The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education: An Agenda for Transformational Change 9781350244344, 9781350244375, 9781350244351

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Contents
Figures
Tables
Contributors
Acknowledgements
Part 1 Transformative Change from Outside to Inside the Academy
1 Universities as Agents of Change: Green Academy to Ecological University
2 Collective Ambition for Global Action: Role for the Knowledge Sector
3 Framing a University Research and Innovation Strategy around the SDGs
4 Experiencing Sustainability: Developing Students’ Global Leadership Skills
5 Transformative Learning, Community and Leadership for Sustainability Action
6 Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs in Fragile Contexts
7 Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs
8 Universities and Green Innovations: Entrepreneurship in Uganda
9 Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong
10 Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus
11 Sustainability Member Associations for Universities
Part 2 Higher Education as a Driver of Sustainability beyond the Institution: Transformation from Inside to Outside the Academy
12 Sustainability Transformations at McGill
13 Accelerating Response to a Changing Climate: Solutions across Scales
14 University Leadership and Governance Enabling Sustainability and the SDGs
15 University–City Partnerships for Sustainable Urban Transformations
16 Transformational Change: Lessons from the University of Edinburgh
17 SISSTEM: Sustainable Development on the Small Island State of Aruba
18 Global Challenges and Opportunities for African Universities
19 University–Community Partnership in Nepal
20 Transformative Change for Sustainability: The Wellington Plus Programme
21 Student Involvement in Environmental Management Activities
22 Leveraging Excellence to Support Sustainable Development in Africa
23 A University’s Transformational Change Agenda
24 Role of Anchor Institutions towards Community Development
Conclusion
Index

Citation preview

i

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

ii

ALSO AVAILABLE FROM BLOOMSBURY The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning, edited by Douglas Bourn The Bloomsbury Handbook of Gender and Educational Leadership and Management, edited by Victoria Showunmi, Pontso Moorosi, Charol Shakeshaft and Izhar Oplatka The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religious Education in the Global South, edited by Yonah Hisbon Matemba and Bruce A. Collet The Bloomsbury Handbook of Popular Music Education, edited by Zack Moir, Bryan Powell and Gareth Dylan Smith The Bloomsbury Handbook of Rural Education in the United States, edited by Amy Price Azano, Karen Eppley and Catharine Biddle The Bloomsbury Handbook of Theory in Comparative and International Education, edited by Tavis D. Jules, Robin Shields and Matthew A. M. Thomas The Bloomsbury Handbook of the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South, edited by Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang and Wondwosen Tamrat The Bloomsbury Handbook of Reading Perspectives and Practices, edited by Bethan Marshall, Jackie Manuel, Donna L. Pasternak and Jennifer Roswell

iii

The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education An Agenda for Transformational Change

EDITED BY Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser

iv

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 Copyright © Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser and contributors, 2023 Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser and contributors have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. xix constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Grace Ridge Cover image © artpartner-images / Getty Images 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: 978-1-3502-4434-4 ePDF: 978-1-3502-4435-1 eBook: 978-1-3502-4436-8 Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.blo​omsb​ury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

v

Contents

List of Figures 

viii

List of Tables 

x

List of Contributors 

xi

Acknowledgements  Introduction  Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser

xix 1

Part 1 Transformative Change from Outside to Inside the Academy Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser 1 Universities as Agents of Change: Green Academy to Ecological University  Stephen Martin, Christopher D. Ives and Barry Carney

13

2 Collective Ambition for Global Action: Role for the Knowledge Sector  Melissa Brown Goodall and Maria Ivanova

33

3 Framing a University Research and Innovation Strategy around the SDGs  Alice Aiken, Joella Miller, Jennifer Morawiecki, Rochelle Owen and Tara Wright

55

4 Experiencing Sustainability: Developing Students’ Global Leadership Skills  Lars Moratis and Jan Beyne

75

5 Transformative Learning, Community and Leadership for Sustainability Action  Sally Randles, Helen Wadham, Konstantina Skritsovali, Clare Hart, Samia Hoque, Helena Kettleborough, Rita Klapper, Roz Marron, David Taylor and Liz Walley

87

6 Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs in Fragile Contexts  Aram Yeretzian

109

7 Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs  David C. Nwogbo and Kayode Kadiri

129

8 Universities and Green Innovations: Entrepreneurship in Uganda  Frederick Kakembo

153

9 Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong  Joy Lam Tsz Lok and Oles Kwong Yu To

169

Contents

10 Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus  Andréia Abrahão Sant’Anna and Leonardo Fernandes Coelho Rezende dos Santos

183

11 Sustainability Member Associations for Universities  Janet Haddock-Fraser

199

Part 2 Higher Education as a Driver of Sustainability beyond the Institution: Transformation from Inside to Outside the Academy Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser 12 Sustainability Transformations at McGill  Blane Harvey, Stephanie Leite and Sarah Heiberg

217

13 Accelerating Response to a Changing Climate: Solutions across Scales  Julie Newman and Shana Weber

243

14 University Leadership and Governance Enabling Sustainability and the SDGs  Wendy M. Purcell

259

15 University–City Partnerships for Sustainable Urban Transformations  Julio Lumbreras, Jaime Moreno-Serna, Guillermo Palau, Jordi Peris, Valentina Oquendo-Di Cosola, Teresa Sánchez-Chaparro and Carlos Mataix

279

16 Transformational Change: Lessons from the University of Edinburgh  Dave Gorman and Michelle Brown

297

17 SISSTEM: Sustainable Development on the Small Island State of Aruba  Anouk Mertens, Nadine Buys, Patrick Arens, Georges Gielen and Eric Mijts

