the team-based structures on the left. Table 4.1 provides details of the contribution each of the operating systems makes to decision-making. The figures and table highlight the interplay of engagements or communication between individuals in an organization, and describes the role of each type of operating system. As demonstrated, the CCOS operates through the hierarchical, formal, style of communication, whereas the AOS is distinguished by working

Figure 4.1 The CBI-S framework, highlighting the roles of the CCOS and AOS Source:  ‘CBI-S model’ by Leith Sharp (2016), licensed for open sharing and adapting under the Creative Commons CC BY-AS 4.0

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

77

Table 4.1 Attributes of CCOS and AOS Adaptive Operating System (AOS)

Command-Control Operating System (CCOS)

• Intrinsic motivation to enact shared purpose • Community structure, relationships • Boundary crossing, connectivity • Co-created change, leadership as a system • Applied learning focus • Socially supported learning, story • Dynamic, multiple, transparent

• Extrinsic motivation to enact mission and vision • Authority structure, transactions • Division and hierarchy • Top-down change, leadership as a linear function • Execution focus • Strategy, metrics, reporting • Rigid, single, permanent

Source: ‘CBI-S model’ by Leith Sharp, licensed for open sharing and adapting under the Creative Commons CC BY-AS 4.0

through organic, non-hierarchical engagement. Each brings benefit: The AOS is a powerhouse of creativity and embedded behaviour change; the commandcontrol system brings legitimate power and authority. As Sharp notes, and shown in Figure 4.2, over time, the interplay of the two systems can become more pronounced, bringing greater synergistic benefit. To maximize engagement between the two operating systems, the framework encourages any decision process to flip between the two operating systems. An example of how this operates in practice is demonstrated through a case study that follows, from Canterbury Christ Church University in the United Kingdom.

CBIS case study: Canterbury Christ Church University The case shows how the CBI-S model was retrospectively applied to the university’s development of its highly successful Futures Initiative (FI) programme. The FI programme was devised as part of the institution’s desire to enhance its sustainability activities and impact, in this case through a facilitation and development programme for academic staff to engage with sustainability. Figure 4.3 describes the stages of progress. Between 2010 and 2016, the successful FI programme was developed through engagement within each of the CCOS and AOS, as shown in Figure 4.3. During that period, some of the more significant actions and developments were: 1. 2010–11. A new strategic plan was finalized that put sustainability as one of the top five goals. The UK Higher Education Academy’s sustainability scheme (the ‘Green Academy’) was used as a mechanism to develop an

78

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Figure 4.2 CCOS and AOS merged engagement Source:  ‘CBI-S Model’ by Leith Sharp (2016), licensed for open sharing and adapting under the Creative Commons CC BY-AS 4.0

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

approach for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). An outcome of this was that FI was proposed as a way of building capacity for ESD. 2011–12. FI was presented to the executive and recognized as aligning with strategic aims and presenting an opportunity for distinctiveness. Funding was approved and FI projects were launched, with twenty approved in the first year. 2012–14. Annual reporting of FI projects to the executive maintained presence and assured strategic alignment. The sustainability team developed further strands to support academic and staff needs (e.g. Future Leaders programme, Futures Forum and Futures reading group). 2014. Development of another new strategic plan, this time with mission and values influenced by learnings from FI; the director of sustainability influenced and worked with the executive to articulate sustainability as part of mission, values and cross-cutting theme. 2015. The sustainability team developed underpinning framework for sustainability through consultative approach. 2016. Implementation of a new annual business planning process requiring business alignment with strategic themes, resulting in embryonic business integration of sustainability into core university business processes.

Figure 4.3 and the aforementioned narrative show that the development of the FI initiative progressed through its consideration at both the senior management

Idea Flow: From Strategic Intent to Business Integration

Approval & Yr 1 funding

Reporting & more funding

Strategic influence

Business integration

Green Academy Futures Initiative 2010–2011

FI launch & Projects 2011–2012

Futures Forum Future Leaders Curriculum review 2012–2014

Framework for sustainability 2014

2015

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

Strategic intent & support for sustainability

2016

Figure 4.3 Development and influence of the Futures Initiative at Canterbury Christ Church University Source: ‘Idea Flow’ by Sharp and Rands (2016), licensed for open sharing and adapting under the Creative Commons CC BY-AS 4.0

79

80

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

(CCOS) level and through the creative space of an AOS. For example, in 2010– 11, the university determined that sustainability was to be a core priority for the institution (a leadership initiative of the then vice-chancellor) but how it was to be operationalized was determined though the engagement of a creative space (Green Academy) where staff from across the university debated and discussed the way forward in a non-hierarchical affirmative space. Flipping between the CCOS and AOS systems has subsequently enabled creative development and adaptation of the FI while maintaining buy-in from senior management, and the movement of the learning from it to inform the most recent mission and values of the institution, with sustainability becoming a cross-cutting theme to be considered for all functions. As this example has shown, the CBI-S model presents a simple mechanism by which a project or initiative can be initiated in alignment with the strategy, developing using the adaptive organization, while maintaining relevance and visibility by ‘checking in’ with the CCOS at regular intervals. Clearly, through retrospective analysis, it is easy to see that this is a common working practice within higher education. However, we should not underestimate the power of this reflection in guiding the development of new initiatives successfully, integrating the CCOS–AOS concepts into project development and implementation.

Living Labs Living Labs are an approach to collaborative, creative, action delivery. They are defined, somewhat inaccessibly, by the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) as ‘user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings’. To paraphrase this definition, they may be organizations, or operating environments between organizations, but work together through the following principles:  co-creation, active user involvement, real-world setting, multi-stakeholder participation and multi-method approaches. The origins of Living Labs lie in the literature relating to the operational sciences. In recent times, the concept or operating model has been started to be used in a societal, geographical context such as a region or an urban area. ENoLL as a membership organization notes that its members are engaged in Living Labs with the following large range of objectives. These include:  health and well-being, smart cities, culture and creativity, energy, mobility, social inclusion, social innovation, education, e-participation (internet and digital). There are

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

81

now many examples of them being used by universities, and for delivery of sustainability objectives. Two vital components for Living Labs are:  first, their geographical (placebased) grounding and, second, their focus on real-world problems. In relation to the development of urban Living Labs, Voytanko et al. (2016) noted that their distinctiveness lies in the fact that they are: 1. geographically embedded, addressing challenges such as low carbon, or urban sustainability that can be considered by a well-defined set of actors 2. focussed on experimental approaches, such as through new techniques for governance to progress sustainability. This allows empiricism and realtime, real-world experimental to solutions in a multidisciplinary space. 3. operating as platforms for participation and user involvement. They note the benefits of the ‘quadruple helix model’, whereby government, the private and public sectors and universities can work together to provide pragmatic innovation. Clearly, there is great potential for the development of a relevant sustainability agenda for universities through Living Labs. Universities have moved, over the past decade, towards external engagement and relevance, partnership working and the desire to anchor themselves in and for their geographical hinterland. Additionally, they seek impact, opportunities for innovation as well as the mandate to be for the public good, if not a public good per se. Both Barnett’s (2011) call for the ‘ecological university’ which highlights interconnectedness (see Chapter  3) and Porritt’s (2005) call for alternative forms of capital measurement beyond the financial level (see chapter 5) speak well to the Living Lab concept. Many universities are using the model, or at least the ‘Living Lab’ term, to determine how to take forward sustainability in a way that involves academic and professional service staff, students and key partners and external stakeholders. For example, in 2011, the University of Newcastle in the United Kingdom decided that it would use the Living Lab model as a means by which the Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability would operate. The vision, articulated by Paul Younger, its director, was for it to deliver ‘world class solutions for environmental sustainability (clean fossil fuels, renewable energy, water management, sustainable modes of transport), working with local government and industry to transform the urban core [of Newcastle and Gateshead] through a programme termed “sustainable urbanism” ’ (Younger 2011).

82

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

As with other Living Lab projects, the Newcastle initiative provides an interface among civic, industry and academic expertise, in a geographically bound, real-world, partnership model. Within the university, the initiative aligns with institutional ambitions for a cross-disciplinary role incorporating academies such as ‘science, agriculture and engineering’, ‘humanities and social sciences’ and ‘medical sciences’. It is important to recognize that the Living Lab concept is remarkably simple. In essence, it provides an opportunity for multiple stakeholders to engage in and work on a real-world problem. Thus, it has a simple set of components, which can have a wide variety of scope and scale. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Cambridge University Living Lab provides opportunities for students to improve environmental sustainability on the university estate through projects, internships and research. It draws on the expertise and talent of students and staff, and encourages application of knowledge to the real-world context, enhancing skills of those involved and increasing connections among people. Typically, themes include a focus on transport, biodiversity, energy, waste, food, behaviour change, well-being, the built environment, consumption patterns or culture. One of the first universities to herald the ‘Living Lab’ approach for the furtherance of sustainability was the Masdar Institute in Abu Dhabi. It was described as the ‘world’s only University dedicated exclusively to sustainability and green technology’ offering postgraduation and research through the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, within a city development hailed as an experiment in green living. Fearn (2009) describes the Institute in the case study in Figure 4.4.

Other approaches supporting decision-making processes The two models presented earlier provide ‘meta-models’ of decision-making processes, seeking to bring together academic and institutional objectives, within and beyond the institution. Where universities have taken these models forward, substantial progress has been made. However, their implementation has required some level of senior management support for their use. Also, both are highly complex in their conceptualization, articulation and operationalization. This makes them somewhat daunting for a newly emerging sustainability leader, or one who has a role that does not provide senior levels of legitimate power. In seeking pragmatism, other processes and models are available, which proffer similar principles to some of those in the aforementioned models, but can be started on a small scale, and at a local level in the university.

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

83

‘The Masdar Institute is based in Masdar City – a 6 km sq walled development and an experiment in green living. The world’s first carbon-neutral, zero-waste city, its residents will be involved in living trials and tests of the latest green technologies, designed to provide solutions to climate change and energy shortages. Many of these technologies are expected to stem from the institute itself.’ The Abu Dhabi Government has poured money into diversifying its economy with the intention of it becoming knowledge-based by 2030. This society, until now based almost exclusively on oil, is searching for a sustainable future. A partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US), the Masdar Institute has been set up next door to the headquarters of the International Renewable Energy Agency, which will test its researchers’ inventions. ‘It’s all about reducing energy demand because the city is going to be 100 per cent powered by renewable energy,’ Dr Ali said. ‘The university is embedded within a living laboratory. This ability to translate ideas and knowledge and fast-track them into the public domain is very exciting.’ ‘There is no silver bullet for solving the climate change problem. We have to be able to adapt, research and innovate, and get products out to market to scale, to reduce costs so they become viable options. The big driver is to demonstrate technologies to scale, because it’s only then that you learn how things work and how they don’t work.’ The institute’s first intake is being monitored within the halls of residence, where data about the consumption of energy and patterns of behaviour (how many kettles are boiled each day, for example) are being recorded and will feed into research about future energy needs. Dr Ali said that the postgraduate university will create ‘a pipeline of talented young people’ to make up the next generation of leaders in research and industry, guiding the development of green technology. The university will produce both blue-skies and applied research, with industry partners yet to be announced. Its focus will be on electricity, transport, water and waste systems, and partners have already been found for research into carbon capture and storage, plus sustainable biofuels for the aviation industry. ‘What I think we offer firms is access to this living laboratory, to other companies that they may want to have a relationship with, and very bright students and faculty who have a relationship with one of the world’s best universities,’ Dr Ali added. Figure 4.4 Living Lab case study – Masdar Institute, Abu Dhabi Source: Fearn (2009)

Communities of Practice Communities of Practice (CoP) provide a lifeline to many sustainability leaders, as they seek to engage with others in their institution, and others, in a supportive, mutually reinforcing manner. Wenger (1998) describes a CoP as a system of relationships with the following defining characteristics:

84

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

1. It has a shared common interest or domain. 2. Members discuss ideas, share information and engage in joint activities which build relationships and enhance learning as they pursue their common interests. 3. The shared repertoire of experiences, stories, tools and ways of addressing recurring problems which the community builds up, further extends its professional expertise. Wenger’s ideas emerged from studies in the corporate sector and described relatively stable groups which were largely concerned with replicating certain established tasks. In academic settings, relationships are often rather looser and more volatile. Amin and Roberts (2008) proposed, rather, the term ‘network of practice’ to describe situations where professionals come together to experiment and create new ideas. Here, variety, ambiguity and uncertainty abound and impromptu meetings and conversations disrupt set agendas. Amin and Roberts note that the ‘tangled assemblage’ of factors that promote creativity and innovation cannot be easily reduced. They also conclude that harnessing the fruits and disseminating the results of creative endeavour is a significant challenge. While communities or networks of practice can be highly creative, they can also be problematic. Crucially, they involve an unequal power balance between established members who are familiar with the terrain and newcomers who are entering as novices. Collegiate values can help to reduce these differences but competition for promotion and professional advantage always threatens to generate a negative undertow. Fonti (2008) suggests that the way these tensions play out will determine whether the group proves to be transformative and beneficial or constraining and detrimental. However, a commitment to inclusive practice and the sense of urgency and purpose generated by sustainability issues seem likely to bring people together. Communities of practice are a widely accepted way of engaging a variety of stakeholders of varying degrees of expertise and knowledge, skills and experience. Generally, brought together under a particular theme, and often long lived due to their developmental nature, they tend to exhibit similar characteristics. At their outset, they are intended to create a space for dialogue and development within the context of a local global or thematic issue. Depending on their make-up, they will generally seek to link theory and practice, which may result in the trialling of new approaches. Within educational environments, they can enable links among formal, informal and non-formal education. And ultimately, they can

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

85

result in the development of cross-sectoral partnerships, for example, between universities and local communities, which enhances the local reputation and authenticity of the university, as well as bringing practical reality to bare.

Mutual competence building In common with ‘Living Labs’, mutual competence building seeks to develop partnership models within and beyond institutions which offer win–win situations. A  highly informative exercise was undertaken using this principle by Garmann Johnsen, Torjesen and Ennals (2015) in Higher Education in a Sustainable Society: A Case for Mutual Competence Building using the University of Agder in Norway as a single-institution case study. Within this, the authors recognized that sustainability could be introduced by discipline, teaching method or institutional level, and through description, critique or practice. Their model for framing different approaches is provided in Table 4.2. Their starting premise was that higher education was in a position to influence society with regard to sustainability, but how sustainability priorities and messages are articulated differ within a university by discipline (as well, possibly, Table 4.2 Different dimensions in the discussion of sustainability in higher education Concepts of sustainability

Approaches to knowledge development when working with sustainability

Ways to work on sustainability in or with practice

The disciplines perspective

Relating sustainability to different disciplinary discourses

Creating interdisciplinary dialogue with society and business

Implications for teaching on sustainability

Creating engagement around the issue of sustainability Addressing real strategies and comparing objectives of the university

Addressing the underlying dimensions and philosophical underpinnings of different approaches to sustainability Encouraging engagement and inquiry into sustainability Facilitating the university as an arena for discourse and sustainability and critical discussions

How the university as an institution can work with sustainability

Source: Garmann Johnsen, Torjesen and Ennals (2015): 13

Engage in mutual competence building in addressing sustainability issues Encouraging research/society engagement, addressing theory and practice issues

86

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

by an individual’s institutional roles). Who the relevant partners were differed. For example, in health disciplines, this related to accreditation bodies and in business programmes to local and regional industry. Also, how sustainability was incorporated depended on its disciplinary context. This could be as part of critical discourse in philosophy, or as part of developing teachers’ values in education programmes, for example. In all cases, the critical component was the partnership between parties concerned, whether students, academic and professional service staff, industry, government, regional authorities or wider society. Mutual competence building, as exemplified by the University of Agder, has commonalities with Living Labs, and potentially provides an architecture through which to create a balanced portfolio of Living Labs. It also offers a useful perspective for the sustainability leader to see how systems thinking and partnership working may differ among the myriad cultures and subcultures that operate in a university. As such, it offers a framework within which they can articulate the benefit of what can seem many, disparate approaches and initiatives.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have sought to highlight the dynamics within universities which affect their decision-making processes. We have also touched on the tangled web of decision-making for sustainability, its need for whole-system thinking for scenarios of great uncertainty and complexity. These highlight the fundamental nature of the context within which the sustainability leader is operating – both the subject and the organization they are operating in. The models presented in this chapter offer clear and systematic means by which decision-making for sustainability in universities can be organized and operationalized. They empathize with, and work within the bounds of, organizational norms, and sustainability scope and co-dependencies. CBIS legitimizes a means to work with, yet not be bounded by, organizational hierarchies, to enable space for creativity to thrive. Living Labs widen the organizational net to external stakeholders, recognizing the spatial dimensions of sustainability and university in its city-region. CoP and mutual competence building reiterate the importance of creating means by which sustainability leaders need to operate in non-hierarchical, flexible ways, yet stay grounded with the priorities of the institution.

Decision-Making Processes, Structures and Cultures

87

While these models offer structures and defined processes for decisionmaking, they do not necessarily reflect the realities of how things play out on the ground which is actually much more unpredictable and uncertain. It is important to recognize that each situation is unique – one size doesn’t fit all. As such, the models presented should not be seen as ‘off-the-peg’ solutions. However, the models presented do offer synergies with theories of sustainability leadership, as presented in Chapter 1. Of particular note is the need for strong interpersonal skills; to manage follower (and stakeholder) thought and action; to operate empathetically; to cooperate, collaborate and share information and to hunt for and develop mutuality of incentives and goals, within an understanding of the complex dynamic human–societal–environment in the twenty-firstcentury university.

5

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

Introduction The higher education sector is undergoing profound changes in most nations, with moves towards ‘massification’ and ‘marketization’ resulting in a seismic shift in the operational landscape. For sustainability leaders to maintain a voice in this evolving operating environment, we believe it is important for them to be able to frame sustainability using language used by senior management and governance now. In basic terms, this means being able to place ‘value’ on sustainability, in terms that equate to monetary value or institutional key performance indicators. We see this as a ‘translation’ mechanism that can be thought of as a ‘babel fish’ approach. The babel fish is an imaginary creature from Douglas Adams’ A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (1979), whereby the fish enabled any person who put the fish in his or her ear to immediately understand any other language. Within this, we sound a note of caution in the use of such measurement tools, in that the monetary value cannot measure all values, including all the values associated with living sustainably. The discipline of economics has evolved in the past fifteen years to include means by which environment, human welfare and happiness can be ‘measured’ using proxies to ‘monetary value’. These developments open the door to significant new ways to appraise sustainability and acknowledge its significance. Throughout our discussions that follow, we remain mindful of the cryptic observation made by Douglas Adams (1979) when he wrote: This planet has . . . a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

90

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

There are those who are sceptical about articulating value in monetary terms. Exploring sustainability in universities through the corporate responsibility (CR) lens may present conceptual challenges for some, as it hints at profit-making and market-based approaches, whereas universities offer a more complex ‘public– private good’ mix in terms of remit. Our intention here is to help steer a course through instrumentalism as a means of long-term value delivery. In the first section, we examine how sustainability has been framed within the corporate/private sector, through CR models, and how the underlying principle of legitimacy is central to it. Within this, we highlight the relevance of these approaches to the current higher education. Next, we describe and discuss models used to report on sustainability progress, taking forward the principles underlying CR. In the final section, we critique the notion of ‘value’ and the extent to which attempts to place monetary value (or proxies) on sustainability brings valence or obfuscation.

Sustainability and CR Sustainability and sustainable development as concepts were originally devised for global, regional or national geographies, with their evolution framed in the context of international agreements and conventions. These concepts have been transposed into the organizational-corporate setting with the development of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the 1990s. This is more widely referred to nowadays as CR as its scope has widened to encapsulate environmental and social responsibility, within the bounds of economic sustainability (or viability). As with sustainability, CR is another ill-defined or multi-defined concept, which is confusing partly because the term ‘corporate’ is loosely applied. Jeremy Moon, the inaugural director of the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility at the University of Nottingham (2014), notes that it includes organizations beyond the ‘corporate’ (including state-owned enterprises, government departments, trade unions, civil society etc.) and so has a much wider application than would first appear. There are many other phrases and terminology abound covering the broad areas of sustainability and CR. These include the following: 1. Triple bottom line 2. Cradle-to-grave and cradle-to-cradle 3. Industrial ecology

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

91

4. ‘Green business’ 5. Ethical business. It is not within the scope of this book to explore the nuanced differences between these terms, and it is sufficient to be aware that, broadly, all these point to the organizational desire to engage with environmental and/or social responsibility, from a baseline of economic viability in the long term (i.e. economic sustainability). The idea of CR emanated from the nineteenth-century paternalism and philanthropic traditions such as those seen in the United Kingdom with companies such as Rowntree and Cadbury, and Carnegie in the United States. The owners of these businesses recognized the value of having a healthy, educated workforce to the business itself and the community they were based in, and provided housing, schools and healthcare to support their staff. These actions – from one perspective – appear self-serving, but at the same time delivered wider benefits to society in addition to profitability to the company owners, and led the way in welfare practice prior to any regulation in this area. The nineteenth century was, however, an era of environmental exploitation, with societal views on the inherent value of the natural environment at a nadir. Thomas Carlyle, in ‘Signs of the Times’ (1829), describes contemporary practices in the following terms:  ‘We remove mountains, and make seas our smooth highway; nothing can resist us. We war with rude Nature; and, by our resistless engines, come off always victorious, and loaded with spoils’ (441). There has been a long-standing debate as to the purpose of corporations beyond their profit motive. Cynics of CR (such as Friedman [1962] in his ‘Theory of the Firm’) considered that the principal purpose of the corporation is to maximize profits (legally) for the benefit of its owners and shareholders. He argued that this approach would increase employment and enhance potential tax revenues and economic welfare. This view is rather outdated now in terms of societal values (and regulation), with a wider understanding of the relevance of the corporation to its wider sphere of influence (i.e. current and future stakeholders).

Underpinning principles There are two key principles underpinning CR, namely (i) stakeholder theory and (ii) legitimacy theory. Stakeholder theory was first proposed by Freeman in the 1980s and is neatly summarized in the assertion that an organization or

92

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

business ‘can be understood as a set of relationships amongst groups’ that have a stake in the activities that make it up (Freeman, Harrison and Wicks 2007). In their definition, ‘having a stake’ meant either power over or an interest in the organization. The theory focuses attention on the way a business can create value for stakeholders and leads to the insight that the interests of different groups must be brought together over time. It also begs the question as to who actually counts as a stakeholder and whether some groups have a more powerful claim than another. In the higher education sector, stakeholder power has changed over time with the introduction of non-subsidized student fees and dissolution of government grants. This has increased the power of the student body as a whole to the detriment of grant-funding providers, who then modified their power towards regulatory and quality assurance. Legitimacy theory takes a wider view and focuses on the context in which a business operates. It draws attention to the way that business activities relate to the values and mores of the larger social system of which they are a part. Organizational legitimacy arises when the values of a business coincide with those of society at large (Dowling and Pfeffer 1975). The real world, of course, is never as neat as theories would have us believe. Rather than having a single set of values, societies have multiple belief systems which often overlap and contract each other. Nevertheless, legitimacy theory has proved valuable as a way of recognizing different needs and interests. Legitimacy and stakeholder theory developed separately and at different times, but when taken together point to the imperative for organizations to work with stakeholder priorities, social mores and cultures, which may differ over time, culture, geography and organizational type. As far as universities are concerned, the key points to note are: 1. Universities do not exist as organizations ‘of themselves’ but serve their stakeholders, which as private–public entities exist for the public good and serve their stakeholders which include wider society and the community as well as students and staff. 2. Universities need to ensure a de minimus financial margin, and thus economic sustainability is a baseline requirement from which to consider social and environmental sustainability. Good intentions towards sustainability can only be implemented if there are systematic means to measure, value and compare–contrast the multitude of possible initiatives that could be taken. The next section provides brief descriptions and discussion of models to measure sustainability.

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

93

Modelling sustainability Models to measure sustainability have been developed which help list and describe the large number of actions and activities an organization can take towards sustainability. It is more tricky to answer questions such as ‘How do the various aspects of sustainability interplay?’ ‘How should each aspect be prioritized? and ‘Where will there be greatest positive impact?’ The models we discuss subsequently all start with the requirement to identify, or list, relevant and material aspects of sustainability for the organization, and then look at the means by which each can be prioritized relative to the others.

Global Reporting Initiative After a decade when environmental and sustainability reporting developed sporadically and non-consistently, two non-profit organizations based in the United States (Ceres and the Tellus Institute) with the support of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) released the first version of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997. The initiative gained traction at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg with widespread stakeholder input and affirmation. In 2002, the initiative was established as an organization with a formal, independent, governance arrangement in the Netherlands, still working collaboratively with UNEP and the United Nations Global Compact. Since then, the GRI has undergone multiple iterations and versions. The latest operational version (in 2017, version 4) has a new GRI Standard issued for implementation in 2018, and intentions to map the UN Sustainable Development Goals to it in the near future. Each iteration refines the previous, incorporating feedback from what is now an international user community, with 74% of the world’s largest 250 corporations using it to report their sustainability performance and 23,000 GRI reports submitted to the GRI database (GRI 2017). The framework seeks transparency through disclosure, rather than improvement in the metrics it measures. It also provides inclusiveness of reporting prior to integration. Significant value is achieved for the organization using it through undertaking the process of deciding which measures are material to it and relevant within its sustainability context, how to measure the data to be able to report on it meaningfully and the feedback the report receives from stakeholders. A brief example is provided in the following of how a

94

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

university in Belgium has determined what is material to its reporting, through the stakeholder engagement and development of a Materiality Matrix.

GRI reporting case study – Campus Brussels, Odisee–KU Leuven University, Belgium Campus Brussels houses two higher education entities. These are the HUBKAHO (Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel [HUB] renamed Odisee) and KU Leuven University. Both institutions on the campus are publicly funded, serving the Brussels, Flemish and international community, and operate under the same city, regional, national and European Union jurisdictions. However, within the campus, each operates under its own organizational, legal and physical boundaries. The report follows the scope of GRI by reporting on environmental, social and financial aspects of the campus activities. At the outset, it identifies who its key stakeholders are, stating:  ‘Central to the framework is the concept of ‘universitas’: all members of the university community (staff, students, alumni and emeriti) contribute to a sustainable university.’ The report then proceeds to identify that the students are the biggest influence, followed by staff. The GRI report provides data from stakeholder feedback (annual surveys, in-class engagement and some external stakeholder interviews), presenting the results of their perceptions of the most important sustainability issues, and of the institution’s performance to date. The results are presented in a Materiality Matrix, presented in Table 5.1. On the basis of this information, the report then focuses on activities and performance relevant to the activities that were of high concern to stakeholders and high relevance to Campus Brussels. These are presented in a variety of formats, including data on environmental and financial indicators, or the use of case studies to illustrate student research and teaching initiatives or new policy frameworks.

The Five Capitals Model In 2005, Jonathan Porritt, founder director of Forum for the Future, and the first chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission transformed sustainability thinking by proposing his ‘Five Capitals Model’ of sustainable development. Known previously for his ‘deep green’ stance on the environment, the Five Capitals Model represented a significant shift in Porritt’s thinking as he recognized not only that capitalism was ‘the only game in town’ in the global economy but also that its health was critically dependent on the ongoing

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

95

Table 5.1 Materiality Matrix for Campus Brussels GRI sustainability report 2014 HIGH

• Availability of information and transparency of management’s decisions • Indirect economic impacts

Concern for stakeholders

• Stakeholder inclusiveness • Sustainable procurement • Sustainable cafeteria operations • Environmental performance (including indoor environmental quality) • Water conservation • Environmental investments • Sustainable mobility

LOW

LOW

• Social activities for students and staff members

Relevance to Campus Brussels

• Sustainability-themed education available to students and community • Sustainabilitythemed research that contributes to policy and societal welfare • Diversity and non-discrimination • Energy efficiency and carbon reduction • Waste reduction • Employee and student welfare • Sustainability-themed research • Active involvement of students in sustainability activities

HIGH

Source: Campus Brussels website. (http://www.unprme.org/reports/HUBKAHOKULEUVENCampusBrussels SustainabilityReport2014.pdf), accessed 15 June 2017

ability of the world’s natural resource base to deliver. He created a means to view sustainability through the lens of ‘capital’ and ‘value’ – and in so doing, started speaking the language of those driving the economy. The model (shown in Figure 5.1) works on the presupposition that ‘capital’ needs to extend beyond the narrow, financial and manufactured categories, to encapsulate other capital types or values which may not necessarily be readily transposable into a monetary measure, but upon which sustainability is critically dependent.

96

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Natural capital Human capital Financial capital

Economy Society Manufactured capital

Social capital Natural capital

Figure 5.1 The Five Capitals framework Source: Porritt (2005): 141

In order to achieve sustainability (of a nation, region, system or organization), the five types of capital need to be managed sustainably in themselves and with reference to each other. The capitals are described as follows (Forum for the Future), along with the means by which they can be managed sustainably. 1. Financial capital plays an important role in the economy, enabling the other types of capital to be owned and traded. But unlike the other types, it has no real value in itself but is representative of natural, human, social or manufactured capital; for example, shares, bonds or banknotes. 2. Manufactured capital comprises material goods or fixed assets which contribute to the production process rather than being the output itself – for example, tools, machines and buildings. 3. Human capital consists of people’s health, knowledge, skills and motivation, which are all needed for productive work. Enhancing human capital through education and training is central to a flourishing economy. 4. Social capital concerns the institutions that help maintain and develop human capital in partnership with others; for example, families, communities, businesses, trade unions, schools and voluntary organizations. 5. Natural capital is any stock or flow of energy and material that produces goods and services. It includes resources (renewable and non-renewable materials); sinks (that absorb, neutralize or recycle wastes) and processes (such as climate regulation). Natural capital is the basis not only of production but of life itself!

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

97

The Integrated Framework The Capitals Model was widely applauded when it first appeared and represented a seismic shift in thinking about sustainability and the environment putting what could be seen as antagonistic agendas into an integrated framework for understanding and mapping action for sustainability, at a conceptual level. The concept has been adopted, and enhanced, subsequently through the development of an integrated reporting tool for sustainability, and also by the inclusion of a ‘sixth’ capital  – intellectual capital, which is of particular pertinence to universities. Intellectual capital is defined as: ‘Organisational, knowledge-based intangibles, including intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights, software, rights and licences, and “organisational capital” such as tacit knowledge, systems, procedures and protocols’ (Integrated Reporting 2016: 24) The Integrated Framework was developed using Porritt’s capitals model and presents both inclusiveness and integration of capitals through the lens of ‘value’. Value is something created singularly (within each type of capital) but also through combining different capitals for the organization/system under consideration. Figure 5.2 provides the core model. It shows the ‘flow’ of capital as part of the organizational business processes and development, with the intent to create (not diminish) value over time. The central element of the figure provides ‘conventional’ business elements (e.g. mission, strategy, risk, performance and business operations) and recognizes the impact of the external environment on this. So far, the model differs little from the conventional means by which governance and management are measured. The novel aspect of the model is the flow of capitals as inputs and outputs enveloping this. A crucial feature of the model is that it provided a pragmatic, rather than just a conceptual, model. As a result, it provides a practical means by which organizations can review and report on their core business in an integrated manner with its sustainability as core. Clearly, for this reporting mechanism to operate effectively, it requires full organizational involvement, and enlightened leadership in senior management and governance. It is not the preserve of one group, such as the sustainability team alone. However, because integrated reporting uses a language and concepts that align with core business processes and priorities, it is much more likely to be adopted than previous reporting models. As such, it presents an important step forward in embedding and reporting on sustainability. Of course, any model or mechanism has down-sides. In the case of the model, the first issue is how to persuade senior leadership as to the model’s merits? It is a substantial task for an organization to learn about and implement

98

Manufactured Risks and Opportunities

I N P U T S

Financial

Manufactured Strategy and Resource allocation

Mission and Values

Intellectual

Financial

Intellectual

Business model Inputs

Business Activity

Outputs

Outcome

Human

Human

Social

Social

Performance

Outlook

Natural

Natural External Environment Value creation (preservation, diminution) over time

Figure 5.2 Integrated Reporting  – the value-creation process Source: Adapted from www.integratedreporting.org (p. 23)

C A P I T A L

O U T P U T S

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

C A P I T A L

Governance

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

99

the model, both initially and in regular review, needing significant human resource requirements. Second, unlike the Porritt model, which bounded the capitals with natural capital as a finite resource, this model appears to adopt the weak sustainability ethos of substitutability, whereby one type of capital can replace another capital as long as there is net value creation. If taken to its logical limits, this could deliver an outcome few of us would recognize as sustainability, as Neumayer notes: ‘According to weak sustainability, it does not matter whether the current generation uses up non-renewable resources or dumps CO2 into the atmosphere as long as enough machines, roads and ports are built in compensation . . . the ‘substitutability paradigm’ (Neumayer 2003: 1). These reservations represent legitimate objections to the use of this model, but can be overcome by appreciation, and implementation, of Porritt’s stance on the bounded aspect of natural capital relative to other forms.

Integrated Reporting case study: Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU) is based on a designated United Nations World Heritage site as the outer precincts of St Augustine’s Abbey (founded in ad 597). During the fourteenth century, monks worked on the site tending a vinery, baking bread, brewing beer, managing orchards, bee keeping and growing vegetables. The university has used this heritage as a theme within its sustainability focus, for the purposes of appreciation of biodiversity (its Bioversity initiative), as well as food security and resilience. It has also promoted to cultural appreciation through the Edible Campus initiative, concentrating on the themes of beer, bread and honey. For this, CCCU looked to evaluate one aspect – beer – through the capitals framework. The Beer project looked to integrate many curricular aspects in a practical application. These included hop production on site, using heritage varieties, and collaboration with a local brewery to produce the first batch of beer in September 2015. Students were engaged in research and curricular learning during this process. For example, life science students undertook research projects to isolate yeast strains from the site for future fermenting, and media and communications students developed beer bottle labelling and branding for the product (named Green Chapel Ale) as part of a final-year assignment. As a pilot, the project was a great success, and not just for the consumers of the final product! The sustainability team recognized its wide benefits to the university, but needed additional funding to extend the project.

Table 5.2 Existing value versus value created: Green Chapel Ale, CCCU Capital

Existing value: stocks of capitals

Value created: stock enhancements through flow of capitals

Financial

• • • • • • • • •

• Sales of beer at £2 profit per bottle (£5,400)

Manufactured Intellectual

Purchase of Hop bines – yr1: £67 and yr2: £120 Purchase of horticultural materials: £100 Futures Initiative funds for curriculum developments Staff effort (real): £500 and donated student and staff effort (free) Brewing and bottling costs: £4,000 for 2,700 bottles Marketing materials Buildings and existing equipment Futures Initiative Departmental structures (sustainability team, grounds and gardens, facilities, schools

Human

• Staff expertise (scientific, module or programme integration) • Student expertise (programme-related expertise) • External expertise (hops, brewing, scientific)

Social and relationship

• Existing staff and student networks (student societies, staff research groups, Student Green Office)

Natural

• Ground space to grow hops • Water, hops, sunlight

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Creation of distinctive product Building creative capacity through links to formal curriculum Developing an integrated and holistic business case Enhancing direct links to University mission and values Developing distinctive brand linked to ‘sense of place’ Enhanced student experience Increased understanding of curriculum-related sustainability Enhanced skills and experience for staff Development of informal curriculum linked to biodiversity Building partnerships with external partners Enhancing reputation through marketing and demonstration Connecting communities to biodiversity, heritage and food Linking everyday experience to local economy and heritage Building connections with internal stakeholders through food Providing opportunities for student enterprise Development of hop gardens, which increase biodiversity Influencing estate development through demonstrating value

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

101

The normal mechanism for business case development did not seem sufficient for the purposes of explaining the wide-ranging benefits of this initiative. Instead the case was presented framed using the six capitals, represented through stocks and flows. These were used to articulate existing values and value created for the beer project, and is presented in Table 5.2. The model identified a range of benefits across the university for a small financial investment. Although the beer itself does not deliver a profit (and so would not meet the criteria normally for approval of a business case), the approach used provides a clear articulation of how value can be created for the university, both in terms of meeting its core business and strategic drivers, as well as progressing its wide-scale sustainability agenda, through environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Measuring sustainability The models presented in the previous section have provided a major step forward in integrating the language and priorities of public–private sector organizations with the sustainability agenda. They provide a conceptual framework with guiding principles to meet the needs of both the sustainability leader and a university’s senior management team. Identifying and articulating a wide range of sustainability activities is a positive step forward in progressing the agenda, with the case study from CCCU showing powerfully how this can change how a sustainability message is received. Although engaging with and reporting sustainability activities in toto, delivers benefits of transparency, and hopefully enlightenment, they do not calibrate ‘value’ against traditional means of monetary measures. We consider this issue in this section, and explore how value can be measured with a consistent unit. The next stage is, in business-speak, to establish how to measure the benefit–cost of any activity – whether at the project level, for discrete activities, or in support of a long-term institutional goal. From this, we then discuss the limitations of this approach.

Money and value There is a difference between price and value. Prophetically, Oscar Wilde (the nineteenth-century Irish writer and ‘wit’) observed in one of his plays when writing about a cynic that they are ‘a person who knows the price of everything

102

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

and the value of nothing’ (Wilde 1892:  38). As we write from a twenty-firstcentury perspective, wrestling with challenges of understanding and embedding sustainability in such a quote – although in a different context from its original source – provides a useful warning. The realization that the natural environment has an intrinsic value may be a relatively modern idea in ‘Western’ cultures but is nothing new elsewhere in the world. The Cree Indians have a prophecy which draws attention to the emptiness of monetary wealth with these words: ‘when the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money’, which resonates too. The rise of neoclassical welfare economics, and the dominance of the capitalist system in economic growth, has meant that the monetary value of a product, service or concept is the currency by which decisions get made. However, how does this work when we wish to know the value of something that does not have a traded value? For example, how can a natural environment (say, a coral reef, rainforest, river) be valued? How can an organization gauge the value of philanthropic donations to society, or access to research it has undertaken? How can goodwill between volunteers and recipients in a social enterprise be measured with a monetary value? Monetary value has, to date, been defined in terms of either its traded value or its asset value, and finally by its ownership. The first two relate to market mechanisms, the final to legal rights to access and use. Where something is ‘common property’ (or owned by no one) but holds something that has a traded value, this can lead to what Hardin (1968) termed ‘the Tragedy of the Commons’, whereby no person or organization has an incentive to manage the asset for the long term. Nonetheless, the imperative of sustainability requires engagement with, and management of the ‘commons’, whether represented by natural resources, the community, culture or society, for the benefit of present and for future generations. As such, traditional approaches to assessing value do not help.

Can different forms of capital be valued? The deficiency of classical monetary measurement systems is well known nowadays, and has spawned the development of a sub-school of economics, environmental economics. Within this, models and methods have been developed to establish how attributes of the natural environment can be valued, for example, through option or existence value where no ‘market’ value exists. The methods are also applicable to measurement of other types of capital, such as social return on investment (SROI), which we discuss in the following.

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

103

Where a direct or indirect ‘market’ value does not exist, many academics have tried to determine a proxy value through the application of recognized research methods. One of the many examples is that by Costanza et  al. (1997), who attempted to calculate the value of our global natural capital. The calculation resulted in a mean annual value of $33 trillion per year, which was nearly twice the global annual gross national product (GNP) at that time! While no method of valuation is perfect, we present subsequently two types commonly used  – stated and revealed preference techniques. We believe it is helpful to be aware of them, as they do provide a starting point to frame value where there is no clear market (SROI Network, 2012). Stated preference techniques are also termed ‘contingent valuation’ or ‘willingness to pay/accept’. They could be used, for example, to ask how much a person is willing to pay to have pesticide-free lettuce, or to ensure the continued existence of hedgehogs, or to preserve a colloquial regional language. The approach raises interesting questions but also presents difficulties. 1. Stated ‘willingness to pay’ and actual behaviour may differ (i.e. we say one thing and do another) 2. Ensuring that the right people are asked (i.e. those whose willingness to pay will make a difference) 3. The solely anthropocentric approach and perspective. The stated preference technique could suggest that people in the United States are willing to pay $45 each to conserve the Bengal tiger, for example. It is not clear how this money would be used realistically in support of tiger conservation, nor is it clear if all those individuals would actually pay up if asked to do so. Revealed preference techniques infer valuations from the prices of related goods that have a market value. This could include, for example, assessing the value of heritage sites by entry fees accumulated, or assessing the value of individual health by amounts spent on sports activities. This method provides a clearer idea of the value of something as it relies on an individual’s behaviour, rather than attitudes, but has more limited application as it only applies where behaviour can be measured.

Social return on investment In addition to measurement techniques arising through the environmental economics route, techniques for putting a price on value have been developed through SROI methods. SROI operates by providing a common denominator

104

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

on value, converting other values to a monetary value. The UK Cabinet Office offers a helpful ‘how to guide’ which explains how to measure social impact, helping users to understand which beneficiaries will get most benefit from any intervention. The guide provides worked examples of how to assess value outside of the body corporate, that is, beyond the legal bounds of the organization. It brings great potential benefit to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social enterprises who may use it to seek grants and funding for societally or environmentally beneficial projects. It is also a helpful technique for any organization, public or private, to assess the wider value of an initiative, and could be used by universities to assess their wider impact on their city-region. The approach is useful in that it helps organizations to highlight how their interventions are making positive changes, areas for improvement, how they can most effectively allocate resources to maximize benefits and in presenting public relations narratives.

The social value of universities In 2011, a study was undertaken using the SROI framework to establish the social value of universities as a sector in the United Kingdom. This is provided in Table 5.3. This categorization provided a useful aid to universities to widen their understanding of their role in the development of social capital in their city-regions although at this generic national level, no values were put alongside each example. Rather the approach was used to show benefit to society to justify public funding. The findings suggested that at a national level, the SROI for the higher education sector was estimated to constitute about fifty-two per cent of their total benefits. The relevance of this was linked to the extent to which privatization of higher education should proceed before public investment falls below the level conducive to optimum efficiency.

Limitations of valuation approaches It is conceptually attractive to be able to frame activities that contribute to sustainability within a ‘value’ dimension and, while tools exist to enable this to a reasonable degree, their implementation has drawbacks. As Clegg, Dawkes and Mason (2016) noted in ‘The Social Lexicon’: ‘It is . . . important to recognise that some things cannot be quantified or measured, and that many relationships and interconnections are very complex. Therefore, it is dangerous to assume that all indicators and impacts can be reduced into a term as simple and linear as SROI’ (3). Clegg reminds us of the multidimensional ways society and the

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

105

Table 5.3 Categories of social benefit from universities Dimensions of public engagement

Examples of engagement

Public access to facilities

• University libraries, buildings and physical facilities, e.g. for conferences, meetings • Shared facilities, e.g. museums, art galleries • Public access to sports facilities • Access to established university curricula • Public engagement events, e.g. science fairs, science shops • Publicly accessible data at university expense • Student volunteering • Experiential learning, e.g. placements, collaborative research • Curricular engagement • Student-led activities, e.g. arts, environment • Volunteering outside working hours, e.g. trustees on boards of local charities • Public lectures • Advisory boards • Improving recruitment and success rate of students from nontraditional backgrounds through access courses, peer mentoring etc. • Research collaboration and technology transfer • Meeting regional skills and supporting SMEs • Initiatives to expand innovation and design, e.g. bringing staff, students and community together on projects • Collaborative community–based research programmes responsive to community-identified needs • Community–university networks for learning, dissemination or knowledge exchange • Public ceremonies, awards, events • Website with community pages • Corporate social responsibility

Public access to knowledge

Student engagement

Faculty engagement

Widening participation

Encouraging economic regeneration and enterprise

Institutional relationship and partnership building

SMEs, small and medium enterprises Source: Kelly (2011), National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement

environment are appreciated in a deep and existential manner that goes far beyond what is measurable. For many, the natural environment contributes to human health and well-being, not in a utilitarian way but at a deeper, more existential level. People appreciate their place, community and society, not for what they can do ‘for them’ but as part ‘of them’. We believe that the results from

106

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

any of these analyses should provide, at best, an order of magnitude of value, or relative value, only. Reverting to benefit–cost language, the time, effort and data needed to undertake rigorous analysis at anything other than a local-project-based level is significant whichever of these models are adopted. For anyone considering using these, questions should be asked at the outset about the benefits of the analysis versus what it costs to produce the result. Reviewing the SROI guidelines or undertaking large-scale surveys to assess contingent valuation is expensive and time-consuming, and unlikely to provide a definitive answer in what is a complex landscape of multiple stakeholder views and priorities. Fitting sustainability valuations into conventional investment analyses presents challenges as to how social and environmental interventions (or lack of intervention) that have impact over decades, centuries or even millennia are to be dealt with. Additionally, an intervention in one place may deliver benefit (or problems) in another, as we saw with acid rain affecting Norwegian forests arising from UK power station sulphur dioxide emissions. Asking organizations to account and attribute returns over long timescales and in places beyond their national or regional jurisdiction is a challenge which has not been properly addressed. A final, but vital, issue is how these techniques value the ‘right thing to do’ from a moral or ethical perspective. One school of thought would be that stakeholders (or the public) will demonstrate their willingness to pay or contribute time and effort to tackle a problem. This approach relies on individuals knowing what the ‘right thing to do’ is, both in the current and in the long-term future, which is a difficult ask. Nonetheless, developing an understanding of the language used in business terms is helpful to enable sustainability progress to be appreciated in the language of the corporate.

Trade-offs and motivations A pragmatic way forward is to consider the net benefit activities for sustainability for an organization, using the language aligning sustainability benefit to ‘business’ benefit. A  simple mnemonic by which to consider this is through the ‘Five Rs’ approach (Haddock-Fraser 2017), whereby the organization can consider which, if any, of the following are met and only proceed if one or more are applicable: 1. Reducing cost 2. Regulatory requirements

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

107

3. Reduction in risk 4. Reputation enhancement, or 5. Right thing to do The first four of these can, to some extent, be ‘measured’, for example, through income increases, avoidance of fines or penalties or through reduction in operating costs. The final element, ‘right thing to do’, is more difficult to articulate and measure. For this aspect of sustainability, individual moral and ethical codes, organizational cultures and values and leadership skills come to the fore. Actions also need to benefit not only the organization but also society to be sustainable. How the two (organizational benefit and societal benefit) work together is illustrated in the conceptual model (Figure  5.3), which shows the space in which an organization should seek to operate. The Five Rs have been transposed on to this, showing how each brings benefit to society and/or the organization. In Figure 5.3, the area below the diagonal line in the diagram represents the area where costs exceed benefits regardless of party; so the organization should not consider activities placed here. The top right quadrant shows where there

Reputation Regulation Reduce costs Risk reduction

Philanthropy? Off-sets

Cost to society

Benefit to society

Right thing to do?

Cost to organisation

Benefit to organisation

Figure 5.3 Framing decision-making for sustainability Source: Adapted from Pannell (2008) and Haddock-Fraser (2017)

108

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

is a win–win for society and the organization, with opportunities for enhanced reputation, cost reduction or risk reduction, as discussed earlier. Where there is benefit to either society or organization, but not both, interventions are less direct. For instance: 1. Where an activity has a net benefit to society but a cost to the organization, there needs to be government intervention through regulation (e.g. emission limits, permits, taxes) that the organization must comply with or suffer penalties. 2. Where an activity has a net benefit to an organization but a cost to society, there may be ‘off-sets’ (e.g. carbon permits) or philanthropic measures (sponsorship, charitable donations). The motivation of the ‘right thing to do’ is shown where society gains but the activity has a negative impact on the organization, and represents the ethical and moral code of operating. Of course, ‘right thing to do’ can operate where there is benefit to the organization too, but not ever where there is a cost to society. A challenge in using the model is availability of data, in a situation where there is uncertainty and difficulty of ‘proving’ the cause–effect of sustainability interventions. It is a language that sustainability leadership can equate to, as seen in the following case study.

Application of the Five Rs to sustainability in UK higher education As part of the primary data collection for this book, we undertook interviews with the thirty-four university sustainability leaders in the United Kingdom. We sought their views on what their institutional motivations were for taking forward sustainability actions, using the Five Rs framework as a means of categorizing their responses. Each respondent reflected on his or her own range of activities and examples, with many citing more than one motivation. A small number of universities were clear regarding the importance of one of these only. For instance, one university stated, ‘Sustainability is seen as a cost saving activity with fluffy edges’, with another categorically stating that it is ‘to do the right thing’. The majority saw multiple criteria as being relevant, with some saying all five were important. Few universities explicitly evaluate against this type of framework, rather they are either part of their custom and practice or implicit.

Decision-Making Frameworks and Models for Sustainability

109

The following list reflects the percentage of respondents who noted that the criterion was relevant to decision-making on sustainability in their institution. As many included more than one, the percentages total more than 100 per cent. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Regulation – twenty-three per cent Reducing costs – fifty-nine per cent Reputation – sixty-eight per cent Risk reduction – twenty per cent Right thing to do – forty-seven per cent

These results show the clear importance of the business case through reducing costs or enhancing reputation, both being instrumental approaches to the case for sustainability. Where cost reduction could be used, the debate and discussion to take the agenda forward were relatively clear cut. Reputation can be more difficult to measure, although it is seen to impact student admissions and societal views of the institution. Universities also had differing views as to why reputation was important. Many of the older (Russell Group) universities regularly monitor and ‘check in’ with each other, and Oxford and Cambridge engage with their international equivalents. The information that they glean has the dual function of supporting collaborative learning between sustainability leaders, but it is also used as leverage within their own institutions if it can be suggested that they are falling behind their peers. Some newer universities compared themselves with the wider sector for aspirational reasons: for example, one noted that ‘we look at what all universities are doing. We are aware of increased competition and thus are attempting to identify distinctiveness either as different or as one of a key group.’ The other key motivation for sustainability action was ‘right thing to do’ which was identified by nearly half the respondents. Very rarely was this criterion mentioned as the only reason for sustainability actions, but it seemed to provide leverage through either: 1. Congruence with institutional values 2. Influence from charismatic (and often, senior) management 3. A reason why sustainability began to be considered by the university.

Conclusion Sustainability leaders in higher education can no longer argue for sustainability solely on moral, ‘right thing to do’ grounds, although it is still a fundamental

110

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

truism. It is rare to find a university that makes decision about sustainability actions on that basis alone. In this chapter, we have provided a range of models and methods to support the sustainability leader in communicating the benefits of sustainability in language that concurs with the core drivers for university senior management. Some of these are being used already in the sector, as our examples show, but they are not widely established yet. These models not only bring transparency and inclusiveness through identifying the wide range of actions that can be taken, but also offer ways to prioritize between sustainability options where there may be limited resources (people and money) to deliver them. We see the models as high-level frameworks against which to structure discussion, rather than a call for large-scale, detailed, evaluation of every aspect of value available: It would be counterproductive to create an industry of analysis that costs more than any benefit that may accrue from anything it discovers.

Part C

Sustainability and the Leader as Individual The approach taken in Parts A and B (Chapters  1–5) has been to establish principles, concepts and theories relating to higher education, leadership and sustainability. In Parts C and D, we focus instead on the presentation and discussion of empirical material, reporting on the outcomes of our primary investigations. In this part, we draw on the results of a survey of sustainability leaders in universities across the United Kingdom to establish a sector-wide perspective. Part D presents in-depth case studies of four universities (from the United Kingdom, Australia, United States and India), their sustainability journey and the role of sustainability leadership within that, and brings an international perspective to bear. The argument presented in this part is multifaceted. First, we seek to establish whether there is a fit between the literature on what makes a good sustainability leader and sustainability leaders in universities. Second, we present our own investigations on trends or commonalities between universities in the United Kingdom, as a means of highlighting good practice, or areas where there are similar challenges. These two perspectives complement each other and, taken together, provide a vignette of sustainability leadership within UK universities at the current moment and will be used to inform our recommendations and conclusions. We are aware that our research findings are limited to the United Kingdom, but have balanced this with international in-depth case studies in Part D. We have structured the three chapters in this part around the ‘best-fit’ or situational leadership model proposed by Visser and Courtice (2011), termed the ‘Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model’ (‘Cambridge Model’) (Figure C.1). This was outlined along with a range of sustainability leadership models

112

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

CAMBRIDGE SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP MODEL INDIVIDUAL LEADER

LEADERSHIP CONTEXT EXTERNAL Ecological Economic Political Cultural Community INTERNAL Sector/industry Organisational reach Organisational culture Governance structure Leadership role

TRAITS Caring/morally-driven Systemic/holistic thinker Enquiring/open-minded Self-aware/empathetic Visionary/courageous STYLES Inclusive Visionary Creative Altruistic Radical SKILLS Manage complexity Communicate vision Exercise judgement Challenge & innovate Think long term KNOWLEDGE Global challenges/dilemmas Interdisciplinary connections Change dynamics/options Organisational influences/impacts Diverse stakeholder views

LEADERSHIP ACTIONS INTERNAL Informed decisions Strategic direction Management incentives Performance accountability People empowerment Learning & Innovation EXTERNAL Cross-sector partnerships Sustainable products/services Sustainability awareness Context transformation Stakeholder transparency

Figure C.1 Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Model Source: Visser and Courtice (2011)

in Chapter 1. Our rationale for selecting this model to structure our empirical investigation was based not only on its currency and direct relevance to sustainability, but also its pragmatism. The model brings together leadership context and individual leadership attributes, in line with accepted models of situational leadership and, additionally, provides sustainability-specific attributes against which we could measure responses from our investigation. The chapters follow the model’s three main themes, with Chapter 6 exploring leadership context and sustainability, Chapter  7 sustainability leadership and the individual and Chapter  8 leadership actions, and how context combined with individual leadership traits, styles, skills and knowledge delivers successful outcomes (or where we can learn from lack of success). These three chapters focus especially on the data which we have collected from colleagues involved in higher education in different parts of the United Kingdom. A questionnaire was developed based on the Cambridge Model, the purpose of which was to capture information about sustainability leaders in a

Sustainability and the Leader as Individual

113

structured manner. The questionnaire used is provided in the Appendix. The questions covered leadership context (place in organizational structure, decisionmaking structures, scope of role), individual leadership attributes (traits, styles, skills and experience), examples of success and challenges confounding progress as well as influencers and influences on their role. The questions sought selfreflection, as well as to capture the views from the respondents without prompt. We chose to do this, rather than providing them with a list of choices from which they could select their preferences. This enabled us to capture their views directly rather than their responses to others’ findings, and to avoid biasing their thought processes. To help sense-make the results, we sought common themes and collated accordingly, recognizing that the exact phraseology may differ by respondent. The interview respondents were employees of UK universities, each with a remit for leading on sustainability across their institution. In total, we undertook thirty-four interviews, representing approximately twenty-five per cent of universities in the United Kingdom. The respondents were selected as being individuals known by the authors and within the sector and sustainability networks for being active and successful sustainability leaders. The rationale for this was to build understanding of leading good practice in addition to engaging with those individuals who would have had most experience of sustainability leadership in the sector. The profile of the respondents provides a reasonable representation across the sector. 1. Seventy per cent were located within professional service functions, usually within estates, with 30% working within academic structures (faculty or direct academic support). 2. Six of the thirty-four respondents were members of the University Executive Team. 3. Eighteen of the universities were ‘old’ (pre-1992), and 16 were post-92 or ‘new’ universities (former polytechnics, teacher training colleges etc.). 4. The gender split was equal across the sample, but eighty per cent of the senior management representation was male. As with any research, it is necessary to signal the limitations and weaknesses inherent in the methodology. Certainly, the questionnaire can only be regarded as being as good as its scope and its intention. The fact that the respondents all had formal roles for sustainability leadership in their institutions means that there is a chance that we did not garner the views of those influencers or

114

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

leaders in sustainability operating outside of formal positons. As a result, the questionnaire does not capture either the breadth or the depth of sustainability awareness across the sector – nor does it attempt to do so – rather it explores aspects of those in articulated leadership roles only.