319

18 Global Challenges and Opportunities for African Universities  Stephanie Burton and Leti Kelyn

345

19 University–Community Partnership in Nepal  Purna B. Nepali and Prakash Baral

361

20 Transformative Change for Sustainability: The Wellington Plus Programme  Karen A. Smith, Andrew Wilks, Jane Fletcher and Heather Gatley

381

21 Student Involvement in Environmental Management Activities  Sakiko Okayama

397

22 Leveraging Excellence to Support Sustainable Development in Africa  Harro von Blottnitz

419

23 A University’s Transformational Change Agenda  Jim Longhurst, Georgina Gough and Ian Brooks

429

vi

Contents

24 Role of Anchor Institutions towards Community Development  Ashish Joshi

451

Conclusion  Wendy M. Purcell and Janet Haddock-Fraser

471

Index 

479

vii

vi

Figures

1.1 Culture Web Model 

19

1.2 Significant cultural components of the Hawkesbury case study, mapped onto the ‘Culture Web’ 

21

1.3 Significant cultural components of the Green Academy case study, mapped onto the ‘Culture Web’ 

23

1.4 Significant cultural components of the UBC case study, mapped onto the ‘Culture Web’ 

25

2.1 Overview of current Major Groups and Stakeholders, as identified by UN DESA 

39

2.2 Chart from 2018 Yale SDG Report 

45

2.3 Speakers from the Global University Climate Forum 2020 Workshop Series, Yale 

48

2.4 Map of teams accepted to the Global University Climate Forum 2020, Yale 

48

3.1 Dalhousie University signature research clusters and cross-cutting themes 

57

4.1 Observations regarding the findings students shared through their presentations as part of the buying into sustainability exercise, Antwerp Management School 

82

5.1 A composite and integrated model of transformational learning, community and leadership, Manchester Metropolitan University 

102

6.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 

111

7.1 Awareness of SDGs at Nigerian universities 

132

7.2 Awareness of education for sustainable development at Nigerian universities 

132

7.3 Policy adoption of research activities on SDGs at Nigerian universities 

134

7.4 Involvement of Nigerian universities in non-SDG-related research that neglect SDGs 

134

7.5 Motivation for lecturers to research on SDGs at Nigerian universities 

135

7.6 Involvement of academic departments at Nigerian universities in SDG-related research 

136

7.7 Strategic plans of Nigerian universities for implementing SDGs 

136

7.8 Plans of Nigerian universities for integrating SDGs into curriculum 

138

7.9 Federal government’s National Policy on Education, 2004 

139

Figures

7.10 Governments at federal, state and local levels: Responsibility for implementing SDGs 

140

7.11 Role played by Nigerian universities in raising future leaders for implementing SDGs 

141

7.12 Need for Nigerian universities to establish linkages and partnerships for implementing SDGs 

142

12.1 Leverage points and system characteristics, McGill 

222

12.2 Divest McGill case within the multilevel perspective framework 

228

13.1 Design of solutions at any scale, keeping in mind the interplay across scales, MIT/Princeton 

244

13.2 Alignment of net-zero emission objectives across scales, MIT/Princeton 

246

13.3 Relevance of individual action, depending on personal spheres of influence, at all scales, MIT/Princeton 

253

15.1 Madrid Deep Demonstration organizational ecosystem, 2021 

285

15.2 Main results of the mapping of initiatives at UPV during a collective workshop 

290

16.1 Priorities of the DSRS, Edinburgh, 2020 

306

16.2 Birrell Ivory and Mackay’s model for scaling sustainability 

312

17.1 Overview of the different components of the UA–KU Leuven SISSTEM project  322 21.1 Value of student committee activities in employment, Chiba University 

404

21.2 Changes in awareness and interest from student committee engagement, Chiba University 

406

21.3 Impact on job hunting and career choices, Chiba University 

407

21.4 Initiatives at Chiba University 

411

21.5 Impact of Chiba University’s environmental management initiatives 

412

24.1 Proposed functions of the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City 

455

24.2 SMAART Model 

459

24.3 Data and information knowledge framework of the SMAART Model 

459

24.4 SMAART Hub as a facilitator between university and community settings to advance the SDGs 

460

24.5 Framework of the SMAART Hub 

462

24.6 Operationalization of the SMAART Model 

464

ix

x

Tables

2.1 Selected Existing Pathways for Academic Participation in UN Processes 

42

3.1 The Shift of Sustainability Research in Higher Education 

59

5.1 The Student Sustainability Group Programme Manchester Metropolitan University  95 6.1 Criteria for Different Levels of Sustainable Development in Beirut 

112

8.1 Waste Generation in Kampala City and Its Potential Commercial Value 

162

10.1 Top skills for 2025, Brazil 

184

10.2 LinkedIn 2020 Workplace Learning Report, Brazil 

185

10.3 Professional Skills for Engineers 

185

11.1 EAUC Annual Reports Compared for Member Numbers, Income and Key Projects/Activities 

208

15.1 List of Chairs, Part of the UPV’s Alliance for Ecological Transition, UPM, Spain  289 16.1 Overview of Key Developments in SRS, University of Edinburgh 

301

16.2 Priority SRS Themes and Programmes, University of Edinburgh, 2016–19 

305

17.1 SISSTEM Programme: Overview of Semi-Structured Interviews Conducted, Aruba 

325

17.2 Topics of the Eleven PhD Research Projects in the SISSTEM Programme, Aruba  327 17.3 Overview of SISSTEM Courses Specifically Focused on SIS Challenges, Aruba  329 17.4 Overview of the SISSTEM Courses Taught at UA, Aruba 

332

17.5 Overview of Implementation of Critical Factors in SISSTEM, Barriers, Lessons Learnt and Recommendations, Aruba 

336

21.1 Environmental Impact before and after Acquisition of ISO 14001, Chiba 

401

21.2 Activities of the Student Committee, Chiba 

402

21.3 Student Committee Engagement: Skills and Learning Outcomes, Chiba 

403

21.4 Student Committee Stakeholders, Chiba 

407

23.1 Education for Sustainable Development Description, UWE 

432

24.1 Evolution of the Role of Universities as Anchor Institutions 

454

24.2 Challenges and Possible Solutions towards Establishing Anchor Collaborations 

457

xi

Contributors

Alice Aiken is Vice-President Research & Innovation and Professor in the Faculty of Health at Dalhousie University, Canada. Her research focuses on health systems transformation and evidence-informed policymaking with a concentration on military and veteran health. She is the interim Chair of the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and holds her ICD.D designation from the Institute for Corporate Directors. Patrick Arens is Business Director, University of Aruba, Aruba, who has been instrumental in the development of education and research programmes for sustainable development in small island states, including the Sustainable Island Solutions through Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (SISSTEM) programme. Prakash Baral is Agricultural Extension and Outreach Officer, Horticulture Development Resource Center, Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation, Gandaki Province, Nepal. He was an assistant professor in the Department of Agriculture Extension and Rural Sociology at the Jibika College of Agricultural Sciences. He has been engaged in various research studies related to agriculture, land reforms, policy reforms and agrarian issues. Jan Beyne is a researcher at Antwerp Management School, Belgium, and a PhD candidate specializing in sustainability integration in organizations. Jan is author of the book titled De weg naar duurzaam ondernemen (2021) (The Road to Sustainable Business). Ian Brooks is Senior Lecturer in Sustainable IT at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. His research focuses on the use of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations as requirements in Systems Engineering. He is a member of the university’s Sustainable Economies Research Group. Prior to academia, he worked as a management consultant with PwC and IBM. Michelle Brown was Head of Social Responsibility and Sustainability Programmes at the University of Edinburgh, UK, from January 2014 to October 2021. Michelle has worked with a wide range of companies and organizations on social and environmental issues and has lived and worked in Hong Kong, Mainland China, Vietnam and Canada before she moved to Edinburgh in 2010. Melissa Brown Goodall is Senior Director of the Environmental Innovations Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania, United States, a pan-university programme focused on catalysing transdisciplinary solutions to environmental challenges. She is an advisor to the UMass Boston Center for Governance and Sustainability and the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability.

xi

Contributors

Stephanie Burton is Professor in Biochemistry; Professor, Future Africa, the University of Pretoria, South Africa; and immediate past Vice-Principal for Research and Postgraduate Education. She plays a leading role in transdisciplinary research, research capacity development and doctoral training nationally, and has been recognized for her leadership in research strategy, innovation, open science and science communication. Nadine Buys is Full Professor and Honorary Dean of the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering at the University of Leuven, Belgium. She is co-founder and the academic coordinator of SISSTEM project cluster. Nadine is also the representative of KU Leuven in the Bureau UOS that is responsible for the overall policy for higher education and science for sustainable development of the Flemish Interuniversity Council. Barry Carney is a research associate for Change Agents UK, a non-profit and charity organization, and a researcher in the fields of higher education and education for sustainable development. He is a curriculum developer in the Software as a Service sector, founding CSR committee member for an international organization, and founding director of a community energy initiative. Jane Fletcher is Manager of the Careers and Employment service at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She has worked for over twenty years in careers education in universities in the UK and New Zealand and is passionate about students’ personal development through service and leadership with a focus on civic engagement and sustainability. Heather Gatley is a coordinator for the Wellington Plus Programme, part of the Careers and Employment service at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She is actively involved in encouraging students to get involved in their community to develop their employability, leadership, social and environmental responsibility skills. Georges Gielen is Chair of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Honorary Vice-Rector for the Group of Sciences, Engineering and Technology at KU Leuven, Belgium. He is also co-founder of the SISSTEM project cluster. His research interests are in the design of analogue and mixed-signal integrated circuits, and especially in analogue and mixed-signal CAD tools and design automation. Dave Gorman is Director of Social Responsibility and Sustainability at the University of Edinburgh, UK. He leads a team that helps deliver positive impact for society and commitments to be socially responsible and sustainable. This includes leadership on climate strategy, operational sustainability, circular economy, advising on responsible and social investment as well as delivering the university’s community strategy. Georgina Gough is Associate Professor in Education for Sustainable Development at the University of the West of England Bristol, UK. She leads the university’s Knowledge Exchange for Sustainability Education initiative, which has been the recipient of a Collaborative Award for Teaching Excellence and a Green Gown Award. Georgina is also Programme Lead for the MSc Sustainable Development in Practice at the university.