6

Leadership Context and Sustainability

Introduction In this chapter, we explore the leadership context for sustainability in universities. We draw on the ‘internal leadership context’ dimensions identified in the Cambridge Model, which identified four key dimensions:  (i) organizational reach, (ii) culture, (iii) governance structure and (iv) leadership role. Our analysis is underpinned by our belief, which is grounded in experience and supported by the literature, that there is no ‘one best way’ to organize for effective decision-making, but there may be commonalities and learning opportunities from understanding different contexts. To support our discussion, we describe and discuss the findings from interviews with sustainability leaders in the sector. We consider where and how sustainability fits within universities; how decisions are made within the context of the sustainability leadership role and how it is framed in the organizational structure and the governance and structures surrounding this. Finally, we tackle the enigmatic matter of culture, micropolitics and engagements beyond the formal, recognizing that what really happens in universities may not be happening through formal channels. One of the traps ‘young players’ sometimes fall into when they try to understand who makes decisions, where authority is held and how organizations communicate information, is only to review documented organizational structures and processes. These formalities do not capture the disparate, concealed workings of micropolitics and ‘under-stage’ activities, sometimes referred to as ‘the invisible part of the iceberg’. That being said, it is still a helpful starting point to understand the formalities and rules of organizational structures and governance arrangements before considering how they vary from this. To use an analogy, a music student needs to understand the ‘rules’ of music before taking on improvization.

116

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

In practice, many would agree that once cultural norms, individual influences and power bases within the organization come to bear, the reality of who influences whom and how, then the veracity of formal structures can diminish. This is well articulated by Garrett and Davies (2011) within the context of higher education: The relatively conservative nature of the culture forged, and often still influenced, by history; the (very) high IQ of the ‘workforce’; their correspondingly high ideals but commonly argumentative style; the bureaucratic nature of many institutional processes and ‘administrations’; the immense difficulties, and huge advantages, in seeking cross-boundary collaboration; and the nature – political, emotional, historical – of conflict, and suggestions for its effective resolution (or at least understanding) in a [herding] ‘cats’ environment. (Garrett and Davies 2010: 3)

Mindful of these complexities, we start the following discussion by considering formal organizational structures and roles before widening the discussion to the ‘invisible part of the iceberg’.

Sustainability and management structures Until the 1990s, it was unlikely that sustainability as a term, or function, would have been present in university structures, or corporate/government structures for that matter. Since then, it has emerged in universities through multiple routes. These include, but are not limited to: 1. estates activities, whether related to health and safety (and environment), through carbon and energy reduction and waste management to a wider stakeholder group. 2. academic activity (research and learning/teaching), often emerging via environmental science disciplines into social sciences and biological/ physical sciences or higher education pedagogy, within which two strands have developed. The first are learning and teaching development units, where sustainability as a theme has developed as an important component of ‘graduate attributes’ and engagement. The second are specialist research centres, for example, the Tyndell Centre (a collaboration among the University of East Anglia, University of Manchester and the Oxford Institute for Environmental Change).

Leadership Context and Sustainability

117

3. human resource departments, particularly in concert with equality and diversity, health and safety and where the core activity emerged from an ethics/social sustainability route 4. directly reporting to the vice-chancellor (president, rector) or the governing body, whereby sustainability is deemed to be a guiding principle for the institution Nowadays many, but not all, universities have a ‘sustainability’ or ‘environmental sustainability’ function or functions within them. Partly because of the mixed genesis of the function, there is no single recognized means by which universities structure around sustainability. Structures are likely to have emerged and evolved over time, their place or functional home depending on how the theme developed in the institution. It may have been led by a key individual with power and interest or through external drivers. For example, in the United Kingdom, many universities appointed sustainability officers in response to the demand from the government-funding body (Higher Education Funding Council for England [HEFCE]) for carbon reporting as a precondition for releasing funds for capital development.

Structures, roles and reach Universities have complex organizational structures in which many functions overlap or intersect. Understanding the roles and reach of different individual groups is often a baffling task particularly as, although there are many established procedures, what happens in practice can differ markedly from the theory which is articulated in official documents. Buchanan and Huczynski (2013) get directly to the point when they define an organizational structure as: ‘the formal system of task and reporting relationships that controls, co-ordinates and motivates employees so that they work together to achieve organisational goals’ (461). Within this seemingly simple definition are a myriad of concepts, principles and actions which need to work together to create an effective organizational form. At a fundamental level, an organizational structure should support the organization’s strategy (and goals) and reflect processes of communication and decision-making. The reality is, of course, more complex and ‘messy’. Informal structures/relationships may impact communication, and implicit (micropolitics) power. Nonetheless, it can generally be assumed, as Child (1984) concludes, that:

118

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

1. there is some degree of specialization for areas of work and responsibility. 2. there is a hierarchy within the organization, and it may have single ‘chain of command’ relationships or operate through matrix and network structures. 3. groupings are likely to exist, for example, by function, geography, customer type and discipline. 4. there will be mechanisms by which individuals and groups communicate with each other, which may relate to individual leadership styles of those in positions of influence, as well as adherence to operating procedures and cultural norms for the organization. 5. there will be management control, which may be centralized or decentralized, formalized or through custom and practice. Within an organizational structure, individuals will hold a role or post, which comes with a job definition. While this is less likely to apply to small, start-up organizations, it has become the norm in higher education since the 1980s. The role outlines the pattern of behaviour expected of a person occupying a certain position in an organizational hierarchy, the scope of the role and whom and how they engage with others. It can confer status and legitimacy, as well as licence (or otherwise) to lead and influence. We recognize that change and leadership can happen from the ‘bottom up’, but in general, the closer the individual’s role is to the top of the (formal) hierarchy, the more important the individual (and his or her role) is perceived to be in the organization. Where sustainability as a function is located in university structures can have a profound influence on how seriously the agenda is taken and how it can help or hinder the leader’s individual style, attributes and behaviour. An additional component to consider is organizational type. This concept was explored in Chapter  1 (Mintzberg 1989). Within this framework, universities traditionally would have fitted a ‘professional structure’ with a large operating core (of professional employees, i.e. academics) and few levels between that and the strategic apex (senior management). The system would have decentralized power and relatively flat hierarchy, with a small techno-structure but a significant support staff to serve the academics professionals. This system would have operated as a collegium, with participative democracy in decision-making, and leadership roles often being on a rotational basis (e.g. a dean serving a three-year term before returning to academic practice). Few but the smallest specialist institutions are likely to operate on this basis these days, as structures have moved more towards Mintzberg’s ‘machine

Leadership Context and Sustainability

119

bureaucracy’ structure, which better match the managerial, accountability and compliance culture which has taken root over the past few decades. This is characterized by the following factors: 1. Most strategic decisions being made at the strategic apex 2. Daily operations are controlled by middle managers directly, using standard procedures and rules (e.g. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) standards, subject benchmarks, credit frameworks just in curriculum design alone) 3. The technostructure and administrative support staff have become large, and coordination is largely achieved through standardizing work processes. This organizational type mirrors the bureaucratic model and fits with management control observations made by Bolden et al. (2015), and Barnett’s descriptor of the bureaucratic university (2011). Such models sit rather uneasily alongside the philosophy and principles of many academic staff who favour more collaborative and collegiate modes of working. However, they have the advantage of providing opportunities for institution-wide conformity and action, with wide-scale buy-in for initiatives if measured through the management hierarchy. Organizational reach, as one of the dimensions identified in the Cambridge Model, tends to be reflected in structures and roles. Little has been written about it, but Mann (1986) as a social historian used it as a term to describe the characteristics of social power networks. These he categorized based on two dimensions: extensive and intensive power (the extent to which influence is tightly or widely bounded in the organization) and authoritative or diffuse power (the former being conscious and explicit by individuals, groups or roles and the latter centralized and non-conscious). Although this concept has not been picked up explicitly in academic leadership or organizational theory literature under this term, the underlying concepts can be identified in writings on power, decision-making processes, and individual leadership styles. In presenting our findings and discussion from the interviews undertaken with sustainability leaders, we have used key themes of (i) reporting lines and (ii) scope of role, within which we have identified cases where there are common findings. Equally important to our understanding are instances where there are differences between universities and we have drawn these out for comment too. Many of the participants used abbreviations and acronyms in their responses, particularly when referring to specific roles with the higher education hierarchy. These are listed in Abbreviations along with their expansions.

120

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Reporting lines Sustainability as a function of university operations tends to be placed in estates divisions with the norm being for it to be led and managed from a professional service perspective, and therefore part of a ‘technostructure’. Within the sample interviewed, two-thirds of the respondents were placed in an estates function. This aligned particularly with those whose main remit was to manage operational-level activities, with strategic engagement and initiatives depending on liaison with senior management formally through line management or through committee structures. Respondents with academic roles were either: (i) learning and teaching focussed, with a remit to embed Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in the institution, and/or (ii) senior management staff (pro-vice chancellor [PVC] or above), whose role was to act as ‘senior sponsor’ for sustainability, in addition to other responsibilities. While those in academic roles maintained a focused (academic) remit, sustainability leaders in estates/professional services and senior staff had a much wider mix of responsibilities, working between academic and professional service functions. This is discussed under ‘Scope of roles’ later. Reporting lines were found to be very varied regardless of whether the individuals were academics or professional service staff, some reporting directly to senior management, others one stage or more removed. For instance, for professional services, respondents reported to a diverse range of management levels and functions. These ranged from the director of estates, to chief operating officer, assistant director of human resources or head of corporate services. The hierarchy beyond the first-line manager was equally diverse. For example: ●

●

●

●

●

‘Reports to the director of Estate Strategy, with a formal dotted line to the PVC’ – University 1 ‘Line manager is director of Estates and Facilities, who reports to the director of finances and resources (Exec member), but “effective” manager is the PVC students’ – University 9 ‘Reports to head of Corporate Services who reports to the deputy COO, and both are on SMT’ – University 15 ‘Reports to assistant director of HR who reports to director of HR who is deputy COO’ – University 18 ‘Reports to head of operations (finance, timetabling, planning etc.) who reports to director of College Administration’ – University 30

The academic and senior management respondents showed similar variation in reporting lines and, for the latter, a diverse mix of portfolio in addition to

Leadership Context and Sustainability

121

sustainability. Respondents with an academic background and sustainability responsibilities usually were line managed through (largely but not exclusively) academic line management, but the remit of the PVC or dean was diverse. For instance: ●

● ● ●

‘Reports to dean (with PVC responsibility for sustainability) but also to DVC research’ – University 5 ‘Reports directly to PVC Education’ – University 6 ‘Reports to the DVC/COO and DVC Academic’ – University 20 ‘Reports to PVC Operations’ – University 2

Two clear typologies of senior management positions were evident. The first was senior management (dean, PVC, DVC) where the individual had a multivarious portfolio, of which sustainability was one element. These individuals usually were members of the executive group. The second type included individuals who held a PVC, or equivalent title, for sustainability alone, and generally they did not attend executive group meetings but may, nonetheless, report to the vice-chancellor. Interestingly, one senior manager observed: ●

‘In the last year it became clearer that sustainability is the responsibility of all SMT members, with multiple specific owners, rather than it sitting with one person alone.’ – University 32

Scope of roles There was huge diversity in the scope of roles respondents had within sustainability. Although we have broadly categorized respondents as professional service staff and academic and senior management, their background and department did not necessarily determine the scope of their role. Variation was particularly apparent in many ways for the sustainability leaders in professional services. Some had responsibility for education for sustainability (academic responsibilities) in addition to campus operations, and extracurricular student engagement. Sometimes they had staff within their line management who were academics working in ESD: in other cases, there was a dotted-line relationship with faculty staff or learning and teaching units. ●

●

‘Employs an academic lead with which s/he shares the curriculum work’ – University 9 (estates based) ‘Tends to be sustainability for the physical estate as a leverage point and priority, but lead on Environmental Strategy and bringing together impact

122

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

of research, cross disciplinarity, student engagement and curriculum’ – University 21 (estates based) However, there was no evidence of academic roles taking on professional service responsibility (e.g. campus operations), probably reflecting the cultural norms in the sector. At the senior management level, portfolios were more varied and did cross the academic–professional service domains. One key observation which emerges from the interviews is that the scope of ‘sustainability’ varied by university. Of the twenty-three sustainability professionals interviewed, about sixty per cent had responsibility for environmental sustainability only, with the balance operating with a wider scope. For some, the scope was even more narrow than environmental sustainability and covered carbon reduction only. Others worked with wider definitions, including community engagement, social responsibility, equality and diversity in addition to environmental sustainability. Within this spectrum, there was a long-term trend for universities to embrace increasingly wide definitions of sustainability along with other sectors of society such as government agencies and institutions. Underlying these developments is the growing importance of national and international policies ranging from local and national pollution targets to international drivers such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (2015). A small number of professional service leaders deemed themselves to have solely operational roles, for example, waste management, buildings and transport management, but for the most part respondents noted they had opportunities to engage in the strategic development of sustainability in the university (whether environmental sustainability or a wider definition). In contrast, academics and senior managers all saw themselves as having strategic roles regarding sustainability. The variety of roles is illustrated in the following responses. ●

●

●

‘70% operational core estates work related to environment. 30% wide ranging strategic theme work’ – University 11 (estates based) ‘Pretty fluid. Defined as environmental in Estates but is also expected to leverage sustainability and culture change through integration and maintenance of sustainability across the University’ – University 13 (estates based) ‘Encouraged to expand outside of estates/environmental by some members of the senior team, mixed messages coming through, more engagement with ESD, procurement, finance, research projects in recent years though’ – University 22 (estates based)

Leadership Context and Sustainability ●

●

123

‘Responsibility to lead across 5 strategic arms of the sustainability strategy, being 1. Leadership and Governance, 2. Business Operations, 3. Academic Innovation, 4. Student Experience, and 5. Partnership and Engagement’ – University 28 (academic) ‘Responsible for strategy, accountability, reporting and delivery of plans’ – University 33 (senior management)

The conclusion that emerges from the aforementioned evidence is that sustainability as a function does not ‘fit neatly’ into either the operating core or technostructure of universities (i.e. academic or professional service functions), nor does it have consistency in reporting lines through middle management to the senior management. What is apparent is staff in professional service roles (largely estates based) have a diverse remit and can encapsulate elements of responsibility for academic activity and/or strategy. Such lack of clarity may not be an issue, but this depends on organizational cultures and decisionmaking methods, and how the institution accepts the leadership skills, styles and attributes needed to lead effectively in such a multidimensional, multicategorized space. Such fluidity is essential, though, to taking forward a sustainability agenda at the institutional level, particularly if the institution is seeking to embed it in multiple aspects of its work. It works where there are mechanisms for professional services and academics to work together, creating and discussing sustainability, rather than where work streams remain in silos and disciplinary/functional boundaries.

Discussion Of concern from the results was the positioning of sustainability within institutional roles. None of the respondents held executive positions dedicated to sustainability or a sustainability role designated with equal status to other functions (such as human resources, finance, estates, research etc.). Universities are still struggling to justify the importance of the subject in relation to these other areas. This is paradoxical given its all-embracing reach and potential, but it is probably this breadth that also limits its profile:  Key roles in universities tend to reflect key functions with responsibility for specific key performance indicators (KPIs). It is a struggle to find a KPI to measure sustainability, and it usually finds itself limited to a carbon emission or accreditation target, diminishing its importance in governance. This means that the profile and priority of sustainability then depend on other factors: the interest and values of the vice-chancellor in sustainability, business case drivers (such as reputation) or

124

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

embedded institutional values. These are considered further later in the section on influencers and challenges. Individuals with sustainability leadership positions in large part need to operate outside of their expertise, as well as beyond their departmental boundaries. As evident from the interviews, many sustainability leaders (particularly professional service staff and senior management) had institution-wide portfolios outside of their area of expertise, and had to bridge the academic–professional service divide. The downside of this is distinctive to higher education – and the challenges arising from the management/professorial disjuncture. It may be an uphill struggle for a sustainability leader who is in a professional services area to have a legitimate voice when it comes to research, knowledge exchange, learning and teaching  – yet they may find themselves charged with taking it forward. A  silo approach to resource allocation at the departmental level, which is a common practice in universities, jeopardizes success further, as estates-based sustainability leaders may have to justify spending their budget on student- or academic-based initiatives, where the benefits are garnered outside of the remit of their domain. Most respondents were given the opportunity to operate at a strategic level, even though their role in an organizational hierarchy would not suggest this. For the most part, this would have come about because of the dearth of expertise at more senior levels in the organization, with sustainability leaders needing to take the role of ‘expert’ in the institution. This can be challenging (or exhilarating) for the sustainability leaders, depending on their individual style of leadership, their skills and the extent to which the organizational culture accepts, and embraces, challenge outside of the normal hierarchy.

Governance and committee structures All universities operate with formal processes and procedures for decisionmaking through committee-based structures. These were described by Sharpe in Chapter 4 as the ‘command-control operating system’. While the details of what the committees are, who attends them, what they are called and their precise terms of reference differ by institution (and change over time), there are three core precepts: 1. The governing body (board-of-director equivalent), with the vicechancellor as a member, along with appointed pro bono external

Leadership Context and Sustainability

125

parties, and possibly the wider university community as members or in attendance. This may be called a ‘governing body’ or ‘council’. 2. Decision-making on academic matters (learning and teaching, research and knowledge exchange) through to an ‘academic board’ (or equivalent term) reporting to the governing body (and sometimes the executive group) 3. Decision-making on institutional strategy, management and operations, through to an ‘executive group’ (or equivalent term) reporting to the governing body. In practice, there can be blurring of the terms of reference between committees within a university, and lack of clarity as to which committee should scrutinize an initiative. For example, does ‘student experience’ sit within the terms of reference of an academic learning and teaching committee, an estates/accommodation committee, the student union or all three and more? Where there is discussion in research and knowledge exchange committees on strategies for research funding, should this be referred to as a finance committee? Where the initiative spans the boundary of the academic and professional services, the opportunity for confusion, obfuscation and delay abound. For most sustainability leaders, this is their domain! University governance comprises the constitutional forms and processes through which universities govern their affairs, as would a board of directors in a commercial organization. Universities may operate under many governance typologies, with newer universities (in the United Kingdom at least) tending towards more structured management and governance (governing body), compared to the older universities, which are more likely to operate with broader participation of executive, non-executive and academics (senate, council). The scope of governance includes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

ensuring accountability and effective scrutiny setting strategic aims and goals monitoring and measuring performance appointing and ensuring the effectiveness of the head of institution/chief executive officer (CEO).

As such, it offers external validation, objectivity and assurance to the university management and executive. In addition, it can be used in a mentoring or advisory capacity, in common with trustee roles in the third sector, whereby (external) members of the governance entity are recruited to bring useful experience or expertise to the institution in addition to their direct governance role.

126

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Committee structures About seventy-five per cent of the universities included in the research operated with a sustainability committee in some manner, and all those with a senior manager responsible for sustainability had one. The format, composition and reporting lines for the committees were hugely varied, and largely reflected: 1. where in the organizational structure sustainability leadership was located 2. the scope of sustainability (whether it was ESD, estates or wider) 3. the interests at the institutional level of the sustainability agenda as an important element of the university’s distinctiveness and ethos. Various models were seen, and these included (to a greater or lesser extent) the involvement of Academic Board, University Executive Group and/or their various sub-groups. These variations reflected, in part, whether the sustainability agenda was considered strategic or not, estates-focussed or academically focussed. For example, University 28 considered sustainability to be a core strategic driver, with a whole institutional approach, and has the vice-chair of the council as the advocate/leader for the agenda. In contrast, University 34, which has an operational estates-led approach to sustainability has no governor links (beyond cost-based KPIs) with management/decision-making being undertaken within finance and estates functions. The most popular structure showed a multipartite system of decisionmaking for sustainability, with the executive group and the board of governors considering the university’s strategy and achievements in this area, but with decisions on specific aspects handled through committees reporting to them. Within these, there was a clear trend towards widening the engagement in the agenda across functional and academic areas of the university through crossinstitutional sustainability committees. For example: ●

●

‘Sustainability education is integrated into the existing academic committee structure, but there is also now an integrated sustainability committee that brings together research, estates, learning and teaching and engagement. It reports to the University Planning Advisory committee’ – University 6 (academic) ‘Environment committee, chaired by chief Estates and Facilities officer, includes campus representatives, professional support areas and academics from each faculty’ – University 8 (professional services)

A couple of universities had moved to a hierarchical committee structure within sustainability, whereby there was a series of sub-groups or subcommittees

Leadership Context and Sustainability

127

reporting to a strategic formal group. This was felt to encourage implementation in a more flexible manner, and to break a disparate sustainability agenda into manageable chunks. ●

●

‘Two main groups: the SRS committee which sits within formal governance structures and chaired by the assistant VP, and the Sustainable Operations Advisory Sub-Group which is responsible for overseeing practical change projects’ – University 25 ‘Strategic, cross institutional sustainability committee reports to SMT but has a series of working groups reporting into it (e.g. food, procurement). Some overlap with education and student experience group on aspects of the agenda’ – University 32

Governance Of the thirty-four interviewees in this study, eighteen were from ‘older’ universities (defined as those institutions which were universities before 1992)  and the balance were ‘post-92’ or newer universities. The majority, whatever their origin, noted that the matters relating to sustainability were reported to the governing body or council. In most cases, this was an annual ‘reporting’ event of the sustainability progress and outcomes, possibly recorded against a KPI on one aspect only (such as carbon reduction), and active interest from the governing body to this was varied. Typical response included: ●

●

‘Reports to the executive and the Board through the Audit Committee’ – University 9 ‘Reporting annually to the Governing Body’ – University 11

Others had a less formal engagement with the governing body: ●

●

‘Reports onto Senior Management Team then the Governing Body only if relevant’ – University 22 ‘No links to Governors currently’ – University 34

A very small number of universities had more radical means of engagement with the governing body, whether through the specific interest in sustainability from a member of the board, or through sustainability leaders becoming elected members of the board. For instance: ●

‘The vice-chair of Council is responsible overall for the sustainability portfolio, with the VC and PVC talking management responsibility’ – University 28

128 ●

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

‘No governance interest until I stood for Senate and Council . . . there were then discussions . . . . at Council’ – University 7

Discussion Given the importance attached to formal decision-making through committees and boards in universities, it is encouraging to see that the majority of respondents are engaging in sustainability with knowledge of the governing body (or council) and that many have put in place cross-functional committees for sustainability. This suggests legitimacy for the function, and recognition of its institutional importance. There may be bias in the sample, of course, as those interviewed were selected as they are successful leaders, and so are more likely to work in universities where the sustainability agenda has veracity. More concerning, however, is the lack of depth of engagement at senior and board levels. Most governing body engagement in sustainability seemed to be through receipt of information, rather than decision-making relating to sustainability. This suggests that it has yet to reach the realms that concern them as a priority. Reporting to the governing body took two forms, either: (i) a detailed report on progress or (ii) progress against KPIs. With the former, it was often presented ‘for information’; with the latter, the KPI presented often only represented a small, discrete aspect of sustainability and an incomplete view of its potential (or risk) for the university. It is not surprising that there are as many committee types, terms of reference, membership and reporting lines as there are views on how sustainability should be defined. Sustainability seems to transcend normal academic and professional service reporting lines, which brings its benefits and limitations. A key benefit is that it is not ‘compartmentalized’ into being within a specific function. In the early days, it may have been dealt with as an estates function, though estatesbased boards, but now it has broken out into the wider institutional realm, with greater buy-in and many more opportunities for wide-reaching impact. Where the sustainability committee reports directly to the executive group, this provides a particularly powerful conduit for legitimacy, visibility and achievement. With breadth comes problems of ownership. For many sustainability initiatives, there is a chance that they impact on multiple areas of the university, beyond the one where the responsibility for it is held. For example, an ESD initiative would need consideration through learning, teaching and quality committees as it affects the pedagogic, quality assurance and enhancement offer of the university. However, the initiative may impact on the extracurricular offer for students also,

Leadership Context and Sustainability

129

involving the student experience committee. If the estate is being used (e.g. the gardens at Canterbury Christ Church University for their Bioversity initative), the estates committee may need to be involved in the decision. This can slow decision-making unless key members of relevant committees are co-opted onto the sustainability committee, in which case it becomes of an unmanageable size, or mimics the senior management team meeting! Additionally, as the most popular decision-making structure showed a multipartite system for sustainability (being considered across many management and academic committees), there is a risk that the agenda as a whole could become disparate. This could result in just a few people in the organization understanding it in total, or how one component may impact another. An example of this could be changes in estate or residence operations impacting student experience and engagement. This could lead to decision-making happening in the absence of full information (regarding the benefits or costs of an initiative) and a stark focus on key individuals who are the only ones with a firm grasp on the totality of it. Although it is not unusual for decisions to be made in the absence of full information, the all-embracing nature of involvement and impact of a sustainability initiative in universities means that, unless there is oversight of sustainability across the institution, costs and opportunities may be missed. For example, an estates function may switch to electric vehicles as the running costs are lower (over a set payback period) and carbon emissions reduced. However, the initiative may bring wider reputational benefits for the university in its community and with the student body, which are not factored into the benefit–cost analysis.

The invisible part of the iceberg: Influencers and challenges It is something of truism to say that the higher education sector and its employees are unique. It is, in actuality, a sector which has a heady mix of characteristics that together make for a distinctive culture, or cultures. The railing against authority or the hierarchy from many in the sector (usually academics) mean ‘micropolitical pressures’ are more prevalent here than elsewhere (Lumby 2012). Using the theatre as an analogy, Becher (1988) helps to clarify how universities operate. The general public witness what happens onstage in the public arena, meanwhile there are teams which operate backstage to see that the university is presented in the best possible light and to communicate its vision. Private conversations, tactics to include some and exclude others and discussions about

130

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

academic freedom and so forth represent ‘under-stage activities’ and in practice these often dominate the agenda. Just as in the theatre, the public enjoy the performance but do not realize how it was devised; so students and the general public are aware of the formal aspects of an organization and what it achieves but do not appreciate those aspects of its culture which are hidden from view or which are implicit in its culture. To use another analogy, what they see is just the tip of the iceberg. Organizational culture as an influencer on leadership behaviours is both allembracing and also elusive in its definition and scope. The concept was introduced into academic literature in the late 1970s, where it was recognized that individuals in organizations could possess distinct shared values, beliefs and norms. The rather simplistic notion that all employees held common values and beliefs with each other simplified studies of organizational culture (the reality being that we each bring individual and personal belief systems from other life experiences into the workplace). That being said, the notion of organizational norms (‘this is the way we do things here’) has traction, even if individual responses to it may vary. Although there have been many definitions of organizational culture, a popularly used one is that by Schein (1985), who identified it as the ‘basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared consistently across members of an organisation’, stressing the role of leaders in creating and maintaining culture. This may be through role-modelling, sanctions or reward for instance. As with definitions, typologies attempting to categorize organizational cultures proliferate. More popular categorizations have included ones such as tough guy, support, monarchical, task-orientated or achievement as labels (Furnham 2015). In universities, it is generally recognized that cultures are changing over time, largely because of the shifts in policy and market environment, and shifts from professional (or collegiate) to managerialism and bureaucracy. However, cultural norms do not change quickly, there are aspects of culture within universities that are long-standing (Garrett and Davies 2011). These include: 1. The notion that managing academics is like ‘herding cats’, and ‘cats will not be commanded’. 2. Cultural norms can be affected not just by the immediate past, but sometimes distant past, with the prestige and ethos of the university central to this heritage. 3. The centrality of debate and critique, whether of the complex or the minutiae 4. In tandem with the aforementioned, the dislike of the bureaucratic whist contributing to it.