xii

xii

Contributors

Janet Haddock-Fraser is Emeritus Professor of Sustainability and Leadership at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. She was previously Chair of the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) in the UK and has published widely on aspects of sustainability and leadership, including Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education (2018). Clare Hart is Student Experience Officer in the Department of Strategy, Enterprise and Sustainability at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Clare encourages students to take their passion and enthusiasm out into the wider world and helps to coordinate the support network to do this. Blane Harvey is Assistant Professor and William Dawson Scholar in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University, Canada. He studies how knowledge is produced, validated and communicated, and how facilitated learning and knowledge co-production can support transformative action on climate and sustainability challenges. Sarah Heiberg is Associate Director, Change Management, New Vic Project, McGill University, Canada – a project which aims to create a new academic complex dedicated to sustainability systems and public policy. She is a certified change practitioner with experience in national and international environmental cooperation, participatory stakeholder processes as well as actionoriented decision-support research and tools. Samia Hoque joined Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, as Lecturer in Sustainability in 2019. Samia has published book chapters and academic papers on suppliers’ strategies related to upgrading, CSR and resilience. Maria Ivanova is Associate Professor of Global Governance and Director of the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts Boston, United States. She studies the United Nations, serves on a range of its advisory bodies; she is also a member of the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme. Christopher D. Ives is an interdisciplinary sustainability scientist and an associate professor in the School of Geography, University of Nottingham, UK. He has a background in urban ecology and environmental policy, and his recent research focuses on values for nature and understanding processes of transformative change for sustainability. Ashish Joshi is Senior Associate Dean Academic and Student Affairs and Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the New York CUNY School of Public Health, United States. He is also a physician and a public health academic. Ashish is an established population health informatics researcher and author of Population Health Informatics: Driving Evidence-Based Solutions into Practice (2017). Kayode Kadiri is a lecturer in the Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Sciences, at the National Open University of Nigeria which they joined in 2013. They began their lecturing career with Lagos State University, Nigeria, and have written several

xiii

xvi

Contributors

articles in journals published by Nigerian universities. Kayode is currently researching on the effect of entrepreneurship grants on business start-ups among youths in north-central Nigeria. Frederick Kakembo specializes in community education, training and educational media. He is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Ndejje University, Uganda, where he coordinates various research and outreach programmes. Helena Kettleborough is a lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK. Her research interests centre on using first- and second-person action research, which incorporates social justice. She is currently researching on community/student/staff collaborations around sustainability and on creating wider Gaian and cosmological paradigms for hopeful futures. Rita Klapper is Reader in Enterprise and Sustainability at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Her research focuses on sustainable enterprise education, sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainable business model innovations. Leti Kleyn is Research Fellow in the Faculty of Humanities, University of Pretoria, South Africa. She actively works to promote research availability through the Open Science movement. Oles Kwong Yu To served as the Sustainability Analyst for the University of Hong Kong’s Sustainability Office. He developed the university’s sustainability report and assisted with the implementation of sustainability initiatives pertaining to energy and waste management. He has also participated in local and international working groups that examined sustainable behaviour, education and impact rankings. Joy Lam Tsz Lok has over ten years of experience at the University of Hong Kong’s Sustainability Office, where she spearheaded the integration of sustainability into the university’s planning, facilities, activities and curriculum. In 2019, she served as the interim Convenor and Strategy Lead of the Hong Kong Sustainable Campus Consortium on collaborative sustainability solutions at the city’s higher education institutions. Stephanie Leite is a PhD student in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University, Canada. She is a curriculum designer and teacher trainer whose research examines the nexus between sustainability-related education, climate change and transformative learning. Jim Longhurst is Professor of Environmental Science and Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Environment and Sustainability at University of West of England, Bristol, UK. He leads the university’s sustainability agenda ensuring that sustainability considerations are present in the university’s teaching, research, campus operations and civic engagement work. He is Chair of the Board of the EAUC and has co-chaired the QAA/Advance HE Advisory Group for which prepared the updated guidance on Education for Sustainable Development. Julio Lumbreras is Tenured Professor at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain; researcher at its Innovation and Technology for Development Centre (itdUPM); and a visiting scientist at the T. Chan Harvard School of Public Health, United States. He was UPM’s Director for North America and a member of the European Commission’s ‘Mission Board on Climate

xiv

Contributors

Neutral and Smart Cities’. Julio is an expert on urban air quality, climate change, sustainable human development and multi-stakeholder collaborations. Roz Marron is Senior Lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK. She is interested in pedagogical approaches to teaching sustainable literacy. Her current research focuses on transformative learning, identity and communities. Stephen Martin holds Honorary Professorships at the University of Nottingham, UK, and the University of Worcester, UK, and is Visiting Professor in Learning for Sustainability at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. He is the co-founder and President of the sustainability charity Change Agents UK and a former trustee of the Worldwide Fund for Nature. Carlos Mataix is Tenured Professor at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain, where he directs the Innovation and Technology for Development Centre. His research has always been linked to real-life experiences and devoted to strengthening the university’s relationship with society. He has held relevant management positions at the university and in public administration. He also is the director of several business chairs at the university, a member of the Iberdrola stakeholder council and advisor to sustainability foundations, such as Fundación Carasso, Cotec, Save the Children and the Spanish Network for Sustainable Development. Anouk Mertens is Postdoctoral Researcher and Project Manager of the KU Leuven, Belgium side of the University of Aruba–KU Leuven SISSTEM project. She has an interest in socio-economic aspects of bioeconomy value chains and in sustainable development in small island states. Eric Mijts is Lecturer and Researcher at the University of Aruba, Aruba, with a keen interest in programme design for sustainable development in small island states. He is the co-founder and coordinator of both the SISSTEM project cluster and the Academic Foundation Year. He is also a facilitator of international student research exchange programmes. Joella Miller currently an articling student at Milosevic Fiske LLP, a litigation firm in Toronto, Canada. She attended the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, Canada, where she earned her Juris Doctor and a Law & Technology certificate in 2021. During her studies, she completed extensive research on sustainability and the environment. Lars Moratis is Chair in Management Education for Sustainability, a joint initiative of Antwerp Management School, Belgium, and Breda University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands, and also Professor of Sustainable Business. He has taught, researched and written extensively about sustainable business, including on topics such as sustainable business models, standardization and greenwashing. Currently, his activities revolve around the role of business schools in society and rebuilding management education for a better world. Jennifer Morawiecki is a member of staff at Dalhousie University, Canada, since 2004, whose career in higher education spans more than two decades. In her current role, she supports faculty members’ international research and international development interests, working first in programme and project management and subsequently in grant-writing, contract facilitation and policy analysis.