Leadership Context and Sustainability

131

In respect of the last point, Garrett and Davies note the relevance even now of the writings by Cornford (1874–1943), a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who described his colleagues in circumstances where change was proposed: Wasting time is another method of obstruction . . . the simplest method [here] is [to be] boring. Talk slowly and indistinctly, at a little distance from the point. While you are engaged in [being] boring it does not matter much what you talk about; but if possible you should discourse upon the proper way of doing something you are notorious for doing badly yourself. (Cornford 1908)

Throughout our discussion, influencers and challenges have been front, centre and background to our subject area. In the following sections, we draw out some themes emerging from the interview process, recognizing that this will not present a complete list, but will focus on the speed of decision-making and the lack of interest of decision-makers. In reviewing the responses, we touch on the language used, processes undertaken and factors that influenced or challenged the sustainability leaders.

Barriers to change In terms of speed for decision-making, as Garrett and Davies suggested, agreement to change, particularly at a behavioural level, can take considerable time in universities. The sustainability agenda is no exception to this, especially where its development involves groups and functions outside of the sustainability function itself. ●

●

‘Time for decision making very long due to devolved nature of the institution. There was an 18 month period of consultation to build policy and strategy involving council and school committees’ – University 1 ‘It took three years to get the ESD programme developed from something informal through a low profile ESD group comprised of Geography academics to a formal stage in the university’ – University 11

Slowness of progress should not be seen as a given, particularly for discrete activities, as the following example illustrates: ●

‘Got the University from EcoCampus Gold to Platinum in one year’ – University 26

As well as delaying tactics for agreeing changes, barriers can also come from lack of interest or perceived relevance to the decision-makers, influential groups or individuals with fixed (unhelpful) views.

132 ●

● ●

●

●

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

‘Barrier largely from academic [leadership]. First Dean got it and supportive, second and third compliant and forth destructive due to university cost saving measures’ – University 7 ‘Biggest challenge is line manager who ignores 90% of my work’ – University 9 ‘Lack of clear obvious and ongoing commitment from the senior management and lack of time for academics to consider, learn and take forward ESD as part of systematic change’ – University 12 ‘Biggest challenge is old school environmentalists unable to change their language and reframe their position on sustainability’ – University 18 ‘Barrier was individual PVC with a massive chip on his/her shoulder, along with the VC who was not interested’ – University 23

The importance of the senior leadership cannot be understated when it comes to setting the tone for interest in sustainability, either positively or negatively. ●

●

●

‘It is made clear that being good enough is not enough: everything has to be brilliant and amazing which reflects our situation in the sector’ – University 29 ‘Sustainability was the pet project of the previous VC which was not inclusive and people were not generally engaged’ – University 28 ‘Had to work below the radar until the new VC came, which was vital as s/ he supported and allowed the agenda to happen’ – University 30

Discussion Given the wide-ranging number of potential influencers, challenges and factors that can be brought to bear within an organization’s culture (or the unseen part of the iceberg) seeking common themes or learning is something of a challenge. Rather, the examples provided earlier from the survey respondents, who are all successful sustainability leaders in their institutions, show their political intelligence in understanding and navigating towards success in their institutions. As stated before, no ‘one best way’ can emerge from this analysis, but that adaptability, flexibility and awareness of the institutional environment and its culture are of utmost importance.

Conclusion This chapter presents a synopsis of the organizational context sustainability leaders are operating in, looking at role, scope, governance, structures and the underlying cultural dynamics. Although the Cambridge Model, on which our

Leadership Context and Sustainability

133

enquiry was based, listed attributes of relevance to organizational context, it did not test these empirically. This seems entirely reasonable as the context is specific, not something from which we can infer overarching patterns or best practice for all contexts in a deterministic manner. As such, our enquiry operated on the basis of description and discussion of what context sustainability leaders have to navigate within universities. Some of the contextual findings apply across all universities, such as the schism between academic and professional service functions, and the sometimes convoluted decision-making structures required through multipartite committee structures. The sustainability leader is not exempt from these, having to work within the bounds and mores of custom and practice. Within this, there were substantial challenges that were distinctive to sustainability leaders. These include: 1. As sustainability is a cross-institutional theme, leadership needed to work with both academic and professional service functions, and sometimes for professional service staff to line manage academics. 2. This impacted on committee representation and attendance, needing extensive coverage across many of the university committees. It was disappointing to see the relative lack of interest in sustainability by governing bodies in the sample, despite one or two enlightened institutions. This suggests that the theme has not yet registered at senior levels as being a core element of organizational success, or that sustainability leadership has not been in a position to articulate this to date in language that resonates with this group, particularly where the individual is operating in a role that has little direct contact with senior management. We also appreciate the limitations of only exploring leadership in the context of formal organizational structures in this research, in other words, we only interviewed individuals who held a title and formal position in the organization related to sustainability. As the section on cultures and influencers noted, there are significant conversations, engagements and informal influencers abounding in universities. These are all leaders in sustainability too (in that they successfully influence others towards a goal), but not ones we have captured in our analysis. Our hope is that those with formal sustainability leadership positions have the appropriate skills and leadership styles to identify and collaborate with these individuals. The next chapter will explore this further.

7

Leadership and the Individual

Introduction During our research and writing, the most common question that has been asked is, ‘Is sustainability leadership different from leadership in general?’ Of course, in writing this book we believe it is, sensing that its distinctiveness arises from a heady mix of beliefs and integrity, contextual understanding, untangling complexity and embracing interconnectedness, combined with a sense of urgency to achieve positive sustainability outcomes, and more than a small amount of hope! Many others agree with us. For instance, Metcalf and Benn (2013: 381) noted that:  ‘leadership for sustainability requires leaders of extraordinary abilities. These are likely to be leaders who can read and predict through complexity, can think through complex problems, engage groups in dynamic adaptive organizational change and can manage emotion appropriately’. Many of these abilities refer to individual attributes held by successful sustainability leaders, and in this chapter we concentrate on this aspect. Unpicking individual traits, styles, skills and knowledge from the plethora of influences on an individual is not something that can be done easily. For instance, to what extent and how has an individual’s worldview, and world eco-view, been developed prior to their organizational role? Schein (2015) explores this as a psychologist, suggesting that our perspective on our individual relationship with nature as well as the relationship among human society, technology and nature, impacts strongly on our values and behaviours in relation to sustainability. We may, for instance, believe that we are part of nature, as any other species. Maybe we think that technology can provide solutions to ameliorate the impacts of our human-centric consumerist societies? We may have an interest in one or two aspects or foci relating to our interests or experiences. The following quotations provide a small number of examples from wellknown sustainability advocates. It would be naive to think that there is a direct,

136

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

exclusive cause-and-effect relationship between these short sound bites and the wider value set and worldview of the individual, rather they are here to illustrate possible differences. The future is green energy, sustainability, renewable energy. (Arnold Schwarzenegger, US actor, turned Republican politician) I came to all the realizations about sustainability and biodiversity because I fell in love with the way food tastes. That was it. And because I was looking for that taste I feel at the doorsteps of the organic, local, sustainable farmers, dairy people and fisherman. (Alice Waters, chef, restauranteur and activist, the United States) In the 21st century, I think the heroes will be the people who will improve the quality of life, fight poverty and introduce more sustainability. (Bertrand Piccard, Swedish psychiatrist, from a family of explorers) I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate. (Jonathan Porritt, UK Baronet, political and environmental activist and campaigner) Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed. (Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian Independence Movement against British rule)

Within this small sample, it is possible to suggest influences on the individual’s eco-views and the confidence and style of communicating them. For instance, Schwarzenegger seems to operate within the eco-view of technology solutions, while Porritt shows the confidence to ask the ‘unaskable’ questions of people, getting to the nub of the issue, it being human assimilative capacities and lifestyle choices. Gandhi’s stance is clear about the potential harm from humans by consumerism. It is possible to detect in Waters’s and Piccard’s quotes how their interest in sustainability has come about too, through food provenance and cultivation on one hand, together with the role of the hero in global travel and understanding human behaviours on the other. Adding to the mix here we can also include the influence of cultures, historical and geographical location, and religious and political views. Additionally, understanding of the external and organizational context the individual is operating in highlights the fact that good leadership (and good sustainability leadership) does not rely exclusively on the individual’s traits, style, skills and knowledge, but on the compatibility of these with the context within which they are operating. This link is explicit in the Cambridge Model, which suggests that sustainability leadership results from the complex interplay of contextual

Leadership and the Individual

137

and individual characteristics, resulting in a range of (internal and external) outcomes (Visser and Courtice 2011). It follows that the leader needs to be adaptable to context. To quote leadership author John Maxwell, who noted the need for the leader to adapt to the organizational context: ‘The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails.’ (http://www.getmotivation.com/john-maxwell-hof.html, accessed 18 June 2017) In this chapter, we present the research we have conducted that focuses on the specific, distinctive, individual attributes of the sustainability leader. For this, we formulated a set of likely attributes based on empirical data from the literature which focused on ‘the leader as individual’ rather than his or her context or actions, using the list provided in the Cambridge Model as a starting point. This provided a list of traits, styles, skills and knowledge that are considered to contribute to success in sustainability leadership. We are mindful that the respondents from whom the list was derived were chief executive officers (CEOs) or board-level leaders in large corporations, but consider that they still provide a helpful starting point, albeit not within the higher education context or with the individuals leading specifically on the sustainability agenda who do not operate at the board level. We are also mindful of the findings in the report published by a consortium of researchers, ‘Turnaround Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education’ (Scott et  al. 2012). This research emanated from Australian Universities, but the cohort of leaders questioned were from a global cohort, including those from Australasia, North America, the United kingdom and Europe. The purpose of the research was to bring together recommendations for universities looking to pursue education for sustainability through leadership actions. This empirical piece presented the results of a wide-ranging survey instrument (188 respondents from an international sample) after a small number of semistructured interviews. It sought to establish, among other data, leadership capabilities required in their context. These were loosely analogous to the traits and styles noted in the Cambridge Model, through capabilities determined as (i) personal, (ii) interpersonal and (iii) cognitive. The results from this study are incorporated in the following list. The approach used by Scott et al. is distinctive from our current research, however, in the following ways: 1. Scott et al. (2012) considered education for sustainability only, and did not encapsulate the wholesale cross-institutional functionality of our approach, as we have done in our research.

138

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

2. The methodology for establishing traits and styles relied on responses to Likert-style questions. These provide a predetermined list of attributes for the respondents to assess themselves, which can result in respondents overstating capabilities and positive traits, and also prompt consciousness of these. Our approach differed in that we asked for spontaneous, non-prompted responses, and did not seek to measure priorities against each other. For the remainder of the chapter, we consider separately (i) traits and styles and (ii) knowledge and skills as individual leadership attributes. We briefly define each attribute and provide a short set of findings from the general literature on each to date, followed by findings and discussion from our research. We are aware that our respondents all hold formal responsibility for sustainability (or some aspect of it) in their institution. We have not captured in this analysis the individual attributes of those leaders in sustainability in universities who do not have formal responsibility, but may provide substantial influence. We are aware of, and appreciate, that this may be seen to be a gap in our enquiry, but the ‘size of our mesh and extent of our trawl’ has not enabled these to be captured here.

Traits and styles – concepts Traits are distinctive and enduring attributes, qualities and personal characteristics of an individual, and are usually described linguistically as adjectives or phrases used to describe aspects of their personality or behaviour. Traits are traditionally considered to be innate (aspects of personality we were born with), but there is general acceptance now that these may change and evolve from experiences interacting with others, and situations we are faced with. Leadership theories for sustainability draw on aspects of both trait and style implicitly, whether in transformational leadership models, deep systems leadership or through recognition of the relevance and need for emotional intelligence and authentic leadership in sustainability leaders. It is helpful to note that demarcating a behaviour as ‘trait’ or ‘style’ presents something of a bimodal differentiator whereas, in reality, it may be difficult to distinguish whether a means of interpersonal engagement (style) is also an innate trait/personality factor. As such, there are areas of overlap and repetition presented in the lists that follow. Research reporting on leadership traits by necessity produce lists of these. Table 7.1 provides a brief synopsis of the main traits identified by first the Cambridge Model and then by Scott et al. (2012) and, finally, a summary of core traits that arose from our discussion on sustainability leadership theories in Chapter  1.

Leadership and the Individual

139

Table  7.1 Trait lists for sustainability leadership, a comparison of findings in the literature Cambridge Model by Visser and Courtice (2011)

Turnaround Leadership by Scott et al. (2012)

Collation of traits from other sustainability leadership theories

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• Empathy and emotional intelligence • Humility, inclusive and diverse approach, giving credit to others • Values-led • Energy, passion and enthusiasm • Persistence and resilience

Caring Morally driven Systemic Holistic thinker Enquiring Open-minded Self-aware Empathetic Visionary Courageous

Personal awareness Energy Passion Perseverance Being true to one’s personal values and ethics • Being willing to give credit to others

Interestingly, in Scott’s findings, there was almost total concurrence between these and the findings of an earlier survey of academic leadership generally in 2008, rather suggesting that there are no specific ‘sustainability leader’ traits. As with all lists of leadership traits, there are nuanced differences between each of these, but overall there is consensus around: 1. a values-led approach 2. empathetic stance 3. energy, enthusiasm and passion. The traits identified provide something of an ancillary list of traits compared to those highlighted for successful leadership in general. These include intelligence, initiative, self-confidence, sociability and extraversion. We should assume that leadership traits for sustainability add to, rather than contradict these. While leadership traits refer to personal attributes of an individual, leadership style is the manner that the individual uses to direct and motivate others, or exhibit in their day-to-day operations. As with traits, leadership style has been subject to much scrutiny and development within leadership theory, models and frameworks. These included, for example, Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid, which determined that leadership styles could be categorized as combinations of people – or task – orientation. In terms of the sustainability leadership models, typical styles emerging from the literature include: 1. high levels of meaningful communication 2. inclusive approach

140

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

3. balancing long-term thinking with self-interest in decision-making 4. collaborative decision-making, collegial atmosphere 5. willingness to give credit to others These styles collectively point towards a transformational leadership approach (Galpin and Whittington 2012), whereby strong relationship building between the leader and teams leads to trustworthiness and a collaborative approach in a highly motivated arena. Findings from the Cambridge Model deemed sustainability leadership style as inclusive, visionary, creative, altruistic and radical. Scott et al.’s (2012) research again identified congruence between the most important aspects of leadership style (interpersonal capabilities) and those of academic leadership in general, these being: empathy with a wide range of staff and faculty, listening to different points of view, motivating others, adopting team-based approaches and showing transparency and honesty. As with sustainability leadership traits, it appears there is congruence in the literature about most successful leadership styles for a sustainability leader. In general, exceptional people-leadership seems to prevail, alongside nonhierarchical approaches, where the leader’s style instils trust, confidence and motivation in others.

Traits and styles – findings and discussion To investigate individual traits and styles for sustainability leaders in universities, we reviewed the responses from the questionnaire which targeted these areas. These included questions on the attributes, qualities or personal characteristics the respondent felt are important for successful sustainability, as well as the manner and approach found to be effective. We sought responses without prompt from the participants, rather than providing them with a list of traits or styles from which they could select their preferences. The rationale for this was to capture their views directly rather than their responses to others’ findings, and to avoid leading their thought processes. The purpose of these questions was to establish self-reflection, as well as to capture the expertise from the respondents as to which individual traits and styles were valuable for a sustainability leader. Without a set form of words or descriptors provided to the respondents, the responses to these questions proved to be varied in their content and type of language used. For example, respondents from University 2 described themselves as ‘a pain in the ass’,

Leadership and the Individual

141

respondent 3 as ‘noisy’, with other synonyms being ‘outspoken’. To sense-make the results, we worked towards standardization of language, so, for example in the aforementioned case, we used ‘outspoken’ as a general category. From this, we collated responses to seek the most commonly used phrases or words to describe, first, traits, and then style. The results from collating responses on traits are provided in Figure 7.1. This has been presented using a ‘wordle’ created from the data set of responses, where the largest font sizes represent the most popular phrases used. This schematic presents a clear steer on which the most noted traits were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

relationship builder cross-boundary empathetic passionate communicative outspoken trustworthy

Not all respondents demonstrated the full range of these, and in some cases, seemingly contradictory traits were listed. For example, ●

●

‘Outspoken, vocal and bubbly! Puts money where mouth is, open and tenacious. Human dynamo!’ – University 19 ‘Oh gosh! Low key and not in people’s faces. Brings people along and builds relationships’ – University 27

Figure 7.1 Traits identified by university sustainability leaders

142

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

There is no one ‘best way’ to lead, of course, and traits demonstrate for successful leaders involve knowing when to bring those to the fore that will succeed in their organizational culture and context. The following quote summarizes this well and recognizes the chameleon-like adaptability trait: ●

‘Tactically adroit in the face of adverse circumstances’ – University 10

Analysis was also undertaken on respondents according to whether they were (i) professional service staff; (ii) academics or (iii) senior management. For the first, the most popular phrases correlated well with those mentioned earlier. Academic respondents’ priority phrases were:  trustworthy, demanding and facilitator. Senior management responses strongly prioritized cross-boundary working as the most important attribute. Although small samples, these suggest the different priorities, and subcultures within universities depending on their roles and functions. Figure 7.2 uses the same means to collate results for style as for traits. The styles considered to be the most relevant by the respondents were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

collaborative directional motivating empowering having long-term vision team and ‘others’ orientated consultative.

Figure 7.2 Styles identified by university sustainability leaders

Leadership and the Individual

143

There were few differences between professional service respondents and academics in reviewing style, although academics favoured ‘supportive’ styles whereas professional service staff ’s most mentioned style was ‘collaborative’. Senior management were distinguished by role, with the terms ‘motivation’ and ‘long-term-vision’ being most important. In reviewing the aforementioned results using this method, there appear to be few surprises at the outset taking each individually, whether intuitively or by comparing our findings against our earlier literature reviews. All note the need for empathy and emotional intelligence; giving credit to others is a common attribute, as is inclusivity, collaboration, passion and being visionary and valuesled. Of more interest are instances where there are gaps, contradictions or additions in the attributes we identified compared to other findings. These are discussed as follows. 1. Two common traits identified by our respondents were those of ‘relationship builder’ and being ‘cross-boundary’. Our respondents considered that the ability to network and engage outside of their team, functional area and ‘comfort zone’ was vital in bringing disparate views and perspectives together across the university. This was not specified by others, although the need for inclusive, collaborative styles of team engagement were identified by all. It is likely that our sample, operating cross-institutionally with multifunctional scope, in a sector where consensus is needed to take ideas forward, recognized this as traits are of value to their organizational context. 2. The extent to which leaders were humble, directed or courageous and directional differed greatly, even within our sample. Sustainability leadership theories suggest the need for humility, giving credit to others, as do the findings from Scott. Visser and Courtice presented a somewhat martyr-like scenario of the courageous, radical yet altruistic sustainability leader – or possibly the need to adopt different approaches in different contexts. Our findings suggest, rather, consummate adaptability by sustainability leaders in universities: yes, they need to be consultative, collaborative, approachable and empower others, but coming out strongly in our findings were the terms ‘outspoken’, and ‘directional’ too, by some. Others very much felt the need to operate under the radar, taking the sustainability agenda forward but not attracting too much attention until results could be shown. This suggests the need to be proactive and valuesled but, given that sustainability relies on leadership through facilitation

144

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

rather than command and control, the successful leader must also adopt the more recognized approach of ‘taking others with you’. 3. Interestingly, and rather counter-intuitively, descriptors relating to ‘morally driven’ or ‘values-led’, which appeared in the literature, did not prevail in the traits articulated by our sustainability leader respondents, although the phrase ‘trustworthy’ was frequently used. This does not mean that our sustainability leaders lack moral fibre, or are instrumental-only in their support for sustainability, but rather we suggest it was considered to be a ‘given’ or ‘assumption to be present’ by them.

Skills and knowledge – concepts Skills and knowledge refer to an individual’s competences, abilities, expertise or proficiency, whether innate or learnt. In terms of sustainability and leadership, the Cambridge Model listed (but did not elaborate on) the required skills and knowledge as shown in Table 7.2. Scott’s results on skills and knowledge for education for sustainability leaders were somewhat more pragmatic than those listed in the Cambridge Model. The priority skills and knowledge were: organization and time management skills, being able to communicate to a range of different groups and understanding how universities operate. Sara Parkin, of Forum for the Future, has written extensively on sustainability in general, and sustainability leadership, through her iconic book The Positive Deviant (Parkin 2010). Within this, she reiterates the list of skills and knowledge necessary for ‘sustainability-first’ leaders, these being leaders who operate with sustainability at the front and centre of their practice. We know in universities that sustainability leaders need to work in a more pragmatic, instrumental, way with due regard to conforming to core institutional priorities but Parkin’s Table  7.2 List of skills and knowledge required for sustainability leadership identified in the Cambridge Model Skills

Knowledge

• Managing complexity • Communicating vision • Exercising judgement • Challenging and innovating • Thinking long term

• Global challenges and dilemmas • Interdisciplinary and connections • Change dynamics and options • Organizational influences and impacts • Diverse stakeholder views

Leadership and the Individual

145

suggestions offer substantial value here nonetheless. Her list of skills and knowledge starts with the need for a good enough knowledge base. This enables making connections between ethics and values, people and community, science and technology, and economics. These require knowledge of the following: 1. Ethics and values. Confidence in self and own values to identify and critique the values of others, whether they are explicit or implicit. Philosophically, able to question modern assumptions about progress and articulate sustainability paths to living a ‘good’ life. 2. People and community. Understanding people and their place in communities, to design different courses of action and to bring people with you. 3. Science and technology. Good enough knowledge to be able to be a discriminating user of scientific evidence, and able to communicate about it effectively. 4. Economics. Sufficient knowledge about core ideas to argue for and contribute to the transition to sustainability as the arbiter of economic success. (Parkin 2010: 162–6)

In 2004, Parkin and others produced guidance for universities seeking to establish formal training (usually at the master’s level) on sustainability and sustainability leadership (Parkin et al. 2004). Many of the ideas represented in the material arose in the Forum for the Future work (including the application of Porritt’s Five Capitals Model discussed in Chapter 5), and are also reflected in Parkin’s later book, The Positive Deviant (2010). Of interest here is the listing of ‘sustainability competences’ required for sustainability leadership. These identify the need for ‘sufficient’ knowledge of sustainable development (as defined earlier), but also recognizes the need for ‘leadership skills’ and ‘knowledge of how society works’ (sustainability context). Leadership skills are identified as including ‘management (of time and people), communications, strategic planning, inspiration, modesty, continual learning and reflection’ as well as selfawareness of style and aptitude. Looking for patterns in the aforementioned listings identifies not only generic leadership skills, but also additional skills and knowledge relating to sustainability. What all show is the need to have good enough knowledge about sustainability (but not necessarily to be an expert) and to demonstrate skills and enough knowledge to make connections and links. From this we can conclude that the sustainability leader needs to operate as the consummate generalist.

146

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Other commonalities are communication skills and strategic/long-term visioning skills, as well as the need to understand the sector or organizational context the individual is working in.

Skills and knowledge – findings and discussion To investigate individual skills and knowledge demonstrated by sustainability leaders in universities we asked our respondents to reflect on the skills and, separately, knowledge they think are important in sustainability leadership. As with our investigation into traits and styles we sought responses without prompt from the participants. Again, without a set ‘form of words’ or descriptors provided to the respondents, the responses to these questions proved to be varied in their content and type of language used, but we collated key themes arising from their responses, and categorized on this basis. These were informed by lists from the Cambridge Model and from the work of Scott and Parkin. We divided the respondents into professional service staff and academic staff to establish if there were any clear discrepancies between skills and knowledge required in the two groupings. Overall, we found congruence, with the exception of ‘academic credibility’ mentioned by most of the academic respondents as part of responses about knowledge. As a core requirement for legitimacy in universities, this is of little surprise, but certainly is a sector-specific attribute. Considering skills first, our results showed the following as being the ‘top five’ mentioned by the sample (in rank order): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Communication Strategic thinking and longer-term planning Systematic, analytical, detail orientated to deliver action Persuasion and negotiation Prioritization in complex settings with disparate viewpoints

For knowledge, the top five attributes were as follows: 1. ‘Good enough’ knowledge on sustainability (often mentioned in relation to disciplinary background or training) 2. Understanding the sector and policy drivers 3. Organizational context and culture 4. Knowledge gained from experience 5. Knowledge giving academic credibility.

Leadership and the Individual

147

There is substantial concurrence between the literature and our findings on the relevance of skills in:  communication, strategic planning and managing complexity (of subject and context). The Cambridge Model identified challenge and innovation as a skill, which overlaps to some extent with our finding on persuasion and negotiation in skills, and also ‘outspoken’ in our findings on traits and ‘directional’ in leadership style. These together suggest the need (whether skill, trait or style) for sustainability leaders to have the confidence, or volition, to speak up and get noticed! Our respondents brought to bear some unique attributes, particularly the third skill mentioned earlier (systematic, analytical and detail-orientated to deliver action). This skill seems to reflect the disciplinary background of many of the sustainability leaders, as it correlated with those who mentioned that they had scientific training (e.g. engineers, biologists, environmental scientists), and hence it was not as universally prevalent throughout the sample as communication and strategic thinking were. Sustainability leaders in the sector come from many different backgrounds (from disciplines ranging through environmental science, biochemistry, geography, theatre and law) and professions (including information technology [IT] directors, educationalists and estates professionals). Each brings to his or her leadership role skills, knowledge and previous learning that may steer their approach or their priorities. As noted by example respondents: ● ●

●

‘As a scientist, systematic and robust, evidence-based’ – University 30 ‘Loves looking at trends and patterns in data . . . good at understanding and working out a way forward and putting it down on paper (e.g. recent biodiversity strategy)’ – University 16 ‘Good at visioning but [with a disciplinary base in the humanities] need people who know the science and can analyze data . . . doesn’t have full grasp on detail of sustainability issues and has to rely on others, but see this as an important leadership skill in any case’ – University 33

Our findings on knowledge confirmed Parkin’s view (2010) that sustainability leaders need ‘good enough’ knowledge on sustainability, but do not need to be experts. A few of the sample members had formal qualifications in sustainability leadership, most had learnt on the job, probably accounting for knowledge gained through experience being a popular attribute. The lack of formal training reflects the youthfulness of sustainability leadership as a profession, with formal programmes in universities largely developing during the last ten years. Most of our respondents have worked in sustainability for at least that long, and some for

148

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

much longer. Going forward, we would expect this to change, with increasing numbers working in sustainability leadership to hold formal qualifications of direct relevance. Both the Cambridge Model and Parkin’s work recognized the importance of knowledge of the external environment (through stakeholders or wider ‘knowledge of society’ in relation to sustainability literacy). Our respondents embraced this through recognizing the importance of knowledge about the wider sector, including policy drivers affecting its future priorities. It was clear that they appreciated the importance of strategic and cultural context internally too (organizational culture and context), an attribute also noted by the Cambridge Model and Scott. Interestingly, our respondents did not highlight the relevance of knowledge of ‘change dynamics and options’ identified in the Cambridge Model. However, the responses do suggest that this was implicit, especially when the lists of skills and knowledge are considered together. Change dynamics and options as defined by Visser and Courtice (2011: 10) – ‘how complex systems work and the range of options for promoting beneficial change in them e.g. financial markets, policy options and trends, technology options, consumer behaviour and attitudes, organizational dynamic, change models and metrics’  – is picked up to some extent in our respondents’ recognition of the need to be analytical, but is not mentioned otherwise as explicit leadership attributes. This could suggest that either there is a gap in skill and knowledge base in leadership or alternatively its need is assumed and so obvious that it does not need stating (for instance, none mentioned being able to read as a skill!). Our sense is that, with the wide range of traits, styles, skills and knowledge identified from the sample, the change dynamics, options and understanding connectedness are implicit in these, and in reviewing individual responses holistically, there are many examples of expertise and appreciation of change dynamics and interdisciplinarity. For example: ●

●

●

‘Demonstrates a capacity and intelligence to predict and adapt – innate ability to see changes that are needed and seek solutions’ – University 15 ‘Used a themed approach to build a change dynamic across the University. This is an innovative option that encourages inter-disciplinarity’ – University 11 ‘Leadership and change skills, ultra-strategic, leading into the unknown. Need to understand and lead within a very complex environment’ – University 28

Leadership and the Individual

149

Conclusion This chapter presents a synopsis of the individual attributes considered to be important for sustainability leaders to hold, whether traits, styles, skills or knowledge. As much has been written on these, we collated lists from relevant and well-regarded sources on which to base a comparison with our findings. Our approach differed from others in that we sampled those with cross-institutional responsibility for sustainability in universities (unlike other research which has focussed on the corporate sector) and also our approach was one of participants volunteering thoughts rather than scoring predetermined attributes for their relevance. Broadly, our finding concurred with those in the wider literature, and our respondents would not disagree with the views from this. Both identified the need to be empathetic, collaborative, team-based, visionary and valuesled. What was distinctive for sustainability leaders in universities was the importance of relationship building, and working in a cross-boundary style in order to be successful. Although ‘relationship building’ as an attribute could be disaggregated into other attributes used in the literature (e.g. caring, openminded, inclusive), its preeminence in our respondents strongly suggested the need to convince others not just through the ‘head but also through the heart’. The importance of operating in a cross-boundary manner is likely to reflect both the role individuals have and the need to bring strands of university functions together, as in other organizations, but the unique need to work with multiple academic disciplines, all with their own perspectives on approach and priorities. The skills and knowledge required for successful sustainability leaders showed considerable congruence between the wider literature and our results, although the context and balance of each may vary. In universities, knowledge is held in very high esteem, and lack of knowledge can be a core barrier to legitimacy. This explained the importance of ‘academic legitimacy’ for academic sustainability leaders. It also meant that respondents were more likely than most to state explicitly their academic and professional credentials (or apologize for the lack of them), concentrating on these rather than implicit skills relating to, say, change dynamics.

8

Leadership Actions and Sustainability

Introduction Many of us make a traditional new year’s resolution. It is often to change our behaviour in some way, such as to eat fewer sugary foods or meat, exercise more, learn a new skill or spend more time with their family, for example. When these are made, the intention is there, but without action, the achievement will not follow. Likewise, in organizations, we can develop policy statements for sustainability (e.g. our intention for the organization to be carbon-neutral in the future), but without action these will not happen. Good leadership is leadership that not only forges initiatives, changes attitudes, thinks strategically and grows a follower base, but delivers results too! As Donald McGannon (who ran the Westinghouse Broadcasting Corporation and served as president of the National Urban League) noted: ‘leadership is action, not position’ (McGannon, from Chiarelli 2011). In this chapter, we complete the triumvirate of factors determining sustainability leadership, as noted in the Cambridge Model, that of successful leadership action. In the narrative presented around the Cambridge Model, Visser and Courtice (2011) comment that there is a significant gap between sustainability goals being set by businesses and the actions to achieve them. They further demarcate actions as internal (actions involving those within the organization, such as management, operational staff ) and external actions (which involve external stakeholders such as customers, competitors or collaborators in other businesses or sectors). Typical internal actions include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

making informed decisions providing strategic direction crafting management incentives ensuring performance accountability empowering people.

152

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

External (stakeholder-related) actions may include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

fostering cross-sector partnerships creating sustainable products and services promoting sustainability awareness context transformation ensuring transparency.

They further note that individual leaders and the actions they take operate reciprocally, with each having the potential to modify the other. In other words, action may affect leader behaviour, and leader behaviour may affect action. In this chapter, we use these examples as guidance for establishing successful internal and external actions that are taken by sustainability leaders in universities. For this, we start by drawing on responses from our interviewees, relating to examples of sustainability success they have led on. We also evaluate responses asking about actions taken to attain sustainability success in their organization (including enablers and barriers to success). Finally, we summarize information on external influences (e.g. sector networks, other sector influencers). To frame our approach, we start by outlining the range of success stories in sustainability provided to us by respondents in our interviews. This not only provides rich material to celebrate the extensive progress that has been made in sustainability in the sector, but also contextualizes the range of internal and external actions taken to deliver these. These examples are discussed separately in the following sections, first presenting the results for each, before discussing them. Finally, we discuss examples of reciprocity between individual leader behaviour and action, by looking for common patterns that present in relation to individual attributes (evaluated in Chapter 7) and actions (discussed in this chapter) before concluding.

Framing success in sustainability In the United Kingdom, where our interview sample was taken from, sustainability success is celebrated through a range of means. Perhaps the most visible of these is the well-established Green Gown Awards, which have been running since 2004 in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The numbers of entries, categories and countries have grown every year and now have an increasing international presence: the Australasian Green Gown Awards started in 2010,

Leadership Actions and Sustainability

153

the French-speaking ones (Les Trophees des Campus Responsables) in 2014 and the GUPES Green Gown Awards in 2016 (a collective of six United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] regions [Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America and West Asia]). The awards are for good practice and success across a large range of categories, including those relating to carbon reduction, environmental reporting and student engagement, and in each case leadership is implicit. Many of the respondents in our survey will have received these over the years. There is also a specific sustainability leadership category, which is only open to entries from staff in executive or senior management positions in their organization, and two of the six senior management respondents in our survey have received this. Our approach to establishing sustainability success for this research was to ask each participant to describe one or more examples of where they believed they had been successful within the sustainability remit in their organization. This could have provided thirty-four very different examples to discuss, and although details are different within them, the examples all fitted into one or more of seven broad categories which emerged from their responses. These are described in the following, and Figure  8.1 provides the percentage of respondents identified with each type of success. What was clear in our interviews was that sustainability leaders in universities are

Types of Sustainability Success Curricular and ESD Extra-curricular Strategy Master planning Staff behaviour change Resources infrastructure Policy, procedures, structures 0

5

10

15

20

% of respondents

Figure 8.1 Percentage of respondents by type of sustainability success

25

30

154

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

involved in many of these as part of their role, and do not just concentrate on one of the categories listed. 1. Curricular initiatives including education for sustainable development. This was the most commonly mentioned success. These initiatives tended to seek integration at curricular or institutional level, for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), through common modules, ESD inclusion in learning and teaching strategies or through education for academic staff to enable them to include sustainability within their subject area. 2. Extracurricular student engagement. This tended to be initiatives relating to student volunteering, where the impetus either came from external funding or student-demand and interest. 3. Strategy including role in city-region. These initiatives were largely ones where a sustainability strategy was sought that meshed with the institutional strategic mission, values or goals, or was part of their formulation. 4. Master planning and estates infrastructure. These took the form whereby sustainability was to be considered in part for regulatory or cost-reduction purposes, or as part of the university’s commitment to sustainability at a strategic level. 5. Staff behaviour change. These ranged from programmes for academics as part of ESD development, to whole-institutional awareness of environmental footprint in everyday behaviours. 6. Resources infrastructure (low carbon, energy, waste). In this category were initiatives delivered against specific environmental targets, such as low carbon, or waste reduction, for all or part of the institution. 7. Development of infrastructure (policy, procedures, structures). Here, examples of success included those whereby reporting lines, committee structures, governance structures and the responsibility and authority of the sustainability team were developed. This information shows the large range of initiatives, actions and successes that universities are seeing in sustainability, whether at the whole-institutional strategic or operational level, or within staff and student behaviour change. The range of initiatives presented provide context but not reason for critique in our discussions here. That being said, it is interesting to note that the successes all relate to success and achievement within the university, rather than with reference to wider success at the societal, city or region level. Such wider influence should

Leadership Actions and Sustainability

155

be recognized as being implicit in these achievements: Today’s students and staff are tomorrow’s leaders, influencers, citizens and consumers.

Internal actions The Cambridge Model provides us with a list of ‘typical’ internal actions a successful sustainability leader may take in order to deliver against aspirations. Recognizing this is a sample list only, and it does provide a helpful framework relating to getting decisions made, securing strategic direction, meshing management need with sustainability and empowering staff and learning. In our presentation of results that follows, we have used these to sense-make and ‘set the tone’ against the range of internal actions identified by our respondents.

Results Participants were asked what actions they had taken to attain sustainability success in the organization, and to comment on the enablers and barriers to this success. This allowed us to formulate a list of actions that were identified as necessary to them, by establishing where there were common themes in their responses (see Figure 8.2). The most frequently mentioned barrier was the lack or inability to deliver one of these actions, and these have been considered as

Engage Right People to Get Things Done Commitment to Resources Decision Making ‘in Round’ Senior Management Support Quick Wins for Mobility Agree Strategic Direction Leverage Opportunities Bring Team Together Long Standing Legitimacy Performance Accountability 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentage of Respondents

Figure 8.2 Internal actions for sustainability success by percentage of respondents

45

156

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

part of the presentation of the results, followed by a more detailed descriptor and examples of each. ‘Engage the right people to get things done’ was mentioned by thirty-two per cent of the respondents. How this was manifested depended on what the opportunity was. For example, for University 8 working towards an eco-energy solution at the campus level, the ‘right people’ were: ●

‘End users, engineers, surveyors, operational staff ’ – University 8

Others looked to courting individuals who would have influence on decisionmakers, or who were decision-makers, such as: ●

●

‘Got support from key individuals who were in favour and on-the-up’ – University 9 ‘Spend time with reticent types who can open doors but don’t get the agenda’ – University 21

‘Commitment to resources’ was mentioned by eighteen per cent of the respondents, and usually included getting a budget (finances) from the university for the team, a particular initiative or development of a strategy, or securing funding from external sources, such as through Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) capital or catalyst funding. ‘Decision-making in the round’ was only specifically identified by eight per cent of the respondents, who noted the benefits in their case of providing a holistic perspective to enable institutional buy-in to their initiative. This included decision-making moving from either a buildings level to a campus level, or from a departmental level to a senior management role. ‘Senior management support’ was the most commonly cited internal action leading to success with forty-one per cent of respondents mentioning it. Mostly, it was mentioned as an essential enabler of success, ensuring institutional legitimacy for the sustainability initiative, or to allow it to move ‘up the agenda’ in the university. Where it was not in evidence, it was identified as a significant barrier to progress: ●

●

‘Success helped by VC seeing how it linked to International strategy’ – University 27 ‘Major barrier was VC and PVC Student Experience’ – University 23

‘Using quick wins for mobility’ helped success for six per cent of respondents, who sought to take forward small positive steps towards their delivery of longerterm goals, whether it was presenting workshops to staff in an engaging way to get further interest, or disseminating early indicators of success (e.g. benchmarking

Leadership Actions and Sustainability

157

metrics). ‘Agree strategic direction’ was important to twenty-four per cent of respondents, and this usually concurred with the need for senior management buy-in. The means by which strategic direction for sustainability developed varied from senior management-led to ‘bottom-up’ strategic initiatives raising the awareness of sustainability as a strategic initiative. For instance: ●

●

‘VC appointed a PVC Sustainability, which sent a clear message about values and the importance of the agenda, and enabled cross-institutional consideration across academic and estates functions’ – University 31 ‘Brought together section heads and co-authored a linked strategy with 2020 targets, presented to PVC and Corporate Management Group’ – University 5

‘Leverage opportunities’ was identified by twenty-four per cent of respondents, and referred to instances where they had taken advantage of an unexpected situation to benefit their agenda. For example: ●

● ●

‘Being in a place where things were right and deliberately positioning things so when the time is right you are ready to go’– University 6 ‘Having physical space available enabled the edible garden’ – University 12 ‘It transpired that a lot of people are moving in a similar direction, so there have been a lot of open doors’ – University 28

‘Bringing the team together’ was identified by only six per cent of respondents, and related to aiding ‘decision making in the round’ in part, and also the need to bring new skills into the sustainability team for it to operate in a wider university context. ‘Long standing legitimacy’ was identified by six per cent also, and is included here where it has been used to mobilize action. For example, ●

‘Made friends over the years and had built a reputation for delivering, this influenced their view of my agenda’ – University 14

The final category, ‘Performance accountability’, was identified by twenty-four per cent of the respondents. This was seen as an important and legitimate means to measure success in metrics central to governance and senior management priorities. For instance: ●

●

‘Formalised annual processes, developing and measuring transparency and value for money’ – University 16 ‘Developed a proper reporting regime and evidence of payback on investment, measured against KPIs and how we are doing relative to our peers’ – University 22

158

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Discussion Looking at the extensive range of actions taken by sustainability leaders in universities in this way speaks to both the wide scope and key actions within this. Priority actions for most were senior management support, engagement with the ‘right people’, establishment of the strategic direction, performance accountability and leveraging opportunities. There is broad concurrence of the list of typical actions from the Cambridge Model with these findings, although the element of ‘leveraging opportunity’ did not present in this. The actions all speak to sustainability leaders working within the management frameworks of their institutions, seeking leverage for sustainability through the strategy, senior management buy-in, resource commitment and performance accountability and delivery. There is little or no evidence of sustainability leaders working outside of the system, or operating in an evolutionary or selforganizing manner, such as the communities of practice identified by Wenger (1998). Perhaps this arises from the leadership sample who are all operating with a defined sustainability remit within the institutional hierarchy, aware that their role is delivery within this. In the next section, we explore the wider spheres of influence sustainability leaders have and the actions they take externally to aid success within their institutions.

External actions As with ‘internal actions’, the Cambridge Model identifies a list of typical actions a successful sustainability leader might take but again this is neither a theory nor prescriptive. These include actions relating to engagement with others in the sector and outside of the sector, raising awareness of sustainability, contributing to wider debate and disclosure of performance. Unlike the internal action list, which had generic relevance, aspects of the external aspect list appear to speak to the private sector. In particular, ‘creating sustainable products and services’ may not appear relevant, but can be readily adapted along with ‘raising awareness of sustainability’ to ‘research and student learning’ for universities. We asked participants to outline who their key networks and points of reference were for their role, outside of their organization, whether sectorspecific, professional associations or influencers outside of the sector, to establish common sources. In addition, they were asked to comment on the use of metrics, benchmarking or accreditation schemes they considered to be important to them in aiding their success as a leader.

Leadership Actions and Sustainability

159

Results Five key areas were identified by the participants:  in-sector networks, use of external accreditation, out-of-sector contacts, league tables and conferences/ seminars and information-sharing events. The percentage of respondents citing each is provided in Figure 8.3. By far the largest action taken by sustainability leaders was to engage in networks within the sector, mentioned by ninety-one per cent of the sample. There were many networks, the most cited of which was the Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (EAUC). As over seventy per cent of universities in the United Kingdom are members of this, and its remit speaks directly to those in sustainability roles in the sector, this was not surprising. Other networks focussed around, for instance: 1. university ‘type’, for example, the Russell Group network of older universities 2. Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE) which estates-based sustainability leaders may be a member of in addition to the EAUC 3. self-initiated groups such as the International Sustainability Managers Network 4. Green Academy alumni (Green Academy being a sustainability development scheme run by the UK Higher Education Academy in the 2000s) 5. National Union of Students.

In sector networks External accreditation Out of sector - public sector Out of sector - NHS Out of sector - business Out of sector - others/advocacy League tables Conferences/seminars 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of respondents

Figure 8.3 External actions for sustainability success by percentage of respondents

160

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

The respondents used these different networks for information gathering and sharing and peer support. Many also found that they helped them gain legitimacy within their own institutions by providing examples of good practice elsewhere, or to evidence sector or student voice. External accreditation bodies were only mentioned by twelve per cent of the participants and included Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and International Standards Organisation (ISO). At the outset, this appears low. However, both these largely support environmental sustainability at an operational level. With many of the sustainability leaders operating with a wider scope for sustainability beyond the environmental aspect, and with cross-institutional strategic remits, such accreditation bodies are likely to be of limited relevance at the leadership level we are investigating compared to other networks. Engagement outside the university sector was identified as substantially important to many sustainability leaders, and within this engagement, the business sector was mentioned by forty-four per cent of respondents. Some cited specific organizations they tracked or engaged with (Marks and Spencer, Boots and Unilever all being mentioned); alternatively, individuals engaged with regional–city business networks. The purposes of doing this ranged from: ● ●

●

‘Uses examples from the corporate sector’ – University 3 ‘Important to engage externally on a regular basis as the University is very inward looking’ – University 8 ‘Interesting to see how what is happening in business can be applied to the sector’ – University 18

Not all saw the value of out-of-sector engagement: ●

‘Will learn from other disciplines rather than other sectors’ – University 30

Similar reasons were identified for engagement with the public sector (e.g. city councils, National Health Service [NHS]) but wider partnership was also seen as an important factor here. In these cases, sustainability leaders were identifying opportunities to link with their university community engagement initiatives. The purpose was to seek leverage with senior management and governors with influential community voices, or to develop impactful sustainability action in their geographical context. These may involve attendance at local sustainability networks, or the establishment of Living Labs, as seen at Edinburgh and Manchester.

Leadership Actions and Sustainability

161

University league tables relating to sustainability (People and Planet Green League) were mentioned by thirty-two per cent of the respondents, although about over half of these mentioned that the league table lacked current relevance, but had been important in the past. For example: ●

●

‘University obsessed with league tables. But it has said “we don’t need the Green League badge now”, it was instrumental but not needed now’ – University 6 ‘Pulled out of the Green League, don’t really compete but it would be nice to win a Green Gown Award’ – University 32

Finally, fifteen per cent of respondents specifically mentioned attendance at conferences, seminars and other information-sharing events, often outside of the sector. While this seems a low figure, the reality is that these activities are likely to be part of in-sector or out-of-sector wider engagement activities.

Discussion Sustainability leaders in universities are well networked outside of their own institutions, whether with other universities, local councils, other public sector bodies such as the NHS or with the corporate sector. They seem to operate under a collaborative, rather than competitive, model of engagement. Engagement is used as a means to encourage mutual competence-building and mutual support, as is practiced by participants who are keen to learn from and share success with each other in, what is, an evolving function in universities. Mutuality of support may be driven by many factors. These could include information sharing, opportunities for persuading their own institutions to take forward an idea that has been successful elsewhere and also a collective desire to take forward the sector’s proactivity in the creation of a sustainable society. A small number of universities herald their sustainability credentials for competitive gain alone now, as seen through the lessening interest in the league tables. Many are seeking to learn from other sectors which may be perceived as more advanced in their sustainability agendas than universities, or ones which have large-scale power in the UK economy (such as the NHS), and could hold considerable potential as an advocate on their behalf within the university sector. Given the changing policy framework and market dynamics for the higher education sector, learning from those operating in the competitive market place is of particular use.

162

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Linking individual attributes and action In Chapter 7, we presented the results of the most mentioned traits, styles, skills and knowledge attributes found in the sustainability leaders in our sample. From this we identified that, although there is no formulaic ‘best type’ of sustainability leader, the most common attributes (across traits, styles and skills) were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

relationship builder cross-boundary approach empathetic collaborative/consultative directional motivating strategic/long-term thinking systematic and detailed persuading and negotiating.

Additionally, knowledge of sustainability, the wider sector and an individual’s organization were key, in addition to academic credibility (for academic sustainability leaders). In the Cambridge Model, Visser and Courtice speak to the reciprocity of action influencing individual leader and vice versa. Within this, they suggest a two-way cause and effect and, hopefully, positive feedback for the benefit of both. Although conceptually neat, it is a tangled-web empirically. Cause–effect is influenced by so many factors that to attempt to present deterministic results would be foolhardy. Instead, and in order to take forward understanding of the link, we provide in Table  8.1 a broad mapping of the most commonly identified individual leadership attributes (identified from our research) against instances where the responses provided by participants suggest they have offered benefit in delivering the internal sustainability actions presented in this chapter. This suggests broad concurrence between key attributes and the internal actions which deliver success. It also highlights the need for the sustainability leader to bring to bear a large range of leadership traits, styles and skills depending on the action being delivered. For example, fruitful engagement with the right people needs excellent people skills which centre on building relationships, but may also involve collaboration, empathy, motivation and persuasion to be able to engage with a wide range of people across the organization (cross-boundary). The delivery of more tangible outcomes such as for performance measurement

Table 8.1 Internal actions and individual leadership attributes (internal actions provided in rows and key attributes in columns)

Engage Resources Decisions in round Senior support Strategic Leverage opportunity Team working Long standing Performance accountability

Relationship

Cross boundary

Empathy

Collaborate

Direct

Motivate

x

x x x x x x

x

x x x

x

x x

x x x x x

x

x x

x

x x x x x

x x x

Strategic

Systematic

Persuade

x x x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

163

164

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

also needs the leader to be able to operate across boundaries, but sees a more directive, systematic and persuasive approach.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have provided the results and a discussion of actions taken by university sustainability leaders show-casing where they have been successful. By the nature of the subject matter this chapter has adopted an inductive approach to the analysis, but within it, key themes have emerged. These are: 1. Sustainability leaders cannot operate in isolation. Relationship development and engaging with the right people, being part of sector and external networks, and team working are all keys to success. To be effective leaders needs to have excellent leadership skills relating to relationship building, empathy, collaboration, motivation and persuasion. 2. Sustainability leaders have to operate across the strategic–operational divide. In addition to being able to seek strategic solutions, work in a cross-boundary manner and consider sustainability at institutional level, they are also required to engage with levels of detail required for performance accountability. They need multiple seemingly disparate attributes for this, bringing together directive, persuasive approaches with collaboration, yet operating systematically and across boundaries. In the next part of the book, we will consider, at the institutional level, how some of these patterns are illustrated, through how decisions are made in the organization or through individual leader attributes.

Part D

Case Studies in Sustainability Leadership In this final part of the book, we look in depth at different elements of successful sustainability leadership through four universities in four countries. Our aim is to understand the drivers and dynamics for successful sustainability, the different approaches sustainability leaders have taken, and the barriers and obstacles encountered in each. The universities we have selected are based on their contribution to aid understanding of different elements of the leadership challenge. They also provide wide geographical coverage, covering the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and India. For each case, we have provided context on the university, the higher education (HE) environment it is operating in (as each country is different) as well as narrative on where sustainability fits in the organizational structure, before exploring specific dimensions of that leadership. Chapter 9 explores how a selection of the concepts and models for sustainability action and decision-making presented in Chapter 5 can be applied. We explore this through understanding practice and leadership at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU), based in the United Kingdom. This university has been selected as the ‘home’ university of two of the authors. Chapter  10 provides a formula for success in setting up a sustainability function in a university through repeated experiences of a sustainability leader working in multiple universities in the United States. The case presented here, an ‘architecture for success’, is based on the individual’s experience at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chapter  11 focuses on the importance of relationship building between professional services and academics. In this case, we explore the experience at Macquarie University based in Sydney, Australia. The situation of the

166

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

sustainability leader will resonate with many as the position is based within professional services, but has education for sustainability as the institution’s key initiative. Getting, and keeping, academics on-board has been a key challenge Chapter 12 looks at the experience of an individual advocate for sustainability and the extent to which success can be achieved in such a situation. For this we look at the experience of an individual at Kerala University based in India. The case enables us to explore individual leadership attributes, and also constraints on successful development of sustainability in the institution.

9

Measuring Impact and Success in Sustainability: Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom

Background to the University Canterbury Christ Church University is one of about 130 HE institutions in the United Kingdom. Within the United Kingdom, it is considered as of medium size (with about 17,000 students, 1,500 staff [full-time equivalents] and an annual turnover of £134 million [2016]). Although it undertakes research and knowledge exchange, it is seen very much as a ‘teaching’ – rather than ‘researchintensive’ institution. The university operates across four campuses, with its main campus in central Canterbury, on the site of the former orchards and monastic gardens of St Augustine’s Abbey, and within the boundaries of the World Heritage Site that includes this, Canterbury Cathedral and St Martins Church. The university’s provenance is that of a teacher training college, established in 1962 with seventy students, subsequently diversifying into health professional training in the early 1980s (nursing, physiotherapy etc.) and more ‘traditional’ university disciplines (humanities, social science and science). The institution became a university college in 1995 (with degrees awarded by the University of Kent: two miles away from CCCU), but gained its own university status in 2005 (wherein it could award its own undergraduate degrees) and full research degree–awarding power in 2009. It is therefore a very ‘young’ university. Now education as a discipline (and teacher training within it) comprises just over thirty per cent of the university’s activities, health-related disciplines about twenty-five per cent and the balance ‘traditional’ academic subjects, so even though the university has a broad range of provision, the majority of its work still relates to public sector subject matter in health and education.

168

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

The university is viewed as quite distinctive in what is a crowded HE system in the United Kingdom by virtue of its Church of England foundation status, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its chancellor. This affords it a distinctive steer on its values, albeit not necessarily relating to faith. Rather, the institution has seen its remit to include widening participation (encouraging students to attend university from socio-demographic groups where this is unusual); education of and for the public services and for staff and students of ‘all faiths and none’. It thus has a focus and interest on inclusion, tolerance and its role in serving and improving society.

Higher education context The HE sector in the United Kingdom has undergone seismic shifts over the past few decades, with the pace of change increasing exponentially in the past decade. In broad terms, HE has moved from an elite provision, funded through taxation and a block grant system (and highly subsidized for the student), towards a mass market, but with a ‘user-pays’ system where the students are directly responsible for payment of their fees. Additionally, prior to 1992, there was a bipartite system in operation with ‘universities’ operating semi-autonomously through a Royal Charter, and other HE provision (such as the former ‘polytechnics’) operating under Instruments and Articles of Government, with more central government control. CCCU has been a beneficiary of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, which enabled a wider use of the term ‘university’ and for HE institutions to operate under a consistent system. More recent changes have had a less positive impact on Canterbury Christ Church however. In 2010–11, a review of the sector led by Lord Browne set in place amendments resulting in the increase in the fee paid by the student from about £3,000 per annum, to £9,000. While many of the students attending the university were initially protected by government bursaries for health and education programmes, these have now been phased out. Additionally, the UK system for allocation of student places by institution which had been regulated centrally (the student number control) was relaxed in 2014–15 and removed from 2015–16. This happened at a time when the demand for HE provision had stabilized, or even shrunk slightly through demographic shifts in the population, and stipulations on international students are draconian. This meant that universities are able to take as many (non-international) students as they wish, whereas previously numbers per institution were capped. In tandem, a separate

Measuring Impact and Success in Sustainability

169

department in government determined that teacher-training provision should gradually move towards direct training in schools, and away from universities. The combination of these factors now mean that for CCCU the student numbers achieved in 2010–11 stood at 20,000 students, which had fallen to 17,000 by 2015–16. In the United Kingdom, a key resource used by prospective students are university league tables (e.g. the Good University Guide), which rank universities on the basis of a range of indicators, including student satisfaction, entry grades and research quality and volume. Given Canterbury Christ Church being a ‘young’ university with relatively little research, its position in the league tables has not been high, and in the ‘race to the top’ by an unrestricted number of places available in each institution, not surprisingly many students are applying to institutions higher in the league tables. However, as a largely teaching-focused university, the results in the Teaching Excellence Framework (2017) were good and are likely to have a positive effect on league table position going forward.