xv

xvi

Contributors

Jaime Moreno-Serna is Technical Director of the Innovation and Technology for Development Centre at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain. He is currently finishing his PhD in industrial engineering centred around the study of the multi-stakeholder intermediary platforms promoted by the centre. Purna B. Nepali is Associate Professor and Programme Director, Master of Public Policy and Management, Kathmandu University School of Management, Balkumari, Lalitpur, Nepal. He is also a research fellow (non-resident), Harvard Kennedy School and Hutchins Center, Harvard University, United States, where he is pursuing his research on the topic of ‘Political Economy of Inclusive Agrarian Transformation: Comparative Analysis of Race-Caste of US and Nepal/ South-Asia’. He has completed his Fulbright Visiting Research Fellowship (2017–18) in Global Development and Sustainability at Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, United States. His research areas include public and social policy, inclusive growth, social inclusion and rural/agrarian issues. As a lead editor of the journal New Angle, he recently edited a special issue of the peer-reviewed article called ‘Agrarian and Land Issues’. Julie Newman joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States, in 2013 as the first Director of Sustainability for the institute, charged with launching the Office of Sustainability. She also holds a lecturer appointment with the Department of Urban Studies and Planning where she co-teaches a course entitled ‘Solving for Carbon Neutrality at MIT’. David C. Nwogbo is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Public Administration, National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria. He is an expert in policy analysis and has published many articles in reputable scholarly journals. Sakiko Okayama is first Chair of Chiba University, Japan’s Student Committee for Environmental Management Systems, and contributed to the university’s acquisition of ISO 14001. After working for a company, Sakiko returned to Chiba University to serve as the Assistant Environmental Manager and as a lecturer for the Student Committee. Valentina Oquendo-Di Cosola is an architect and researcher at the Innovation and Technology for Development Centre at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain. Valentina is a specialist in sustainable architecture and urban planning, and her professional experience is a hybrid between the study and application of nature as a tool for the mitigation and adaptation to climate change in cities and the facilitation of multi-stakeholder collaborative processes for the transformation of cities towards climate neutrality. Rochelle Owen currently works as Executive Director of the Office of Sustainability at Dalhousie University, Canada. She has worked in the environment and sustainability field for over thirty years at non-profit, government and academic institutions. Guillermo Palau is Tenured Professor at the Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. He has specialized in applied creativity and innovation, with more than twenty years of experience leading teams and facilitating processes. As an expert in systemic innovation, he is currently involved in helping organizations and public institutions to face socio-technological transitions.

xvi

xvi

Contributors

Jordi Peris Blanes is currently General Coordinator of Urban Strategies and Sustainability Agenda at the Mayor’s Office and Tenured Professor at the Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. With a background in engineering and political sciences, his field of expertise is focuses on urban sustainability transitions, innovation and planning. He was Second Deputy Mayor of the City Council of València and councillor of citizens participation, urban innovation and climate change. Wendy M. Purcell is an academic research scholar at Harvard University, United States. She is Emeritus Professor and was President Vice-Chancellor of Plymouth University, UK. Wendy is a council member of the United Nations University, on the Governing Board of EELISA European University, Fellow of EAUC: The Alliance for Sustainability Education as well as the Chair of its Leadership Academy. Wendy is a strategic advisor to a range of global universities, companies and charitable organizations. Sally Randles is Chair of Sustainability and Innovation at Manchester Metropolitan University’s Faculty of Business and Law, UK, and is Faculty Lead for Sustainability. Sally’s research investigates how organizations enact de facto responsible innovation. She is engaged in EU-funded projects bringing together circular economy, social value innovation and local policy. Teresa Sánchez-Chaparro is Associate Professor at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain, and Scientific Director of its Innovation and Technology for Development Center. Her current research interest are sustainable organization strategies, social enterprises and fourth sector, social marketing as well as quality assurance in higher education. Andréia Abrahão Sant’Anna is a servant leader inspired to help people through education. He is a chemical engineer and project management professional. A project coordinator in an engineering company, he has also coordinated the Newton Smart Campus living lab, with the mission to inspire undergraduate students through concepts in Sustainable Development Goals. Leonardo Fernandes Coelho Rezende dos Santos is a chemical engineer passionate about the potential of education to shape the future of work. He has led innovation teams in Newton Paiva University Center focused on experiential learning activities that develop education-to-career skills for twenty-first-century challenges. Konstantina Skritsovali is Senior Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University Business School, UK. Her research interests revolve around sustainable business models, collaborative approaches across sectors and responsible management education. Karen A. Smith is Professor of Tourism Management at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, and Associate Dean, Learning & Teaching, for the Wellington School of Business and Government. Karen’s research focuses on volunteering and volunteer management in a range of sectors including tourism, events and education. David Taylor is Principal Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK; a visiting professor at Christ University, India; and Honorary Fellow of the