Development of sustainability at CCCU Sustainability as a function, idea or concern obtained formal institutional identity in 2005 with the formation of the first sustainability committee. At this stage, the scope was very much related to carbon reduction but little more. An early output from the committee was the production of the university’s first sustainability policy in 2006. In tandem, small-scale initiatives were taking place in pockets of the institution by enthusiastic staff, centred on fair trade, waste and energy, in addition to the development of an optional Environment and Society module across the institution. In 2010, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) called for all universities to respond to their requirement to produce a Carbon Management Plan as part of its second Capital Investment Framework (CIF2), that is, it stipulated that, to receive funding for capital development, such a plan was needed. This regulatory driver shifted sustainability from being a ‘cottage industry’ at Christ Church to one of institutional priority, leading to the appointment of a director for Sustainability Development that year  – the first dedicated sustainability employee in the university. The post, at the director level, was equivalent to the head of school, or head of a professional services function, reporting to a member of the executive group, and moved to the sustainability role from an information systems and project management/estates

170

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

development background. In addition, the timely appointment of a new vicechancellor in 2010 who recognized the value of sustainability (making it one of the five core goals for the university in its 2010–15 strategic plan) set the course for it to become a priority and focus. The juxtaposition providing the opportunity to advance the sustainability agenda did not bring with it guidance on how to take it forward though. Given the wide agenda, and many opportunities, it was difficult to know how best to get started. In 2011, a small number of staff (including the director of Sustainable Development and pro-vice-chancellor with executive responsibility for it) attended the ‘Green Academy’ run by the UK Higher Education Academy. The chance to take time out to brainstorm resulted in the launch of the innovative Futures Initiative (FI) programme, which has been the cornerstone of the university’s initiatives around education and research for sustainability. The FI at its core is a staff development opportunity, providing funding for extra resources, travel, attendance at conferences and ‘buying out’ staff time to explore opportunities relating to sustainability in the institution and curriculum. The approach of focusing on staff was taken from identifying that the major constraint to progressing the agenda was the lack of their knowledge, skills, expertise and experience in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Between 2011 and 2016, ninety FI projects were approved, of which more than eighty per cent were undertaken and they delivered some outcome. Notable examples include the following: 1. A new validated module on Criminology for a Just Society 2. Events Management students organize the annual Spring Festival which aims to bring communities together promoting sustainability. 3. A yurt was purchased and transformed into a mobile camera obscura and darkroom for students in the School of Media, Art and Design, enabling them to work creatively within the natural environment. 4. The development of a ‘Public Relations, the Media and Sustainability’ module 5. Sponsorship of a public debate on fracking, bringing in expert speakers who presented the case for and against fracking and the possible implications for East Kent, to an audience of more than 300.

Sustainability today The success of the FI programme was such that its outputs influenced the new strategic framework (2015–20), putting sustainability at the core to the values and mission, and identified as a key cross-cutting theme. It is supported by a

Measuring Impact and Success in Sustainability

171

framework for sustainability that articulates policies, aims, objectives and targets for each of the four themes (student and staff experience, education for sustainable futures, research and knowledge exchange and our environment). The theme also has gained support at a senior level, due to its inherent links to the university’s mission and values, which are embedded within its Church of England foundation. For some time, sustainability has been managed at the institutional level by the Sustainability Strategic Management Group (SSMG) as a formally constituted sub-group of the university executive, chaired by the executive lead for sustainability. The scope of sustainability in the university now is substantially wide-ranging, and holistic, incorporating social, environmental and economic sustainability. The university used the themes within the UK Quality Assurance Authority’s Guidance on ESD to help define it, within the context of global citizenship, social justice, ethics, well-being and futures thinking. Within this, a recent development has been the recognition for well-being to become a core focus, and the concept of a health-promoting university, promoting social, environmental and economic health. The combination of the holistic scope and the creativity arising from the FI programme, along with senior support for sustainability, has enabled some sector-leading initiatives to emerge, based on the cultural heritage of the campus that stands on the outer Precincts of St Augustine’s abbey (part of the UNESCO World Heritage site). These have also provided innovative engagement opportunities for staff and students, contributed to the local community and the university’s reputation in its region. Examples have included initiatives such as: 1. ‘Bioversity’ initiative. The concept focuses on the enrichment of student and staff experience through a transformation of the Canterbury site into an urban biodiversity hub which reflects its rich heritage, but which also focuses on the future through our concern for social and environmental responsibility. 2. Edible Campus links people and places with food and food security. Examples of action include the provision of small allotments, and raised beds are provided all over the campus; membership of the heritage seed library encourages seed guardians, along with many other accessible activities. 3. Beer, Bread and Honey project, which links heritage with biodiversity and food and drink, drawing on the monastic origins of the university campus, and using this to showcase sustainability action through production of these products.

172

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Justification of sustainability initiatives There is a fundamental link in the university between what it understands as sustainability and its values as an institution and therefore widespread acceptance that many of the initiatives and developments are seen as the ‘right thing to do’. However, the university still needs to operate under the norms of a business model, mindful of its economic viability and sustainability, and so also has to consider the benefit–costs of any plans. Within the context of the Five Rs model presented in Chapter 5 (regulation, risk reduction, reputation, reducing costs and right thing to do), sustainability has been framed as follows: 1. ‘Right thing to do’ is something of a given, but cannot be so at the expense of institutional viability. 2. Environmental legislation or ‘regulation’ clearly plays an important role. Within the context of the Environmental Management System (and ISO 14001), a commitment to compliance with environmental legislation is a cornerstone. 3. In order for the university to live out its stated values with authenticity, ‘reputation’ is very important. Also, sustainability provides a narrative for the university around living its values, which aids its reputation with staff, students and external stakeholders. 4. ‘Cost reduction’ plays a very important role in the context of scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions. This is both in the context of the efficiency of the existing estate, and going forward with the current university master plan, which demonstrates a commitment to a low carbon future. 5. ‘Risk reduction’ plays a role in all of the aforementioned, for example, In espousing values, the university must live them out in order to manage the risk of hypocrisy. By committing to continual environmental improvement, through its environmental management system the university must minimize the risk of pollution and non-compliance with legislation. Cost is becoming more and more significant; so minimizing the risk of unnecessary expenditure is critical. ●

●

●

As with most other institutions, sustainability initiatives, however worthy, need to be considered alongside other calls on resource. At the university, the director of Sustainability Development has a somewhat devolved budget for funding, for example, FI projects, the Student Green Office and a small staff base. This does not mean that there are no significant challenges blocking

Measuring Impact and Success in Sustainability

173

sustainability initiatives though. In this instance, the director has been exploring new means by which the value from sustainability can be measured, particularly using language congruent with institutional priorities and drivers. The university is currently prioritizing resource on student recruitment, retention and employability, and unless incentive compatibility can be identified, it is unlikely to prioritize sustainability. The director has led on an innovative means by which sustainability can been measured at the university. The following example comments on how he achieved this using the Beer, Bread and Honey project, considering the value of the project in terms of the Six Capitals Model outlined in Chapter 5. Further details of this case are provided in Table 5.2 as part of our illustration of this model.

Commentary This case study provides a clear example of a university where the rationale for sustainability action has multiple attributes and the priority of each of the 5Rs has modified over time, as the HE landscape in the United Kingdom has changed. It illustrates clearly how the Five Rs could be applied, and have been

‘Beer, Bread and Honey, is one of those projects that is multi-dimensional, in that it involves buying things, doing stuff, engaging staff and students, building agency and academic partnership, etc. However, from a purely financial point of view, the financial input is greater than the financial output. So in times for financial stringency, there is a danger that projects such as these might be cut, in order to fund those with more direct financial or strategic impact. So, unless we were able to provide a way of demonstrating the creation of non-financial value they were at risk. The six capitals model provided a very simple way of articulating value input and value flows, which, at a basic level can demonstrate a more holistic set of outcomes. This model is now being used to evaluate non-financial benefits of research proposals, the development of a wide range of Value for Money (VfM) case studies for annual HEFCE VfM reporting, as well as the evaluation of project proposals. At a project level, it has been helpful to align project outcomes with strategic objectives in order to build coherent and strategically relevant business cases.’ Source: Director of Sustainability, CCCU.

174

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

used instrumentally to appeal to senior management, for instance, through responses to regulatory and funding bodies (HEFCE) in the early period and more recently through the means of cost reduction and reputation enhancement. The recent example of Beer, Bread and Honey, provides an illustration of how sustainability projects can be framed to appeal to senior management and speak a language which resonates with them. In the mass-market environment, HE finds itself in currently the notion of business cases, and tangible cost–benefit approaches enable sustainability to be considered using the same language senior management will be using for all other investment decisions. This should not distract from the principled stance and beliefs many in sustainability leadership take, but rather provide a compelling approach to enable their voice to be heard successfully. The use of monetary valuation approaches such as these is particularly interesting for a university such as the CCCU, it being a values or faithoriginating institution. The senior management members are very much aware of their need to do the ‘right thing’ in terms of sustainability because of this. This partly explains its integration into the strategic framework, business planning, leadership frameworks, mission and objectives. However, they are also wrestling with the challenging market environment in which the institution is operating and cannot support sustainability at the cost of business viability. As such, the use of such mechanisms eases the dilemmas they face in this regard.

10

Architecture for Sustainability Success: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States

Background to the University The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) dates back to the 1860s, starting its life as the ‘Boston Tech’ before moving across the river to Cambridge in 1916 on to a site positioned next to a railway to facilitate coal deliveries as a primary energy source. Its building design was driven by interdisciplinary connectivity, creating the ‘infinite corridor’ from which all faculties were accessed, which ensured that academic staff mixed. However, there was less emphasis on residential provision. This was different from the likes of Yale and Harvard, which adopted the nurturing residential college system, based on the Cambridge (UK) model. Student numbers are split equally between undergraduates and postgraduates, totaling 11,000. International student numbers have increased considerably in recent years, and MIT has an international reputation for applied research with an operating budget of nearly $3.5 billion. It specializes in the sciences, along with humanities and social sciences, and like many US universities ensures that students study a broad range of disciplines, along the lines of the liberal arts model. A unique characteristic of MIT is its relationship with industry, where it has built strong industry partnerships, and the development of an adjacent innovation district. This development started in the 1950s when MIT deployed university-owned land to innovative private-sector companies and developed partnerships with local organizations to support the commercialization of ideas stemming from the university. In 2017, its innovation district, Kendall Square (Cambridge), housed over 150 biotech, information technology (IT), technology and clean energy companies. Kendall Square is also home to the

176

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Cambridge Innovation Center (CIC), an organization headquartered in an MITowned building that rents office space to start-ups. CIC has pioneered the model of co-working space for entrepreneurs and knowledge sharing in a high-quality environment.

Higher education context There are many types of colleges and universities in the United States, and several different ways in which Americans identify them. This can be based on whether they are financially supported by a state or not, its history, how and when it was first established or how it primarily functions now. ‘Public’ universities are state-affiliated institutions that are publicly supported (financed by public taxes), and they are usually large in size. They normally offer all levels of degree provision and many different fields of study. Public colleges and universities are relatively inexpensive for residents of the state where they are located (since they are funded in large part by state tax revenues). There are a large number of small Liberal Arts Colleges throughout the country, enrolling anywhere from fewer than 1,000 students to several thousands. They are usually dedicated to the undergraduate study of the traditional arts and science disciplines: humanities, sciences and social sciences. They are often quite old (by US standards) and are usually private, and thus supported by tuition fees, private donations and grants. The Ivy League is among the oldest and most famous universities in the country. Members of the Ivy League include Harvard, Yale and Princeton, and stress undergraduate liberal arts education, but they also have eminent graduate and professional faculties. Tuition costs in the Ivy League are among the highest in the country, and admission is generally highly competitive. There are also a large number of denominational or religiously affiliated colleges in the United States that were formed by religious groups and organizations. Although they are not limited in admission to members of that religious group, they are administered by members of their religious faction and are often run in line with their religious precepts. Finally, technical institutes specialize primarily in engineering and science, and are particularly noted for their research and graduate programs. The undergraduate colleges of these organizations also offer a variety of liberal arts courses along with their technical subjects. These include MIT, Cal Poly (California Polytechnic Institute) and Georgia Tech (Georgia Institute of Technology).

Architecture for Sustainability Success

177

Context for sustainability MIT’s mission aligns well with the principles of sustainability, being ‘to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the twenty-first century. We seek to develop in each member of the MIT community the ability and passion to work wisely, creatively, and effectively for the betterment of humankind’ (http://web.mit.edu/mission.html, accessed 20 July 2017). In response to the MIT mission, the Office of Sustainability (MITOS) identified thirty-seven different definitions of sustainability across the community, but ultimately agreed to default to the Brundtland version, and to emphasize the balance among environmental health, human health and economic viability in the broadest sense. This supports the integrated way in which MITOS works, to ensure that the design of the built environment, the resilience of the community to climate change, the food people eat and the technology used on a daily basis support the links between healthy people and a healthy planet. This is developed through the connections and work with operational and research partners to activate campus systems that promote public health, environmental sustainability, economic vitality and innovation in local and global communities.

Development of sustainability at MIT Between 2005 and 2013, MIT had in operation a single sustainability-related committee, known as the Energy Task Force, which was co-chaired by the executive vice president and a member of faculty. Although its membership included some passionate staff and faculty members, there had been limit change or impact during this time. Consequently, in 2013, the executive vice president appointed a director of sustainability, who, on arrival, recognized a similar scenario to that experienced at both her previous positions, at Yale and the University of New Hampshire. For a period of about a year, the director attended committee meetings and undertook a ‘listening tour’ in order to understand the nature of the organization and its mode of operation. During this time, the director came to understand the ways in which committees, working groups and task forces operated at MIT. This period allowed the director the time to determine which governance structures, be it committees, working groups and task forces, would ensure most impact early on.

178

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

While ‘task forces’ are normally appointed by the executive, committees and working groups can be initiated at the director level. This allowed the director the freedom to implement and adapt in a fairly dynamic fashion. Additionally, it became important to establish working groups and committees to ensure that academic ‘advice’ could be sought (committees) as well as used (working groups). Consequently, four durational working groups were established in year two to focus on the key areas that had emerged as initial priorities during the listening tour: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Design and construction Storm water and land Materials management Laboratories.

By the end of 2015, the MIT campus sustainability working groups published a set of recommendations to cover these four areas. All groups are established for an initial one-year period and reviewed at the end of the period to determine expiry or continuity. An overarching campus sustainability task force was established in year three to explore the larger vision for sustainability, and to review the final working group recommendations for further action and endorsement. While MITOS supported the strategic implementation of the recommendations, it continued to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive sustainability framework. In support of the ongoing work of the campus sustainability task force, MITOS continued to launch and facilitate additional committees and working groups to focus on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Sustainability Data Analytics (Committee) Climate Resiliency (Committee) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies (Working Group) Student Leadership in Sustainability (Working Group) Food and Sustainability (Working Group)

By 2017, this work was brought together under the MIT framework for sustainability, with five key strands: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Low-carbon campus: incorporating climate, buildings, energy and mobility Resilient ecosystems: including water, landscape and air quality Material lifecycles: looking specifically at procurement and waste Healthy people: through the interrelations among food, lifestyle, climate and community 5. Thriving networks: by partnering with campus, city and region to advance sustainability

Architecture for Sustainability Success

179

The work of the MITOS, in just four years, has transformed the landscape and collective endeavour at MIT towards sustainability, through ‘leveraging MIT ingenuity, knowledge, and resolve to create a healthy, low-carbon campus to serve as a proving ground for scalable solutions’ and identifying that: ‘Collaboration is key – across functions and disciplines and across local and global communities. Although the challenge is daunting, we believe that meaningful progress is possible  – and absolutely necessary’ (https://sustainability.mit.edu/topic/lowcarbon-campus, accessed 20 July 2017).

A process for sustainability success Key to sustainability success at MIT has been the development and establishment of the process, which could be regarded as the ‘architecture of success’. This is characterized by a stepwise process that has built a reputation for a particular ‘modus operandi’ within MITOS. Initially, this involved: 1. Appointing a lead for sustainability appropriately at a director/head level 2. Joining existing committees and working groups to understand the operation 3. Wide-scale ‘listening’ to the organization to understand priorities 4. Establishment of a limited number of working groups/committees and an ‘oversight’ task force 5. Implementing a formal reporting process 6. Annual review to ensure ongoing relevance and performance Within this, the establishment of working-group process has been critical. This is characterized by: 1. a non-prescriptive nature, as to the priorities and outcomes of working groups 2. allowing administrative and academic leads to decide who will sit on working groups 3. giving working groups the remit to establish baseline position, priorities and targets 4. exposing working groups to innovations on other campuses (university, industry and city) 5. ensuring ongoing service and academic lead responsibility for implementation.

180

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

The working groups also articulated five key conditions for success that are essential organizational characteristics to ensure robust implementation of recommendations. It was agreed that in collaboration with appropriate departments, that MITOS would take the lead on institutionalizing systems to ensure accountability and assessment of progress. The five conditions for success, and the actions that must be taken to achieve them, are outlined as follows: 1. Data platforms are accessible. Develop open, accessible and comprehensive data platforms. 2. Distributed leadership is enabled. Engage and empower faculty, students and staff in shaping, applying and continuously improving sustainability frameworks and strategies. Optimize capacity and resources across departments to ensure implementation of recommendations without redundancy. 3. Capacity building is prioritized. Build internal capacity through access to sustainability education and training. Integrate related, departmentspecific skills into the hiring process. 4. Capital investments are leveraged. Leverage existing resources within the Capital Renewal Program and other sources to enable strategic investment in projects that advance MIT’s commitment to sustainability and lead to measurable outcomes. 5. The campus becomes a ‘Living Lab’. Transform the campus into a ‘living’ resource to prototype, test and pilot research with the potential to solve complex sustainability challenges. Building a reputation for process has ensured that working groups can be established in more sensitive areas that not only include all relevant, albeit disparate, parties, but also ensures an understanding that the group will develop its own priorities and solutions. This ensures they become the owners of its success.

Commentary MIT continues to grow its reputation for research within the United States and globally, with a mission that focuses on its role to support the betterment of humankind in the twenty-first century. While this could be interpreted in different ways, the appointment of a lead for sustainability at a senior level clearly aligns the urgency and achievement of its mission with the principles of

Architecture for Sustainability Success

181

sustainability. Leadership for sustainability at MIT had been around for some time, but the fairly recent recognition of a need for a step change in performance is not uncommon within the sector. By appointing an experienced sustainability professional with a reputation for success, at a senior level, not only signalled to MIT that it was serious about sustainability, but also that they had the remit to get on and make things happen. Being appointed at the same level as most heads and directors of service, reporting directly to the executive vice president meant that collaborative and influential working was expected. So, institutional leadership for sustainability was in place to ensure the best possible outcome. However, seniority does not automatically bring success. Clearly, the level of experience in leading sustainability at other universities brought with it an understanding of both the higher education sector in general and the differences held therein. Thus, recognizing the need to understand the landscape of MIT, its mission, values, operating parameters, culture and understanding of sustainability was a critical first step. This process took many forms: attendance at existing committees and groups to gauge the modus operandi and levels of engagement, quality of implementation and success; listening to broad opinion about culture and priorities; establishing an office with the right attributes and understanding how MIT defined sustainability. With MIT being a science-based university, it was clearly understood that scientific-type targets would be the most appropriate approach, and thus fit with the ethos. The sustainability office ‘owns’ campus sustainability, and there is no argument about this, but it is implemented through an approach that puts the ownership for solutions and targets with individuals and teams throughout the organization. This kind of approach, which aligns with an organizational ethos and culture, provides structure, strategy and process, but relinquishes ownership, and requires a particular set of skills, knowledge and attributes. The director came to MIT with a very clear belief of what traits she needed to exhibit in order for MIT to be successful. These are to focus on understanding, putting in place process, maintaining patience, and exhibiting a grand sense of humility. It was critical to her that neither she nor her office should own success. People quickly forget who started something, so letting those invested in the solutions take the credit for success has been important. This approach is also used specifically for the recruitment and appointment process for staff in MITOS, to ensure that staff with the right attributes are recruited for the office. Patience is played out in two ways: by being willing to take one step forward and two steps backwards in order to rethink and reposition; and to recognize

182

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

when the timing is wrong, and that pushing ahead in such circumstances would be counterproductive. When aligned with a highly developed understanding of the landscape and culture of the organization, this clearly falls within the context of situational leadership, aligning with and responding to the organization. However, humility is probably one of the most important aspects that helps to achieve change and build success. The non-prescriptive approach complemented by an insistence that learning from others can bring different perspectives has ensured an openness to opportunities. Bringing examples of success from different campuses and industries into the working groups has ensured that all can learn from best practice and make informed decisions. While an iron grip on process has ensured that groups have moved forward with purpose and dynamism, the ownership of strategies and implementation rests solely with the group and its member representatives. This is distributed leadership at its most influential and instrumental level.

11

Sustainability Success and Working with Academics: Macquarie University, Australia

Background to the University Macquarie University is based in the suburbs of Sydney. It was founded in 1964 to offer a different route to higher education than the established universities of the time. It was the first institution in Australia to support mothers to study, providing the opportunity for children to attend lectures with their mothers if necessary. It is named after Governor Lachlan Macquarie, and the lighthouse symbol on the university’s coat of arms represents the beacon he laid the foundation to, as well as the guide that the university strives to be. The university is one of many in the wider Sydney and New South Wales region, with its competitors including University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Western Sydney University, University of Technology Sydney, University of Newcastle and University of Wollongong. Macquarie currently has 41,000 enrolled students, although many are parttime, so that the full-time equivalent load is just under 30,000, with a full-time equivalent staff base of 2,800. The university has a strong teaching focus, but is also active in research and aspires to increase its research strengths. It also plays an active role in engaging with local, national and global communities. This includes a range of curricular offers but also through active community volunteering, where staff are entitled to two days’ leave to volunteer their time with recognized charities and non-profit organizations. Examples of engagement include: 1. Participation and Community Engagement (PACE): a work-integrated learning approach where students undertake placements for credit, which is compulsory for all students 2. Global Leadership Programme, which develops a student’s capability in leadership, cross-cultural understanding and international awareness, as an extracurricular offer

184

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

3. The Learning, Education, Aspiration, Participation programme (LEAP), comprising a variety of school and community engagement initiatives to raise aspirations and actively support students from disadvantaged backgrounds to participate in higher education 4. The Macquarie Park Innovation District provides a world-class, collaborative ecosystem where researchers, entrepreneurs and corporates come together in an incubation zone to create solutions to community and global issues.

Higher education context Higher education is big business in Australia, being the third highest contributor to the gross domestic product (GDP) in the country. There has been a sustained increase in the number of school leavers attending university over the last ten years, as access to higher education has changed in tandem with the imperative to complete a degree. International student numbers are an important component of the system but these numbers tend to flux on a year-by-year basis. There are many parallels between the UK and Australian systems, both moving to massmarket-based systems. The funding model for students is similar to that operating in England too, with students responsible for the payment of their university fees once they graduate, in this case through a graduate tax. This is managed through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme for domestic students under a certain earnings threshold, but once the earnings exceed this, students pay back the loan over time. International students pay full fees up front. Recently the Australian government has agreed to a modified scheme, whereby the fees paid depend on the course of study taken. The algorithm for this is based on the earning potential on graduation, and costs of study. This means that a student studying law or economics is likely to pay higher fees than a student studying history, for example. The government has also reduced the earnings threshold at which students are required to repay their fees through the tax system.

Development of sustainability at Macquarie Macquarie University appointed a director of sustainability in 2008. The catalyst for this appointment was an independent report commissioned by the university in 2007 on ‘ten things to become more sustainable’. When the report

Sustainability Success and Working with Academics

185

was released, a sustainability working group was established. This was chaired by the deputy vice chancellor and chief operating officer (DVC and COO), a single, senior management professional services position. Over the course of the following two to three years under the new director, huge progress was made. Programmes relating to sustainability were developed and delivered; estates (buildings and grounds) became involved (including waste, energy and biodiversity initiatives) and sustainability policies, procedures, and the first sustainability strategy developed, as the staff base in sustainability increased. In addition, staff awareness was increased through sustainability induction modules and a vice chancellor (VC)-supported sustainability representative network for the staff. There are very few areas of sustainability where Macquarie was not engaged, and the university in many ways was setting the pace for others. In recent years, sustainability has become more embedded across the university. The university frames sustainability holistically, and is moving towards alignment with the UN Sustainable Development definition released alongside the Sustainable Development Goals. Examples of initiatives and actions are provided in Table 11.1, with more details of three of these (M-Power, Target: Better Futures and Education for Sustainability Initiative).

M-Power M-Power is a student and staff engagement tool for sustainability. Its intent is to provide ‘a fun and meaningful way for our community to focus on improving key lifestyle areas, such as waste, transport and volunteering’. The scheme provides staff and students with practical education, tips, ideas and resources for creating lifelong behaviour change, to help make a positive difference and to enhance a culture of sustainability at the university. The tool provides regular new challenges or initiatives, building on novelty of task, but also recognizing that behaviour changes towards sustainability can be made through many small steps. A recent example is the call for all to change their commute patterns in one way. They have suggested instead: ‘Carpool, bike ride, switch to active or public transport, or simply commute outside of peak hour one day per week to help ease congestion on the roads and gain peace of mind. For this sustainable transport challenge, change one trip per week and log your trips through Co-Hop for your chance to win an electric-folding bike’. (https://www.mq.edu.au/about/about-the-university/strategy-and-initiatives/ strategic-initiatives/sustainability/what-can-i-do/doing-good-with-m-power/ m-power-change-one-trip-per-week, accessed 3 June 2017)

186

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Table 11.1 Initiatives and actions in Macquarie Sustainability Curriculum

Extracurricular

Frameworks

• Developed sustainability in the curriculum framework and methodology • Process mapping of curriculum to the sustainability framework, with a pilot of four programmes • Introduced Green Steps into PACE programme • Arboretum established with teaching gardens linking to curriculum delivery • Appointed EfS advisor • Learning and teaching strategic document calls for embedding sustainability across all curriculum • Launched M-Power, a campus engagement programme • Bushcare and Permaculture gardens and workshops • Partnership with Harvest Hub for on-campus fruit and vegetables, focussing on local, seasonal products • Management of Community Volunteering Scheme, developing website and strategy • Launch of Target: Better Futures scheme • Supporting and hosting student interns • Bike hubs, bike repair stations and bike networks established • Adopted the LiFE framework • Developed Environmental Sustainable Development Strategy for buildings • Statement on sustainability included in the university strategy ‘Adhere to our commitment to the principles of sustainability in all that we do’ • Revised sustainability strategy • Continued production of annual sustainability report, following GRI framework

EfS, education for sustainability; GRI, Global Reporting Initiative

Co-Hop is Connect Macquarie Park’s new transport-planning and rideshare matching tool that rewards users as they commute. Macquarie University is a key partner and major user of the tool thanks to the efforts of Macquarie Sustainability.

Target: Better Futures This program is explicitly linked to the university’s strategy and sustainability’s explicit mention in number six of its seven strategic priorities. This priority for ‘developing a vibrant and sustainable campus, clearly at the centre of a rapidly changing neighbourhood in the international, cosmopolitan city of Sydney’ has as one of its measures to ‘adhere firmly to our commitment to the principles of sustainability in all we do’.

Sustainability Success and Working with Academics

187

Target:  Better Futures is an accreditation scheme at the departmental level for measuring, monitoring and reporting on sustainability action. Through operations and day-to-day behaviour it seeks to embed sustainability into the organizational culture of the university. It offers three accreditation levels: 1. Bronze: Departments undertake an initial assessment to ascertain what is already happening within the department and determine the level of maturity. 2. Silver: Departments gain a deeper understanding of sustainability and its relevance to the department’s mission and purpose. 3. Gold: Assists the move from planning to implementation, where sustainability becomes a part of business-as-usual.

Education for sustainability initiative Macquarie University have developed a comprehensive approach to integrating sustainability into the curriculum. It provides information on how sustainability can be incorporated under five themes, namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

harmony and well-being economies and economic well-being natural resources climate change implementation and governance.

In addition to the aforementioned framework content, guidance is provided on pedagogical approaches to incorporating sustainability. A  supportive methodology for taking forward sustainability is provided through a five-step approach, taking the academic through a series of steps needed for mapping sustainability onto content, learning level and pedagogical approach, as well as guidance on processes and supporting documentation needed for its approval.

Management and decision-making for sustainability In the early years, the director of sustainability reported to the DVC/COO, as chair of the sustainability working group, and operated as an independent unit. When the DVC/COO left, she reported directly to the VC until he left in 2012, and on the appointment of a new VC she moved back to reporting to a DVC/ COO, but with an informal reporting line to the DVC (academic) and registrar.

188

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Sustainability performance is measured by two means. First, an annual report is produced and presented to all executive group members collectively, and used as a conduit for conversation with each member during the year. Additionally, the VC has a sustainability-related key performance indicator (KPI) set by the University Council. Regular reporting on waste, water, energy use and costs go through the Finance and Facilities Committee, as a subcommittee to the University Council. The university is also required to report annual greenhouse gas emissions as part of the National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Scheme (NGGERS) established by the Federal Government. The university requires accountability for spend on sustainability, with proposals and budgets agreed through an annual planning process, and implementation dependent on the availability of staff and budget. New initiatives are likely to be justified on the basis of one or more of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Cost reduction Reputation enhancement Increasing engagement Improving student experience Transformative learning Process improvement.

In common with most other universities, Macquarie Sustainability is subject to competing priorities for a finite resource, time (and opportunity cost) as well as substantial time and effort to enhance understanding and engagement among management and staff. This is particularly challenging in their current environment where there is significant change, restructuring and staff down-sizing.

Working across the professional service–academic divide At Macquarie, a large element of sustainability action relates to curricular development, through education for sustainability (EfS) initiatives. The sustainability team formally reports through the DVC/COO, whose remit also includes the university’s finances, internal audit, property, information technology, human resources, legal and general counsel, risk and assurance, health and safety, strategic planning, government relations and Macquarie International. On joining Macquarie in 2008, the director had little experience of working with academics. In this section, we explore the dynamics between

Sustainability Success and Working with Academics

189

the academic focus of sustainability developments and how a non-academic reporting line brings opportunities or challenges to this. The skills needed to deliver EfS, curricular and extracurricular initiatives in the sustainability team include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Academic legitimacy working with academics on curriculum development Public facing and people orientated, relationship building Empathetic, adaptable, reading and interpreting a situation quickly Persuasive in gaining advocates for sustainability Capacity to learn quickly.

For the director to gain traction with academic colleagues to take forward EfS, she adopted a range of approaches. These included asking lots of questions to help her in understanding and ‘forcing’ her way into working groups discussing undergraduate capabilities. As such, attributes such as persuasion, relationship building and possibly being outspoken and resilient aided here. These attributes further helped in the development of the team through academic secondments into an EfS curriculum mapping project. An important component for a sustainability leader is knowledge of the organization and sustainability, but academic legitimacy is important for academic sustainability initiatives. As a leader, the director (who is not an academic) recognized the need for academic voice from others, although her advocacy and people skills will have identified who the individuals needed to be. Subsequently, an important role for the director has been to act as a bridge, or translator, between professional service staff and academic staff. She does this through not making assumptions, asking questions, checking back on language and thought processes in all and through empathy – presenting ideas from each in the language of the other. Credibility within the academic community for the EfS work done by Macquarie Sustainability is now significant. Successfully delivering a curriculum framework, in concert with the university’s learning and teaching framework has helped this. The director recognizes that it has been a slow process, taking years to build a common language, trust and capability. Having support of the DVC (academic), registrar and the pro-vice-chancellor of Learning and Teaching has given her additional kudos and credibility within the academic community (affirmation through legitimate power). This achievement has not been without its challenges and barriers however. At a basic level, getting individual academics on board to map sustainability onto their unit proved to be straightforward, through the director offering a non-confrontational, informal approach, showing that it required little of the

190

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

individual academic’s time or effort. With hundreds (or thousands) of individual units, this made for slow progress though. Asking unit conveners for more than basis mapping, such as engagement with knowledge gaps in sustainability, provided greater challenges, as it required more time from them and so competing priorities would prevail. Transformative change among academic staff proved to be even more challenging and less forthcoming. Success came with the identification of an opportunity by the director. The programme director for an undergraduate degree in Business Administration was looking for a common ‘talking point’ for unit leads to focus on, and sustainability fitted the bill – thus providing a ‘way in’ for EfS engagement. The director recognized that success can breed success, with one person talking to another sparking interest and engagement. Part of her skill is to network and lubricate these conversations. To date, fourteen degree programmes have been mapped in detail against the sustainability framework (about ten per cent of the total). The focus within these have been with respect to harmony and well-being, economics and economic well-being, and the implementation and governance of sustainability. The team is aware of gaps in knowledge in programmes, particularly in natural resources and climate change. Using the UN Sustainable Development Goals to map knowledge will provide a legitimate means to frame these gaps, and this mapping is currently being undertaken. Completion of the mapping across all programmes in the university is a very long process and will take years and significant resource. The university is currently undergoing challenging times, with staffing restructures (downsizing) in the sustainability team. The challenge for Macquarie Sustainability is to be relevant to key decision-makers in the university. This means talking the language of finance, pay back and impact: the language of the DVC/COO. The director recognizes that there is work to do, particularly with impact narratives in sustainability and their benefits to not only curriculum, but also to research quality and knowledge exchange.

Commentary The development of EfS at Macquarie provides a good example of how to engage with academic staff, albeit from a professional services role for significant achievement. This has not happened quickly or easily and has required substantial

Sustainability Success and Working with Academics

191

patience and doggedness on the director’s part and lots of coffee drunk in relationship building with academic colleagues to gain trust and interest! Significantly, a key component of success here by the director has been the ability to frame sustainability, and the task required to embed it, from the point of view of the individual or group she is trying to influence. Acting as an advocate alone, without empathetic approaches, would have been unhelpful. Framing sustainability in terms of core organizational objectives (such as student engagement and employability) has been important. Equally, encouraging academic engagement through tiny steps, where the time-consuming aspects are taken from the academic, has been important. It is all too easy for academics to say they do not have the time to engage in something new (especially if it does not seem core to their research or teaching requirements). The director recognized this, and has been able to hook academics in by removing this problem. Spotting opportunities has also been vital. In this case, engagement with the business administration programmes was a chance opportunity but led to significant progress in EfS. The chance opportunity only came about because of the director’s strong and established networks, and the considerable amount of time taken to get to know the university and be known and trusted by the staff. This has enabled further programme engagement, but as noted by the director, mapping all programmes across the whole institution will take some time, particularly with the more recalcitrant academics. The director at Macquarie demonstrates the leadership skills of patience, empathy, relationship building and pragmatism to take on this challenge though!

12

Sustainability Advocacy and Leadership: The University of Kerala, India

Background to the university The University of Kerala is the largest academic institution in the state of Kerala in southern India. Located in the state capital of Trivandrum, the university was founded in 1834 as the Maharaja’s Free School by the king of Travancore, which later became a college and was finally declared a university in 1937. In essence, it is a state-funded, secular university. Besides the revenues it raises from fees, the state and national governments provide grants and financial assistance of various kinds to the university. The early school headmasters and vice chancellors were British, and the colonial residue still lingers in current structures and bureaucratic procedures. Kerala has a long history of education which was promoted in the past by the Travancore royal family, Christian missionaries and a range of societies and organizations. This has resulted in an inclusive approach to education involving men and women equally and all sections of society without discrimination. William Tobias Ringeltaube, the first Protestant missionary in south Travancore, is remembered for this work in the late eighteenth century. A key nineteenthcentury pioneer in the mid-Travancore area was the priest and social reformer, Kuriakose Elias Chavara, who made education available to both rich and poor through a system called ‘a school along with every church’. This system still continues today, and his work has resulted in the promotion of education for girls and has become a model for the education in Kerala after it obtained independence in 1947. Today, the University of Kerala benefits from being the academic hub of a state which has a population of around 35  million people and one of the highest literacy rates in India. In addition to its own activities, it prescribes courses of study, conducts exams and issues certificates for a large number

194

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

of affiliated colleges. There are over 150 of these in all, including 60 arts and science colleges, 37 teacher training colleges and 17 engineering colleges. The total number of students in these institutions comes to 84,000. As a state university with affiliated colleges across south Kerala it has no serious academic competitor as yet.

Higher education context India has one of the largest higher education systems in the world, and it ranks after the United States and China in terms of student numbers. India has around 800 universities and literally thousands of colleges. The demand for higher education has grown steadily in recent decades and according to the 2011 census, there are around 68 million graduates in India today – roughly eight per cent of the population. Some universities and colleges are state funded, but there are also a good number which are privately owned. Students pay a modest fee in state-funded institutions but costs are several times higher in the private sector. Over the years, the proportion of state funding has been progressively decreasing, and it looks as if this trend is likely to continue into the future. The emphasis in higher level education in India lies on science and technology but it is of variable quality. Some universities and higher education institutions are globally acclaimed for their standard of education. For example, the Indian Institutes of Technology in particular have a very high reputation for their work. However, the boom in engineering and medical colleges has also led to the creation of a large number of graduates of rather questionable quality. The dearth of high-grade students in basic sciences and humanities has now begun to be recognized, and there is a renewed interest in these areas in the country at large. Distance learning and open education are also a significant feature of the Indian higher education system.

Development of sustainability at Kerala State University Sustainability has little official recognition within the university at the current moment. There is as yet no formal body that supervises it and no commonly agreed definition of what it means. However, academic discussions in the form of seminars and conferences around the sustainability and environmental topics

Sustainability Advocacy and Leadership

195

often happen on the university campus. The various affiliated colleges also explore sustainability issues in different ways, but this tends to be dependent on the motivation of individual teachers. Some work is also done through the social service activities of various departments and colleges, particularly through the work of the National Cadet Corps and the National Service Scheme. Looking back over the years, there has been a growing realization within the university that sustainability matters. This has largely resulted in building student awareness and the generation of discussion through seminars, nature camps, social work and so forth. A number of research projects have been developed by individual teachers in various faculties and departments  – particularly economics and life sciences. There has always been an essay question or two on relevant areas included in the general English courses done by all students at the undergraduate level. However, within the last four years, a compulsory paper on environmental awareness has been introduced in the courses delivered by English teachers. This has started to take messages about sustainability forward in a more inclusive and comprehensive manner. At the same time, there is a general awareness, and even commitment, on the part of university leaders on matters relating to sustainability. The problem is that these matters often do not get the attention they deserve due to the pressure of routine affairs. Furthermore, most decisions are taken on an informal and ad hoc basis, and there is a general understanding that sustainability is limited to environmental conservation. In these respects, the University of Kerala is similar to many other universities in both the majority and minority worlds. Those who are committed to sustainability and seek to promote it in their institutions and academic life find that their fledgling attempts are easily eclipsed by core business agendas and thwarted by the apathy of society at large. One of the next steps being considered is to undertake a conscious and structured attempt at systematizing sustainability projects within the university. The Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) of the university has already begun to move in this direction, drawing up and attempting to implement a ‘green’ protocol which seeks to usher in paperless offices and minimize the use of plastics. There is, however, a lot more work that needs to be done. The fundamental difficulty is that sustainability has to compete with other agendas and priorities which tend to squeeze it out. The senior leaders have yet to see this as a priority, despite the sustainability leadership pressing for action, so that progress may be achieved more likely through grass-roots activities currently. There is a concern that this will be a very real obstacle to progress.

196

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

Sustainability advocacy: An individual portrait A senior member of academic staff and sustainability leader who has worked in various educational roles and is now at the University of Kerala offers some personal reflections on sustainability and the way that he has promoted it during his career. While he is not overly optimistic about the prospects for the future, his account indicates some of the different ways in which sustainability can be supported through grass-roots initiatives and thereby begin to change institutional culture and values (Figure 12.1).

My association with the University of Kerala began when I joined it as an undergraduate student in the mid-1980s. I came in with scattered notions about the problems of deforestation, and a kind of intuitive knowledge of the need for a sustainable way of life in all spheres. The university had a number of environment clubs and social service activities, but I felt there was no proper leadership or clarity of vision. I remember I was very troubled about the attitude of the people around me, and I went to meet a renowned poet and environmental/social activist, Ms Sugathakumari, to share my anxieties. She sounded rather pessimistic too, and in mid-1980s said something like ‘I think humanity will never actually do anything positive to prevent the impending environmental impasse.’ She is one of the rare people I have met who had this long-term vision, as she was not talking about the immediate future. Years later, in 2013, we invited this same lady to give a talk and launch an environmental project at the university. She is still active in these areas. When I started working as a lecturer in a rural college affiliated to the University of Kerala, in 1993, I took charge of the Eco Club from another teacher. It was at about this time that I first came across the term ‘sustainable development’. I remember that I was so interested by the idea that I went on to arrange a talk about it, given by an outside speaker. Over the years, in my own low-key fashion, I think I have been able to impart the message of sustainability to quite a few students. We have undertaken practical work to improve the grounds, done discussions and brought out newsletters for example. Another key influence on my thinking was a set of booklets written by a certain Dr Shanthi. I ended up meeting her in person and got to know her husband Dr Sathish as well. They both proved to be remarkable people. Dr Sathish had unique qualities – a rare combination of a philosopher, historian, ascetic and scientist. I learned quite a lot of values related to life, essentially related to sustainability and life sciences, from him, and though I do not meet him much these days, I see him as a kind of guru. In him too I could see the latent vein of pessimism about the ability of human beings to really grasp the facts of sustainability and the need to have long-term plans to conserve and sustain the environment. Figure 12.1 (Continued)

Sustainability Advocacy and Leadership

197

During my work in the college one contribution I could make was to plant a few hundred trees in the college campus and in the neighbourhood. The most evident impact was the direct one, though I believe there has been the additional benefit that the students who were involved were inspired in many ways to be sustainability leaders, and also go on with the mission of greening. This was in the capacity of the Programme Officer of the National Service Scheme unit of the college. Now that I have a senior role in the university, I hoped that I would be able to take up more sustainable tree planting missions, but I have found that I cannot do much due to the pressure of the authorities to focus on lawns and ornamental gardening which I do respect, but would not happily invest my time in. I am often reminded of the old image of the frog in the mouth of the snake that would swallow him while complaining bitterly of its hunger. I would say that the main challenge I have faced in developing sustainability perspectives in university life has always been a lack of genuine interest and commitment in the public at large. People still are very much addicted to the short term, apparently cheap, comforts, the huge environmental cost of which are either not known or ignored. Certainly all the awareness raising of the past two to three decades has helped, but not in the way one would desire. Even as the mean temperature soars, even as the groundwater level and water availability menacingly go down, tree-planting drives or even attempts to conserve existing trees are not given the slightest priority. Every day new construction projects pop up in Kerala, such as building and roads, and trees are the primary casualties. Everyone seem to pay lipservice to the cause of protecting greenery, reducing plastics, recycling, reducing the senseless use of consumer goods and adopting a more sustainable way of life, but not many are willing to take the slightest positive step. Even so-called green initiatives lack a solid foundation and end up being perfunctory acts for popularity or attention. There’s another thing. As the heat increases, the sale of air conditioners goes up. They are being advertised like mad these days. I am one of very few who still have not bought one, but I do not know for how long. Not that buying an air conditioner is a crime, but the fact is that we did not need them until only a few decades or years ago. As things stand, only very serious signs of environmental crises will prompt people to change their ways. Then it would not be a positive change. If we can get governments to act, if we can get the younger generation to have the ‘real’ awareness – ‘real’ is the crucial word – then maybe there will be positive change. One hopeful sign is that there is more frequent and apparently more sincere work relating to sustainability in the university these days. However, I know that personally I am not really doing enough due to my academic commitments, and my feeling of pessimism does not leave. On a more positive note I have been heartened in the past few years by the response to a major travelling exhibition on sustainability called Whole Earth? This exhibition is aimed at students and staff, and it invites them to consider ways in which their courses can be modified to address sustainability issues. We held an international seminar to mark the launch of Whole Earth? and large numbers of students have seen it and studied since then. I have also arranged for the exhibition to go to other colleges and campuses including Christ College in Bengaluru, which is around 500 miles away in Karnataka. Around 1,250 students viewed it there and took part in quizzes and engaged in a programme of awareness-raising lectures. Figure 12.1 (Continued)

198

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

In my view a good leader in sustainability needs to be a well-informed person. This does not mean particularly high levels of education, but education tempered with plain strong common sense. S/he should be able to see beyond short-term material benefits and have a nearly intuitive perception of long-term sustainability. S/he needs to have an aesthetic sense tempered with a moderate knowledge of the basic laws on which the ecosystem functions. Above all the leaders should have a clear conviction of the issue they are addressing. It is the lack of principled engagement that leads to all the tentativeness to seriously come down on plastic pollution, careless constructions that stall natural water cycle and prevent replenishing of the water table or the mindless destruction of flora, which are all major threats we face in Kerala today. Most often than not, the success of an educational programme is measured in terms of how well it went rather than its deeper and long-term impact on students. I think one of the most significant indicators is whether the participants are left feeling that there is a need for more and immediate follow-up work. Over the years, the direct and indirect attempts at cherishing sustainability goals have certainly had their impact, but somehow this has not affected policymaking at a governmental level. As an example, I remember that as early as 1995 I tried to raise awareness about the potential danger of plastics that are used and thrown away. I remember drawing up a poster that graphically illustrated the impact of plastic waste on land, air and water. Over twenty years from then, as the threat of unmanageable plastic waste looms large, the government is still tentative in its decisions. Plastic bags have been banned by a feebly enacted law, but the prevention is not being followed up in the spirit it should be. It is here that practical wisdom becomes important, where the leaders should have conviction in what they are doing. Figure 12.1 Reflections on leadership at the University of Kerala Source: Transcript of interviews conducted by the authors

Commentary This testimony resonates with many of the themes relating to leadership and leadership theory which were explored in previous chapters, especially Chapter 1. Although the account presents a portrait of someone who has acted on his own initiative on many occasions, here is an individual who has clearly inspired his friends and colleagues. The description of leadership proposed by Northouse (2016) – a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal – can be seen in action in these situations. The leader attracts followers and this validates his or her role. It is also instructive reflecting on the traits and qualities which are associated with leadership. We referred earlier to the idea of the ‘emotionally intelligent leader’ and highlighted the concept of ‘authentic leadership’ which takes account of values-led goals and recognizes the complex nature of a learning organization.

Sustainability Advocacy and Leadership

199

There can be little doubt about the sincerity of an individual who has sought out leading environmental thinkers over a period of more than thirty years and who has initiated projects such as tree planting on their university campus. Equally, as a senior member of staff who works closely with senior management, our sample tutor is well versed in the operational realities of running a large university. There are various other qualities which shine through in the personal portrait. One of these is humility  – he understates his achievements and is modest about his impact – and the second is his sense of vision. His analysis of current trends both within and beyond the university suggests a deep understanding of the issues and is underpinned by a sense of purpose and direction. There is an implied goal lying behind much of what is said. Some would call this an ‘ecological’ or ‘holistic’ vision. One of the challenges of exploring sustainability leadership is to identify how and where the rather imprecise processes of institutional change originate. The case study here provides an example of how the more intangible processes can affect change, as it were ‘beneath the surface’, which can be equally important and influential. This approach is reflected in our discussions on the adaptive organizational system in Chapter  4, but also leadership approaches such as deep systems thinking and transformative leadership. In these, we recognize the importance of sustainability leadership of operating in non-hierarchical, creative ways, an approach also supported by communities of practice and reflecting the less-structured dynamic of academic research engagement. Ultimately though, in the case reported in Figure 12.1, there is a ceiling to what is possible until there is greater alignment between the values and the priorities of the university with the vision which our sample tutor exemplifies.

Conclusion

In this book, we have amassed a wealth of knowledge, theory, opinions, practices and case studies pertaining to the three subjects in the title: leadership, sustainability and higher education. We have considered each of these areas individually and relative to each other. Each is a subject of much more depth of understanding and debate than we have been able to provide here, but to adapt Parkin’s view that sustainability leaders need ‘enough knowledge of sustainability’, we have provided ‘enough knowledge of each of leadership, sustainability and higher education’ to enable the reader to engage with our discussion of the whole. In our writing, we sought to meet multiple goals. The first of these was to inform and enhance the knowledge base for the reader across these subjects. The second was to provide a ‘go to’ guide for aspiring or experienced sustainability leaders in higher education, to assist in their success. The third was to add to the debate and research on leadership for sustainability. We believe that bringing all three goals together has provided an output that operates at the nexus of academia and practice. Within higher education, this is a vital component for legitimacy in debate and decision-making for leadership success. We have framed our conclusion around our findings relating to, first, theory and then practical application.

Sustainability understanding Sustainability as a theme has been at the heart of this book. Despite the passage of decades since the seminal quotation through the Brundtland Commission in 1987, it is still a subject, concept or theme that is poorly understood, misunderstood and at times, misrepresented. Part of the difficulty of ensuring clarity for the subject is that it does not fit neatly into a single discipline or curriculum area in universities. Of course, this difficulty lies at the very heart of its strength as an all-embracing, interdisciplinary concept!

202

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

In universities, organizing for sustainability does not fit neatly into existing organizational structures, and there is no single-entry point at which developments for sustainability enter institutional consciousness. Most universities now have a defined sustainability function, position or post, and our empirical work concentrated on these individuals. However, it was clear that while many sustainability initiatives have arisen in estates, premised on regulation or government funding, others have surfaced through student interest and activism, in addition to those through academic engagement in curricula and research. Even where there is a defined leadership position for sustainability in the organization, grass root development in sustainability initiatives through the complex adaptive systems that proliferate in universities has provided a rich seam of development.

Contribution to practice This book provides practical contributions in terms of bringing knowledge of sustainability, leadership and the higher education context separately, but also in relation to each other. Additionally, we have sought to bring conceptual tools and techniques to aid decision-making, ones currently being adopted and others that need to become more prominent given the evolving higher education landscape of ‘marketization’ and ‘massification’. Our approach has seen discussion of these, with their application through examples and case studies from current sustainability leadership and university practice. A sustainability leader in higher education needs to understand the subject area of sustainability (‘enough’ knowledge but not necessarily deep expertise), and also an appreciation of how to operate most effectively for action, through understanding both what makes for good leadership and, importantly, what makes for great leadership within their organizational and sector context. Our discussion on the higher education context, and findings on leadership attributes and successful action all point to relationship building and crossboundary working as being key to success in progressing sustainability in universities. Sustainability leaders operate with a tangled web of decisionmaking for sustainability, needing whole-system thinking for scenarios of great uncertainty and complexity. Making this happen in practice is helped through the application of structured approaches. To date, these include the use of the command-control operating system (CCOS)–adaptive operating system (AOS) model and Living Labs approaches discussed in Chapter 4, which are both gaining traction in the

Conclusion

203

university sector at the cross-institutional level, supplemented through nonhierarchical information sharing approaches such as Communities of Practice and explicit recognition of mutuality in competence building, seeking win–win situations for cross-disciplinary or cross-functional groups. The models presented offer synergies with theories of sustainability leadership. Of particular note is the need for strong interpersonal skills and to manage follower (and stakeholder) thought and action. Additionally, the importance of operating empathetically, cooperating, collaborating and sharing information was identified. Within this incentive, compatibility was vital, with sustainability leaders seeking and developing mutuality of incentives and goals with those of the complex dynamic that is the twentieth-century university. Examples of this abound in the book, with detail of practice provided in Chapters 9–12, where the case studies show specific examples of where these attributes lead to success. Sustainability leadership in universities needs to adapt to, and leverage benefits from, the emerging policy and market environments for the sector globally. Past approaches of advocacy, deviancy and paradigm shifts do not register in the new managerial, market environment the sector is working in. Sustainability leaders in higher education can no longer argue for sustainability solely on moral, ‘right thing to do’ grounds, although it is still a fundamental truism. It is rare to find a university that makes decision about sustainability actions on that basis alone. Instead, they need to speak the ‘language of business’ to gain traction. In this book, we have suggested models and methods of doing this through measuring ‘value’ brought by sustainability, enabling this to happen through incentive compatibility (between university leadership and sustainability leadership). Some of these are beginning to be used in the sector, as we note in the case study on Canterbury Christ Church University and its application of the Capitals Framework, but they are not widely established yet. We believe that the application of tools and approaches discussed in Chapter 5, measuring and attributing value are critical to getting sustainability as a subject onto the senior management and board agenda. In our Introduction to this book, we alluded to the ‘babel-fish’ analogy, and believe models and approaches here provide that translation link for sustainability leaders operating in the twentieth-century higher education environment.

Theoretical and research contribution Theories on leadership and ‘what makes a good leader’ abound in the academic literature and have a long provenance. They have developed from trait-based

204

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

(‘great man’) theories, through to more recent theories where context of the leader and the attributes of the leader need to be considered in concert for successful leadership outcomes (so-called situational leadership models). Leadership for sustainability has a younger heritage, in line with its recent development as an international imperative, subject area and organizational function. Recent models in leadership for sustainability (such as the Cambridge Model discussed and applied in this book) have recognized it to be a balancing act, bringing together: 1. individual leader attributes (innate, learnt, personal and interpersonal) 2. leadership context (organizational cultures, structures and decisionmaking processes) 3. knowledge of sustainability, and individual attributes that enable interconnectedness in thinking for an uncertain, complex subject matter. Leadership theories for sustainability which have been tested empirically find a focus on the leader as an individual, citing certain traits, styles or skills that are distinctive here. They point to attitudes or behaviours such as valuesled; empathetic; energy, enthusiasm and passion and excellent people- and relationship-building styles of communication. Other theories point to leadership processes or means of engagement. These may be through transformational leadership, leader as servant and authentic leadership models. Each of these looks to non-hierarchical, empathetic and team-orientated approaches to sustainability leadership, but again speaks to the individual attributes of the sustainability leader (particularly as leadership style). We undertook to establish empirically the role of (i) leadership context; (ii) leader as individual and (iii) sustainability knowledge in successful leadership for sustainability. Our organizational context was the higher education sector. This serves a gap in current knowledge through the use of an empirical approach looking at the context and individual separately and relative to each other. At the centre of leadership context are organizational cultures and norms of behaviour. This has been discussed, and an underlying premise within the book which is neatly articulated through Garrett and Davies’s (2011) comment on university culture is helpful here, being a ‘herding cats environment’. In our empirical investigation, our respondents noted specific contextual influences that impacted on how they operated, having to work within the bounds of institutional custom and practice. These included the schism between academic and professional service functions and the, sometimes, convoluted decision-making

Conclusion

205

structures required through multipartite committee structures. These brought substantial challenges that were distinctive to sustainability leaders. 1. As sustainability is a cross-institutional theme, leadership needed to work with and between both academic and professional service functions, and sometimes for professional service staff to line manage academics. 2. The cross-institutional nature of responsibility impacted on committee representation and attendance, needing extensive coverage across many of the university committees. Additionally, sustainability legitimacy in universities was mixed, as evidenced by the relative lack of interest in sustainability by governing bodies in the sample, despite one or two enlightened institutions. In concert with only a few organizations seeing sustainability being worthy of a pro-vice-chancellor (PVC) or equivalent appointment suggests that the theme has not yet registered at senior levels as being a core element of organizational success. This means that sustainability leaders are having to explain, justify and legitimize sustainability into a senior management team and governing body, where they may receive little understanding or buy-in. Individual leadership attributes were considered to include traits, styles, skills and knowledge, and although these are often considered distinctive in leadership theories, we tended to consider them as a bundle, finding it difficult to determine at times whether a behaviour or attribute was innate (a trait) or learnt (a style). This element of our enquiry was the only part where others had undertaken empirical work, but our approach differed through its sector focus and non-prescribed approach to finding out attributes considered relevant. Broadly, our finding concurred with those in the wider literature, and our respondents would not disagree with the views from this about needing to be empathetic, collaborative, team-based, visionary and values-led. What was distinctive for sustainability leaders in universities was the imperative throughout of relationship building, and working in a cross-boundary style in order to be successful. We recognized that ‘relationship building’ as an attribute could be disaggregated into other attributes used in the literature (e.g. caring, open-minded, inclusive), but its pre-eminence in our respondents strongly suggested the need to not just convince others through the ‘head but also through the heart’. The importance of operating in a cross-boundary manner is likely to reflect both the roles individuals play, and the need to bring strands of university functions together, as in other organizations, but with the unique

206

Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education

need to work with multiple academic disciplines, all with their own perspectives on approaches and priorities. Relationship building and cross-boundary working as attributes for successful sustainability leadership in universities chime well with the organizational context. The need to work across multiple professional service functions and academic disciplines requires exceptional relationship-building attributes and cross-boundary approaches. Additionally, to be able to build legitimacy with all senior management, professional services and academics requires maturity and resilience. Being able to engage with, incentivize, empathize and hold the attention of the disparate is essential for success in universities. The skills and knowledge required for successful sustainability leaders showed considerable congruence between the wider literature and our results, although the context and balance of each may vary. In universities, knowledge is held in very high esteem, and lack of knowledge can be a core barrier to legitimacy. This explained the importance of ‘academic legitimacy’ for academic sustainability leaders. This need also meant that respondents were more likely than most to explicitly state their academic and professional credentials (or apologize for the lack of them), concentrating on these rather than implicit skills relating to, say, change dynamics. As part of our research we also investigated the actions sustainability leaders undertook for success. This reiterated the need for strong relationship building, and cross-disciplinary working, as key drivers for success. It was clear that they cannot operate in isolation. Relationship development and engaging with the right people, being part of sector and external networks, and team working are all key to success for them. To be successful, leaders need to have excellent leadership skills relating to relationship building, empathy, collaboration, motivation and persuasion. Additionally, they need to operate not only across the strategic– operational divide, being able to seek strategic solutions, work in a cross-boundary manner and consider sustainability at the institutional level, but also with levels of detail required for performance accountability. Multiple, seemingly disparate, attributes are needed for these, bringing together directive, persuasive approaches with collaboration, yet operating systematically and across boundaries. Bringing together our findings through application of the Cambridge Model suggests a clear interplay between understanding and working with organizational context, determining key attributes to bring success in sustainability. Although the individual leadership attributes listed in the literature are relevant and applicable, what emerges here is that organizational context determines which of these are a priority for sustainability leadership in higher education.