xvii

Contributors

Institute of Enterprise and Entrepreneurs. David’s interests centre on enterprise education, and he has recently been awarded the Green Gown Enterprise Award. Harro von Blottnitz is based in the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa, and defines his research and teaching interests by the multiple challenges of sustainable development in developing country settings. He leads research in energy and industrial systems analysis. Helen Wadham is Senior Lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK. She is an anthropologist/sociologist, and her research explores sustainability, ethics and collaborative approaches across sectors and species. Helen’s current research focuses on how domestic animals influence the understanding and practice of sustainability in rural areas. Liz Walley joined Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK, as a senior lecturer in 1992. She has taught sustainable business at undergraduate and postgraduate levels for over twenty years, developing and championing sustainability across the curriculum. Liz’s research focuses on environmental change agents and green entrepreneurs, including would-be environmental champions in a university context. Shana Weber launched the Office of Sustainability at Princeton University, United States, in 2006, spearheading the institution’s comprehensive sustainability planning and implementation efforts. She is also a lecturer for the High Meadows Environmental Institute, teaching a projectbased applied sustainability course titled ‘Investigating an Ethos of Sustainability at Princeton’. Andrew Wilks is Director of Sustainability at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He shapes the university’s strategic commitment to sustainability and champions embedding it across the teaching, research, engagement, operational and governance activities of the university. Tarah Wright is Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Director of the Education for Sustainability Research Group at Dalhousie University, Canada. Her research focuses on education for sustainable development, with specific emphasis on measuring preschool children’s bio-affinity, and the role of the arts in encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. Aram Yeretzian is a founding member of the Lebanon Green Building Council. He studies the relationship between the behaviour of buildings and their occupants in Mediterranean and arid climates. Supported by thirty years of professional experience in designing climate-responsive architectural and masterplan projects, his teaching and research also focus on low environmental impact construction materials.

xviii

xxi

Acknowledgements

As co-editors, we had a vision for this handbook. This has now been realized through the collective efforts of the global network of scholars and practitioners we assembled. Each author has had their own journey in developing the chapter we commissioned them to create. Most of the writing took place during 2020–1 as the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted our world and took the lives of so many. Among the myriad of personal and professional calls upon their precious time, each of our authors has made space to sit down and write, review and edit. Some were unable to travel to see family and friends given travel bans and local lockdowns, others battled with power outages and relied on generators to power their laptops, while a few battled Covid-19 or suffered loss. This community of authors made time to engage in discussions with colleagues; dig into university archives and strategy papers; survey past students and talk to current students, faculty, staff and senior administrators; and speak with partners and stakeholders outside their institutions. They immersed themselves in the literature and wrestled with concepts, frameworks, models and theories of change. They produced several drafts and responded with goodwill to our suggestions for revisions, changes and edits. We have all learnt so much from each other, and we hope that the handbook enriches your own learning journey. We wish to express our heartfelt and sincere thanks to the sixty-five authors who have co-created this handbook: Alice Aiken, Patrick Arens, Prakash Baral, Jan Beyne, Ian Brooks, Michelle Brown, Melissa Brown Goodall, Stephanie Burton, Nadine Buys, Barry Carney, Jane Fletcher, Heather Gatley, Georges Gielen, Dave Gorman, Georgina Gough, Janet Haddock-Fraser, Clare Hart, Blane Harvey, Sarah Heiberg, Samia Hoque, Maria Ivanova, Christopher D. Ives, Ashish Joshi, Kayode Kadiri, Frederick Kakembo, Helen Kettleborough, Rita Klapper, Leti Kelyn, Oles Kwong Yu To, Joy Lam Tsz Lok, Stephanie Leite, Jim Longhurst, Julio Lumbreras, Roz Marron, Stephen Martin, Carlos Mataix, Anouk Mertens, Eric Mijts, Joella Miller, Lars Moratis, Jennifer Morawiecki, Jaime Moreno-Serna, Purna B. Nepali, Julie Newman, David C. Nwogbo, Sakiko Okayama, Valentina Oquendo-Di Cosola, Rochelle Owen, Guillermo Palau, Jordi Peris, Wendy M. Purcell, Sally Randles, Teresa Sánchez-Chaparro, Andréia Abrahão Sant’Anna, Leonardo Fernandes Coelho Rezende dos Santos, Konstantina Skritsovali, Karen A. Smith, David Taylor, Harro von Blottnitz, Helen Wadham, Liz Walley, Shana Weber, Andrew Wilks, Tara Wright, Aram Yeretzian. We wish to acknowledge, with gratitude, the work of the thirty universities and higher education institutions represented across the twenty-four chapters: American University of Beirut, Breda University of Applied Sciences, Antwerp Management School, Centro Universitário Newton Paiva, Chiba University, City University of New York, Dalhousie University, Harvard University, Hong Kong University, Kathmandu University, Liverpool John Moores University, Manchester Metropolitan University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McGill University, National Open University of Nigeria, Ndejje University, Princeton University, University of Leuven, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universitat Politècnica de València, University

Acknowledgements

of Aruba, University of Cape Town, University of Edinburgh, University of Massachusetts (Boston), University of Nottingham, University of Pretoria, University of the West of England (Bristol), University of Worcester, Victoria University of Wellington and Yale University and their partners in business, community groups, governments, non-governmental organizations, professional associations, sector networks, social enterprises and other social networks. We want to make a special mention of the students, graduates, research students and alumni who have been involved in the various courses, events, initiatives, programmes or projects mentioned in the handbook. Thank you for investing with your head, heart and hand in advancing sustainability and helping to advance the Sustainable Development Goals through your work. The work draws on direct contributions from sixteen countries: Aruba, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Lebanon, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, Spain, Uganda, UK, United States, and it includes cases and examples from across the globe. We are very grateful to each of the authors for offering a window into their world to us and, through the handbook, to the global higher education sector and beyond. Each author does so humbly, so that they can learn by reflection and share their learning with others hoping it may help people avoid the pitfalls and leapfrog their way to advancing sustainability. Behind each story is a community and the work of many hundreds or even thousands of people, and we thank everyone involved in any way that helped make this handbook possible. As is clear from each chapter, there is no ‘magic bullet’ or secret formula here – but there is wisdom, expertise and insight from the assembled authorship team. Finally, as co-editors we wish to thank our partners and families, our friends and colleagues and each another for all the incredible support along the way and to all at Bloomsbury Publishing.