Conclusion

207

Applicability beyond the subject and sector and present day? A risk in undertaking a sector-specific enquiry is that there is little relevance outside of it. It is not unusual for individuals to see their organization, or sector, as distinctively different from others. When this happens, the risk is that learning cannot be transposed or applied elsewhere. In this case, we believe that the higher education has a distinct bundle of attributes and dynamics, each of which on its own is not unique but, when taken together, leads to distinctiveness, particularly in terms of organizational cultures and responses to policy drivers, as well as the role of students (customer, partner, collaborator in learning, product?) and the long-term nature of the impact research, knowledge exchange and learning has on wider society. We believe there is much to learn from this complex interplay, particularly in terms of pushing the boundaries and scope of sustainability and its application across the whole of society, for the benefit of all our futures. Our sustainability leaders have considerable knowledge and capability of understanding the complex web of sustainability and leading success in it within a tangled web of academic organizational culture. We hope the findings and examples of good practice provided in this book provide assurance to those operating in sustainability leadership positions in universities currently. These leadership attributes offer much to the wider society in tackling their approaches to leadership for sustainability. As such, learning from practice within the higher education sector should be strongly encouraged. Of course, within universities, we have much to learn about how to operate in our new market-led environments. We need to work with, and learn from, the private and social enterprise sectors on taking forward sustainability within this new paradigm, yet leverage where we can from global initiatives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We are facing increasing speeds of economic and technological development at a global scale, with potential political and human and environmental disrupters arising from this. Universities working with and interconnected to society and for the benefit of society could play a vital role in our sustainable future, and we need to do this in ways aligned to, rather than rejecting of, predominant economic drivers. There is no single right way to do this, but we believe this book provides information, theoretical frameworks, tools, techniques and practical examples of success that can be used to move this agenda forward. Working with all for reciprocity and mutuality will build success for all.

Appendix – Survey Instrument (Questionnaire) for Part C The following questionnaire was devised by the authors and was based on the structure for enquiry for leadership devised by Visser and Courtice (2011), referred to in the text as the ‘Cambridge Model’. It was used to collect data relating to Chapters 6, 7 and 8 as well as parts of Chapter 5 on the Five Rs model. 1. Example(s) of sustainability success or otherwise a. Please describe one or more specific examples of sustainability-related success or otherwise, which you have led or have had a significant influence on. 2. Leadership context a. Outline where your role fits within the organizational structure. b. What is the scope of your role? c. Explain the governance and decision-making structures for decisions on sustainability, for example, committees/reporting frameworks and requirements. d. What criteria did the university use to decide whether to undertake sustainability initiatives described in (1a)? e. To what extent do the activities of other universities influence your agenda? f. What are your main challenges in progressing the sustainability agenda in your institution? For example, do you see opportunities within your university, which you are unable to capitalize on? 3. Individual leadership traits a. How would people in your institution describe you as a leader? b. What particular attributes, qualities or personal characteristics do you feel are important to being a successful sustainability leader? c. To what extent do your organization’s values concur with these attributes/qualities?

210

Appendix

4. Individual leadership styles a. As well as individual characteristics, leadership can be defined by leadership style – the manner and approach used to provide direction, motivate people and implement plans. Can you reflect on this with regard to your practice? 5. Individual leadership skills and knowledge Skills a. Successful leadership practice requires a sound, relevant skill base. Can you reflect on what skills you bring to bear that are important in sustainability leadership? Knowledge b. Additionally, successful leadership practice requires sufficient knowledge, which can be translated appropriately. Can you reflect on what knowledge you bring to bear that is important in sustainability leadership? 6. Leadership actions internally a. With reference to your specific examples, what actions have you taken to attain sustainability success in your organization? b. What have been the enablers to this success? c. What have been the challenges and barriers to taking forward sustainability initiatives? d. How do you measure your success? 7. Leadership actions externally a. Outline who your key networks and points of reference are for your role, externally. b. What training/further expertise do you draw on? c. Do you measure your success relative to other higher education institutes (HEIs)? d. What relevance are sustainability actions and initiatives to you from other sectors?

References Adams, D. (1979), A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. London: Pan Books. Altbach, P., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L. (2009), Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Paris. American Association of University Professors. (1940), ‘Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure’. Available online: https://www.aaup.org/report/ 1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure – 4 (accessed 15 October 2016). Amin, A. and Roberts, J. (2008), ‘Knowing in Action: Beyond Communities of Practice’, Research Policy, 37(2): 353–369. Austen, J. ([1813] 2013), Pride and Prejudice. London: Penguin. Barnett, R. (2011), ‘The Coming of the Ecological University’, Oxford Review of Education, 37(4): 439–455. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2011.595550. Becher, T. (1988), ‘Principles and Politics: An Interpretative Framework for University Management’, in A. Westoby (ed), Culture and Power in Educational Organisations. Buckingham: Open University Press. Beddington, J. (2009), ‘Food, Energy, Water and the Climate: A Perfect Storm of Global Events?’ Available online: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfectstorm-paper.pdf Bennis W. G. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row. Blake, R. R. and Moulton, J. S. (1964), The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf. Bolden, R., Jones, S., Davis, H. and Gentle, P. (2015), Developing and Sustaining Shared Leadership in Higher Education. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Project Report, London: Leadership Foundation. Bottery, M. (2016), Educational Leadership for a More Sustainable World. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bowers, C. (2001), Educating for Eco-Justice and Community. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Brandt, W. (1980), North-South: A Programme for Survival. London: The Brandt Commission, Pan Books. Bray, P. (2016), ‘Then and Now: How University Has Changed: Parents’ Guide to University Real Lives’, The Daily Telegraph, London, 23 July 2016: 11. Buchanan D. and Huczynski, A. (2004) Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, 5th edn. Harlow: FT Prentice-Hall. Burns, J. M. (1978), Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

212

References

Capra, F. and Luisi, P. L. (2014), The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carlyle, T. (1829), ‘Signs of the Times’, Edinburgh Review, 49: 441. Carroll, L. ([1865] 1920), Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. London: Macmillan. Carson, R. (1962), Silent Spring. New York: Fawcett Crest. Child, J. (1984), Organisation: A Guide to Problems and Practice, 2nd edn. London: Harper & Row. Christensen, N. L., Jr. (2012), ‘Environmental Leadership as a Practice’, in D. R. Gallagher (ed.), Environmental Leadership: A Reference Book. pp. 11–16. Clegg, N., Dawkes, B. and Mason, A. (2016), ‘The Social Lexicon’, Forum for the Future. Available online: https://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/five-capitals/overview (accessed 16 October 2016). Cornford, F. M. (1908), Microcosmographia Academia: Being a Guide for the Young Academic Politician. Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, N. V., Paruelo, J. and Raskin, R. G. (1997), ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital’, Nature, 287: 253–260. Daly, H. E. (1980), Economics, Ecology, Ethics: Essays toward a Steady-State Economy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co. Dooris, M. T., Cawood, J., Doherty, S. and Powell, S. (2010), ‘Healthy Universities: Concept, Model and Framework for Applying the Healthy Settings Approach within Higher Education in England’. Working Paper, UCLan. Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), ‘Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behaviour’, The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1): 122–136. Ecclestone, K. and Hayes, D. (2009), The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education, London: Routledge. Egri, C. and Herman, S. (2000), ‘Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and Their Organisations’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 571–604. Ehrlich, P. (1968), The Population Bomb. New York: Buccaneer Books. Epstein, M. J. (2008), Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts. San Francisco: Greenleaf Publishing with Berrett-Koehler. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). (2016), The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/ publications/sofa/2016/en Fearn, H. (2009), ‘The Green University at the Heart of a Living Lab’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 September 2009: 18. Fonti, F. (2008), Book Review: Ash Amin and Joanne Roberts (eds). Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 322. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. and Wicks, A. (2007), Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

References

213

French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. H. (1958) ‘The Bases of Social Power’, in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Furnham, A. (2015), The Psychology of Behaviour at Work, 2nd edn. Hove (England); New York: Psychology Press. Galpin, T. and Lee Whittington, J. (2012), ‘Sustainability Leadership: From Strategy to Results’, Journal of Business Strategy, 33(4): 40–48. Garmann Johnsen, H. C., Torjesen, S. and Ennals, R. (eds). (2015), Higher Education in a Sustainable Society: A Case for Mutual Competence Building. Switzerland: Springer International. Garrett, G. and Davies, G. (2011), Herding Cats: Being Advice to Aspiring Academic and Research Leaders. Devon: Triarchy. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J. and Krause, T. (1995), ‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research’. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874–907. Goldberg, L. R. (1990), ‘An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216–1229. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970), The Servant as Leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. GRI – Global Reporting Initiative. (2017) About GRI. Available online https://www. globalreporting.org/Information/about-gri/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 16 July 2017). Gutierrez, M., McFarland, W. and Fonua, L. (2014), ‘Zero Poverty . . . Think Again: Impact of Climate Change on Development Efforts’. ODI (Overseas Development Institute). Working Paper, accessed online https://www.odi.org/sites/ odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8862.pdf 24th March 2017 Haddock-Fraser, J. E. (in press), ‘Higher Education for Sustainability’, in J. C. Shin and P. Teixeira (eds), Encyclopaedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Netherlands: Springer. Hämäläinen, R. P. and Saarinen, E. (eds). (2008), Systems Intelligence: A New Lens on Human Engagement and Action. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory. Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organisations, 4th edn. London: Penguin Books. Hardin, G. (1968), ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, 162(3859): 1243–1248. HEA/QAA. (2014), Education for Sustainable Development: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers. London: QCA. Heifetz, R. A. (1994), Leadership Without Any Answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1988), Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

214

References

Hicks, D. (2014), Educating for Hope in Troubled Times. London: Institute of Education. Hirsch, E. D. (1996), The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them. New York: Random House. House, R. J. and Mitchell, R. R. (1974), ‘Path-Goal Theory of Leadership’. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3: 81–97. Integrated Reporting , CIPFA. (2016), ‘Integrated Thinking and Reporting: Focussing on Value Creation in the Public Sector. An Introduction for Leaders’, World Bank Group. Available online: www.integratedreporting.org (accessed 26 April 2017). Jackson, T. (2017), Prosperity Without Growth, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Jacobs, T. O. and Jaques, E. (1990), ‘Military Executive Leadership’, in K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark (eds), Measures of Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, pp. 281–295. Jones, P., Selby, D. and Sterling, S. (eds) (2010), Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practices across Higher Education. London: Earthscan. Judge, T. A. and Cable, D. M. (2004), ‘The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and Income: Preliminary Test of a Theoretical Model’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3): 428–441. Katz, R. L. (1955), ‘Skills of an Effective Administrator’, Harvard Business Review, 33(1): 33–42. Kelly, U. (Viewforth Consulting) and Manners, P. (National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement). (2011), ‘Measuring the Social Value of Universities: Discussion Paper’. Available online: https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ Universities%20and%20society%20discussion%20paper%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 24 July 2017). Knight, P. (2005), ‘Unsustainable Developments’, The Guardian, 8 February 2005. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/feb/08/ highereducation.administration (accessed 15 March 2017). Kotter, J. P. (1990), A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free Press. Krabberød, T. (2015), ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Giants? Exploring Consensus on the Validity Status of Mintzberg’s Configuration Theory after a Negative Test’, SAGE Open, 5(4): 1–14. Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Locke, W., Whitchurch, C., Smith, A. and Mazenod, A. (2016), Shifting Landscapes: Meeting the Staff Development Needs of the Changing Academic Workforce. London: Higher Education Academy. Lowell, K. R. (2016), ‘An Application of Complexity Theory for Guiding Organizational Change’, The Psychologist Manager Journal, 19(3–4): 148–181. Lucas, B. and Claxton, G. (2010), New Kinds of Smart. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

References

215

Lumby, J. (2012), What Do We Know about Leadership in Higher Education? London : The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Research. Luthans, F. and Avolio, B. J. (2003), ‘Authentic Leadership Development’, in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive Organisational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 241–258. Macfarlane, B. (2012), Intellectual Leadership in Higher Education: Renewing the Role of the University Professor. Abingdon and New York: Routledge/SHRE. Manchester University. (2016), ‘Manchester 2020: The University of Manchester’s Strategic Plan: 5–6’. Available online: http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display. aspx?DocID=25548 (accessed 15 May 2017). Mann, M. (1986), The Social Sources of Power (vol. i). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mann, R. D. (1959), ‘A Review of the Relationship between Personality and Performance in Small Groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 56: 241–270. McCaffery, P. (2010), The Higher Education Manager’s Handbook, 2nd edn. New York and London: Routledge. McDonough, M. (2013), ‘Driving Sustainable Transformation via the Power of Design’, The Guardian, 20 August 2013. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/ sustainable-business/sustainable-transformation-power-design (accessed 21 March 2017). McGannon, D. from Chiarelli, P. (2011), ‘ “Leadership Is Action, Not Position” – Donald McGannon’, Evans School Review, 1(1): 1–2. Meadows, D., Randers, J. and Behrens, W. III. (1972), The Limits to Growth, London: Earth Island Press. Metcalf, L. and Benn, S. (2013), ‘Leadership for Sustainability: An Evolution of Leadership Ability’, Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3): 369–384. Mintzberg, H. J. (1989), Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Moon, J. (2014), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moore, B. V. (1927), ‘The May Conference on Leadership’, Personnel Journal, 6: 124–128. Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O. and Fleishman, E. A. (2000), ‘Leadership Skills for a Changing World: Solving Complex Social Problems’. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1): 11–35. Neumayer, E. (2003), Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Northouse, P. (2016), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Okanagan Charter: An International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges. (2015), Available online: http://internationalhealthycampuses2015.sites.olt. ubc.ca/files/2016/01/Okanagan-Charter-January13v2.pdf (accessed 17 February 2017). Orr, D. W. (1992), ‘The Problem of Education’, New Directions for Higher Education, 77: 3–8.

216

References

Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986), World Health Organization. ‘The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion’. Adopted on 21 November 1986. Available online: http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en (accessed 16 January 2018). Pannell, D. (2008), ‘Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits’, Land Economics, 84(2): 225–240. Parkin, S. (2010), The Positive Deviant: Sustainability Leadership in a Perverse World, Oxford, UK: Earthscan. Parkin, S., Johnston, A., Buckland, H., Brookes, F. and White, E. (2004), ‘Learning and Skills for Sustainable Development: Developing a Sustainability Literate Society’, Guidance for Higher Education Institutions – Forum for the Future, Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability. Available online: https://www.forumforthefuture.org/ sites/default/files/project/downloads/learningandskills.pdf (accessed 16 January 2018). Pashby, K, and Andreotti, V. (2016), ‘Ethical Internationalism in Higher Education: Interfaces with International Development and Sustainability’, Environmental Education Review, 22(6): 771–787. Porritt, J. (2005), Capitalism as if the World Matters. London: Earthscan. Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics. London: Business Books. Rittel, H. W. J and Webber, M. M. (1973), ‘Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning’, Policy Sciences, 4(2): 155–169. Rost J. C. (1991), Leadership for the 21st Century. New York: Praeger. Satterwhite, R. (2010), ‘Deep Systems Leadership: A Model for the 21st Century’, in B. W. Redekop (Ed.), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability. New York: Routledge, pp. 230–242. Schein, E. H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, S. (2015), A New Psychology for Sustainability Leadership: The Hidden Power of Ecological World Views. Sheffield: Greenleaf. Scott, G., Tilbury, D., Sharp, L. and Deane, E. (2012), ‘Turnaround Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education’. Available online: https://www.uws.edu.au/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0018/411075/TLSHE_Final_Exec_Summary_HA_12_Nov_12_ pdf_version.pdf (accessed 7 June 2017). Sharp, L. and Rands (2016), ‘CBI-S Model’, licensed for open sharing and adapting under the Creative Commons CC BY-AS 4.0. Powerpoint presentation given at the EAUC Cambridge Leadership Lab programme, Cambridge, UK, July 2016. Shiel, C. (2013), ‘Leadership’, in S. Sterling, L. Maxey and H. Luna (eds), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects. Oxford: Earthscan from Routledge. Shriberg, M. (2002), ‘Sustainability in U.S. Higher Education: Organizational Factors Influencing Campus Environmental Performance and Leadership’, Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/6ce5/6b80a206da8380498cf64a666c7b4e983ad0.pdf (accessed 16 January 2018). Shriberg, M. (2012), ‘Sustainability Leadership as 21st-Century Leadership’, in D. R. Gallagher (ed), Environmental Leadership: A Reference Book. Available

References

217

online: http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_enviroleadership/n50.xml (accessed 1 February 2017). Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Avery, K. B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (2007), ‘Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and New York. Available online: http:// ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1 (accessed 16 January 2018). SROI Network. (2012), ‘A Guide to Social Return on Investment’. Available online: http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/The%20Guide%20 to%20Social%20Return%20on%20Investment%202015.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017). Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management. New York: Routledge. Sterling, S., Maxey, L. and Luna, H. (2013), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects. London: Routledge. Stern, N. (2006), ‘The Stern Review on the Economic Effects of Climate Change’. Population and Development Review, 32: 793–798. Stogdill R. M. (1948), ‘Personal Factors Associated With Leadership: A Survey of the Literature’, Journal of Psychology, 25: 35–71. Thornton, J. and Goodman, M. (2017), Client Earth. London: Scribe. UK National Union of Students. (2012), ‘Student Experience Research, Part 1, Learning and Teaching’. Available online: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/ Student-Experience-Research-12-Part-1.pdf (accessed 4 November 2016). UK Office of National Statistics (2016), Available online: www.ons.gov.uk(accessed 17 June 2017). UK Sustainable Development Commission. (2005), ‘Securing the Future – Delivering the UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy (2005), Report from the UK Sustainable Development Commission’. Available online: http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications.php?id=1185 (accessed 30 May 2017). United Nations. (2000), ‘Millennium Development Goals’. Available online: http://www. unmillenniumproject.org/goals (accessed 25 November 2016). United Nations. (2015), ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. Available online: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (accessed 25 November 2016). Universities UK. (2014), The Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions in England. London: Universities UK. ISBN: 978-1-84036-305-0. US Census Bureau. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/world-populationgrowth (accessed 16 January 2018). Visser, W. and Courtice, P. (2011), ‘Sustainability Leadership: Linking Theory and Practice’. Available online: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1947221 or http:// dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1947221 (accessed 15 September 2016). Voytanko, Y., McKormick, K., Evans, J. and Schliwa, G. (2016), ‘Urban Living Labs for Sustainability and Low Carbon Cities in Europe: Towards a Research Agenda’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 123: 45–54.

218

References

Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S. and Javidan, M. (2006), ‘Components of CEO Transformational Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Management Studies, 43(8): 134–136. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. and Peterson, S. J. (2008), ‘Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure’, Journal of Management, 34(1): 89–126. WCED (World Commission for Environment and Development). (1987), Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Western, S. (2010), ‘Eco-leadership: Towards the Development of a New Paradigm’, in B. W. Redekop (ed), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability. New York: Routledge, pp. 36–54. Wielkiewicz, R. M. and Stelzner, S. P. (2010), ‘An Ecological Perspective on Leadership Theory, Research, and Practice’, in B. W. Redekop (ed), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability, New York: Routledge, pp. 17–35. Wilde, O. (1892), Lady Windermere’s Fan. Dover: Thrift Editions, p. 38. Wood, P. and Peterson, R. (2016), ‘Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism’, NAS. Available online: https://www.nas.org/projects/ sustainability_report (accessed 29 June 2017). Worldbank. (2016), ‘Worldwide Higher Education Trends’. Available online: www.data. worldbank.org (accessed 18 October 2016). WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme). (2017), The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater: The Untapped Resource. Paris, UNESCO. WWF. (2014), ‘Living Planet Report’. Available online: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/ downloads/living_planet_report_2014.pdf?_ga=1.267966793.633225509.146762621 6 (accessed 17 June 2017). Younger, P. (2011), ‘Enough for All, Forever?: An Ambitious Plan to Turn Newcastle and Gateshead into a ‘Living Lab’ for Sustainability Can Put the Region at the Centre of the Effort to Rise to One of the Biggest Challenges Facing the World’, The Journal, 19. Zalenik, A. (1992), ‘Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?’ Harvard Business Review March/April, 126–135.

Index academic freedom 66–7 academics 63–7, 118–33, 142–3, 183–91 accreditation 123, 158–60 advocacy 159, 193–9 agenda 21, 42 anthropocene 39 Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) 46 Australasian Campuses toward Sustainability (ACTS) 46 Babel-fish 4, 89, 203 Brandt report 42, 48 Brundtland report 42, 48, 117, 201 Bureaucracy and managerialism 65–6, 119, 130 business case 10, 47, 69, 100–1, 109, 174 ‘Cambridge’ Model 10–11, 34–5, 111–15, 136–62, 204–9 Campus Brussels, Odisee-KU Leuven University Belgium 94–5 Canterbury Christ Church University 77–9, 99, 129, 165–71 Futures Initiative (FI) 77–9, 170–1 Capitals Models (see Value and Valuation approaches) Five Capitals 94–6, 145, 173 Integrated Framework 97–9 climate change impacts 39–41, 44–6, 73, 83, 117, 187 international agreements 43, 48–51, 190 collaboration 30, 105, 116, 143, 162–4, 179–80 committees 65, 124–33, 177–81 communication 65, 76, 117, 139, 145–7 communities of practice 80–5, 158, 199 Copernicus Alliance 46 Core Business Integration for Sustainability (CBI-S) model 72–7 corporate responsibility 90, 105

cross-boundary working 141–9, 162–4, 205–6 decision-making 26–32, 62–8, 69–109, 115–19, 125–33, 156–7, 201–4 Earth Summit 42 ‘Ecological’ University 50–1, 58–9, 81 Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) 46–8, 12–32, 153–4, 170–1 emotional intelligence 18–19, 31–3, 138–9 Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) 32, 46–7, 75, 159 environmental challenges (see also climate change) biodiversity 39, 73, 136 natural resource scarcity 39–41, 102, 187 pollution 38–9, 122, 172 population growth 40–1 social conflict 44 water 81–3, 95, 197–8 estate management 45–8, 120–9, 165–89 biodiversity 47–8, 99–100 carbon reduction 48, 96, 116, 122–7, 153, 169–73 energy efficiency 47–8, 81–3, 95–6, 154–6, 185–8 procurement 45, 95, 122, 127, 178 transport 81–3, 185–6 waste management 47–8, 82–3, 95–6 faith traditions/religion 5, 15, 176 followership 15–16, 19–35 forum for the future 144–5 future living 41, 48–50, 82–3 governance 97–8, 123–8, 154–7 graduate attributes 45, 52, 57–9, 62–3, 116 green revolution 41

220

Index

‘Herding cats’ 116, 130, 204 higher education drivers 54, 59, 100, 146–8 history 54–6, 64, 176, 193 purpose 3–4, 51–9 trends 49, 54–6 human resources 96–9 inclusion 80, 154, 168 institutional goals 15–16, 20–31, 63–4, 154–6 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 123, 126–8 La Trobe University, Australia 60 leadership actions 33–4, 151–62 context 15–22, 25–35, 112–34, 136–7, 142–60 distributed leadership 180–2 individual 17–20, 27–35, 111–24, 135–49, 162–3, 189–91, 195–9 knowledge and skills 34–5, 135–8, 144–9 sustainability challenges 3–7, 132–3, 199 traits and styles 28–34, 112–13, 135–49, 162 leadership theories adaptive leadership 17, 22 authentic leadership 17–20, 35, 138, 198 deep systems leadership 30–3, 138, 199 leader-as-servant 17, 21, 35 situational leadership 18–22, 111–12, 182 leadership versus management 24–5 league tables 159–61, 169 legitimacy 90–2, 146–9, 155–7 living Labs 80–6, 160 Macquarie University, Australia 183–91 ‘Marketization’ 66–8, 89 Masdar Institute, Abu Dhabi 82–3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 83, 175–82 ‘Massification’ 66–8, 89 materiality 94–5 micro-politics 115–17, 129 mutual competence building 85–6, 161

neo-liberalism 56–8, 68 Okanagan Charter 50 organization(al) culture 30–4, 64–7, 71–87, 115–19, 129–33, 142–8 definitions 5, 117 priorities 26–7, 61–3, 101–6, 157, 178–81, 186–90 reach 115–19 role 45–52, 59–65, 117–25 structures 64–5, 75–6, 117 types 24–5, 64, 118 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion 49–50 paradigm shift 31, 68 Paris Climate Agreement 2015 43, 51 Peking University, Peoples’ Republic of China 60 performance accountability 34, 125, 151–8, 163–4 philanthropy 91, 107–8 planetary limits 1–2, 37–49 power 22–7, 30–5, 61–7, 82–4, 116–19 professional services 65, 120–6, 165–9, 185–90 public goods 57–8 universities 56–63, 90–2 relationship building 140–9, 162–5, 189–91 reporting lines 119–28 scientific method 72–3, 145–7 senior management and leadership 80–2, 101–10, 120–33, 142–3, 153–8, 171–4 stakeholder 34–5, 54–6, 61–3, 80–7, 91–5, 148–52 employers, business community and professional bodies 61–2 students and staff 62–3 theory 91–2 strategy 117–31, 153–8 student engagement and experience 47, 60–3, 100, 105, 121–7, 129–30, 153–4, 170–1, 183–8 sustainability barriers 30, 152–5, 189 definitions 37–44

Index developments in Higher Education 45–52 and economic viability 68, 90–1, 172 international agreements 42–4 measuring sustainability (see value) 101–10, 167–74, 187 motivations 77, 108–11, 140–3, 162–4 systems thinking 28, 31–2, 72–6 transformational leadership 29–35, 138–40 United Kingdom higher education institutions and frameworks Higher Education Academy (HEA) 46, 77, 159, 170 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) 46–8, 117, 156, 169, 173 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) 46, 119 Research Excellence Framework (REF) 63, 67 Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) 63, 67, 169 United Nations Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 93–5, 96, 186

221

Millennium Development goals (MDGs) 42–3, 51 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 43–4, 51–2 University of Agder, Norway 60, 85 Cambridge, UK 66, 82, 109, 131–2 Hong Kong 60 Kerala, India 193–9 Manchester, UK 60–1, 116, 160 Newcastle, UK 81–2 value and valuation approaches 101–10, 167–74 Five Rs approach 106–8, 172–3 limitations 104–6 social return on investment 103–4 stated and revealed preference 102–3 trade-offs 106–7 valuing capitals 102–3 values 2–8, 18–20, 28–35, 49–52, 91–2, 100–9, 123–30, 135–49, 167–74, 196–9 ‘Wicked’ problems 73–4 Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) 39