xx

1

Introduction WENDY M. PURCELL AND JANET HADDOCK-FRASER

Aims of the Handbook Sustainability is an important catalyst of change within global higher education (HE) with universities and colleges becoming transformed through their engagement with the sustainable development agenda and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015). Furthermore, HE can affect change in wider society and the environment towards sustainability through its knowledge creation and dissemination as well as the provision of leaders, professionals and entrepreneurs into society. Acting locally and globally, HE institutions (HEIs) can therefore play a critical role in developing new systemic and transformative solutions for the grand challenges of our day through multi-stakeholder collaboration. As such, universities offer a powerful means to help create a more sustainable future. Nevertheless, as organizations that have stood for many centuries in some cases, the ability of universities to deliver on sustainability demands that they too adapt to this new global agenda for change. Engagement of universities with sustainability and the SDGs is enacted internally through their teaching/learning, research/innovation and community/civic academic programmes and by way of their campus and operational services. HEIs are part of a wider stakeholder ecosystem, working with the business and health sectors, with city and regional authorities as well as with non-governmental organizations, charities and social enterprises (Purcell and Spengler, 2019), with many operating as anchor institutions (Work Foundation, 2010). As HE and sustainability offer the opportunity to co-catalyse change, in a manner akin to a ripple effect, they can trigger change in other stakeholders, in those places where they operate and interact and in their future actions. Students and alumni too can amplify the impact of HE and in turn become change makers across society. This handbook presents the case that universities per se and HE in general are essential to the successful pursuit of sustainability and delivery of the SDGs and illustrates this using a variety of critically evaluated cases – the latter highlighting the importance of context and institutional archetype. The handbook explores why it is hard to embed sustainability concepts, coursework and operational approaches within HEIs and offers examples drawn from across the world of new models, frameworks, practices and behaviours that are making a difference. It examines the way change is enacted, placing it into a theoretical framework and at a point in time on the continuum of an HEI’s sustainability journey. Each chapter draws out elements that are truly evocative, can be replicated or easily adapted, and it builds upon this through the narrative.

1

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

In this introduction chapter, we reflect on the scale of the opportunity and the challenges now and ahead, in terms of sustainability and the SDGs. We identify the catalysing and transformative change potential of HEIs and the systems in which they operate as a means of contextualizing the contributing chapters in this handbook. We then outline the book’s structure and conclude by reflecting on its contribution to the discourse and its importance as a call to action for the sector.

The Scale of the Sustainability Challenge Writing this introduction in 2022, it is thirty-five years since the seminal text ‘Our Common Future’ (aka the Brundtland Report) was published (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), launching the term ‘sustainable development’ into the world. Despite this, we are still in a position where modern economic growth is generated by a collection of socio-technical systems based upon industrial mass-production and individualized mass consumption that extensively employ fossil fuels, is resource and energy intensive and produces a massive amount of waste. Despite important improvements in life expectancy and material welfare in many countries, persistent problems of economic crises and rising inequality coincide with a growing realization that current socio-technical systems for meeting our basic needs – whether in food, energy, mobility, materials, water or resources more generally – are unsustainable. (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018, p. 1554) In terms of key indicators, in recent decades we have seen at a global level: 1. The Earth’s average surface temperature increase by 0.08°C per decade between 1880 and 1980, with the increase rising to 0.18°C per decade since then, and the warmest ten years on record occurring since 2005 (Climate.gov, 2021). 2. Global biodiversity loss amounting to a 36 per cent loss (unweighted) or 61 per cent loss (weighted)1 between 1970 and 2010 (van Goethem and van Zanden, 2021). 3. The world population increase from 5.013 billion at the start of 1987 to 7.762 billion by the end of 2020 (World Bank, 2021a). 4. Gross national income (GNI) per capita increase globally from US$3,324 in 1987 to US$11,538 in 2019 (World Bank, 2021b) and the global poverty index (measured by percentage population earning less than US$1.90 per day2 decreasing from 35.8 per cent in 1987 to 9.3 per cent in 2017 (World Bank, 2021c). However, these global trends of rising wealth and population at the expense of a depleting environment are not reflected equally at a national or regional level. The UN SDGs Report 2021 shows growing disparities with, for example, global poverty still at 7 per cent in 2020, 720– 811 million undernourished people in the world in 2020 and two billion people lacking access to safe drinking water (United Nations [UN], 2021). The idea of a single, finite, Earth system has been taken forward by many (including early works by Meadows et al., 1972; Daly, 1980) and has become a more mainstream, accepted narrative in recent years. As Lovelock notes (1979, 2006), living and non-living parts of the Earth effectively operate as a single system, or organism, but human activity has not been working in balance with this for many decades, if not centuries. 2

Introduction

Therefore, to reverse these trends requires global endeavour, based on individual, local, national and international effort as well as initiatives. By 1999, agreement was reached on global goals and principles towards sustainability, with the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs; MDG Monitor, n.d.). The focus was on social development goals (education, poverty and health), with environmental goals represented separately though the UN Conventions on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification (Islam and Iverson, 2018). As Islam and Iverson noted (2018), ‘bifurcation did not produce desired results’ and that ‘the economic processes through which poverty reduction was achieved also lead to further widening of the breaches in the planetary boundaries’ p. 18). Recognizing these limitations, a document titled ‘The Future We Want’ arising from the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (United Nations, 2012) called for the creation of a set of sustainable development goals that ‘incorporate in a balanced way all three dimensions of sustainable development and their interlinkages’ (United Nations, 2012, p. 63). Over the following three years, after extensive intergovernmental and stakeholder engagement, the 2030 Agenda with seventeen SDGs and 169 targets was announced (United Nations, 2015). The adoption of the SDGs requires buy-in to the notion of transformative change as a central tenet to enable the universal, multifaceted and socio-technological seismic shifts required to deliver on the all-embracing nature of Agenda 2030. The seventeen SDGs (United Nations, 2015) are as follows: 1. Goal 1, No Poverty. End poverty in all its forms everywhere. 2. Goal 2, Zero Hunger. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. 3. Goal 3, Good Health and Well-Being. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. 4. Goal 4, Quality Education. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. 5. Goal 5, Gender Equality. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. 6. Goal 6, Clean Water and Sanitation. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. 7. Goal 7, Affordable and Clean Energy. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. 8. Goal 8, Decent Work and Economic Growth. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all. 9. Goal 9, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization as well as foster innovation. 10. Goal 10, Reduced Inequalities. Reduce inequality within and among countries. 11. Goal 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. 12. Goal 12, Responsible Consumption and Production. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. 13. Goal 13, Climate Action. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. 14. Goal 14, Life Below Water. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. 3

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

15. Goal 15, Life on Land. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification as well as halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. 16. Goal 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development; provide access to justice for all; and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. 17. Goal 17, Partnerships for the Goals. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Since 2015, interest and engagement with the SDGs while heartening, whether at international, nation-state or organizational level, has been relatively limited within the HE sector (Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021). The notion of reporting activities against the SDGs is gaining traction but understanding the complexities of their interrelatedness – as well as embracing the fundamental shifts in how human success is measured – means that action at the scale needed to redress the damage being done has yet to emerge. Throughout this handbook, the case-study chapters highlight where particular institutions or jurisdictions have worked to take this requirement forward. There are examples aplenty, such as the institution in Chapter 8 (Ndejje University, Uganda) where faculty have worked with students and society to affect social and environmental enhancement through resource recovery and reuse projects, and in Chapter 3 (Dalhousie University, Canada) where the university research and innovation strategy is becoming framed around the SDGs. Chapter 17 (University of Aruba) shows how such institutions can be used to advance sustainable development of a Small Island State, while Chapter 15 (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) illustrates how Goal 13 on Climate Action is the focus of a university–city partnership.

The Concept of Transformative Change The notion of ‘transformative change’ (on which successful implementation of the UN SDGs depends) if defined in literal terms is a tautology. Change by its very nature is a process of making something different, as is transformation. Transformative change does however reflect change of substance, significance and one that challenges core elements of the status quo such that transformative change is held as ‘a complete change in an organization, designed to bring big improvements’ (Cambridge Dictionary, 2021). However, in the context of sustainability and implementation of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, transformational change has taken on a particular meaning. This is because the original UN declaration in 2015 called for transformative change to end poverty; reduce inequalities within and between countries; build just, peaceful and inclusive society; reduce climate change and protect the natural environment; and many more (United Nations, 2015). To achieve this, Agenda 2030 called for change processes using global partnerships, to recognize the interplay between high-income and developing nations, and the need to work together to tackle global issues. Schot and Steinmueller (2018) contextualize the transformational change needed to achieve the SDGs with that required in the innovation space. They note that the norms of economic success in the past that were dependent on individual state growth and competitiveness are no longer applicable and that socio-technical systems transition is needed to bring together technological change with social and behavioural change:

4

Introduction

Socio-technical systems transformation (or transition) is about changing skills, infrastructures, industry structures, products, regulations, user preferences and cultural predilections. It is about radical change in all elements of the configuration. (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018, p. 1562) They went on to illustrate transformational change thinking as applied to personal sustainable transport – for example, replacing fossil-fuel powered cars with electric battery cars may reduce greenhouse gas emissions at point of use (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). However, a transformational change approach – embracing socio-technical disruption – would consider other mobility options such as on demand ‘rental’ or public transport options, walking, bicycle use and the like as well as changed working and leisure practices to reduce travel needs generally. This would require engaging with multiple actors, each putting aside their vested interests, including governments, transport providers, employers and consumers. Taking this systems approach to HEIs and sustainability shows us that there is more to do than simply adding sustainability courses or electives into programmes or research problems related to (un)sustainable development and a more transformational approach needs to be adopted by HE – within institutions and throughout their stakeholder ecosystems. Clearly, to affect seismic, transformational change requires different ways of thinking and framing decisions. Taking the same approach as in the past will not deliver what is needed going forward. Traditional decision-trees or reliance on precedent and experience will not enable the lateral, radical approaches needed to deal with ‘wicked problems’ and solutions to the multifaceted issues and uncertain outcomes we currently face. Popular management and organization theory notes the relevance of ‘loop-learning’ and its part in catalysing change, and how this may offer a direction of travel, particularly the later addition of triple-loop learning. Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) defined single-loop and double-loop learning, where: 1. Single loop learning occurs when an error is detected and corrected without critique on the underlying process or system (‘Are we doing things right?’). 2. Double-loop learning occurs when mismatches are corrected through some element of critical analysis by examination and adjustment of governing variables (‘Are we doing the right things?’). This was captured by Drucker (1963) as ‘Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things’ – too often HEIs focus on the former over the latter. Although inspired by Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978), Tosey et al. (2012) noted an additional loop namely the ‘tripleloop’ learning that developed through management practice. Notwithstanding this, the concept resonates with that of transformative change in that it seeks to decide ‘What is the right thing to do?’ by looking at context, critically assessing if the best solution is being considered and by examining what has not been thought of (Education Technology Solutions, 2017). Such learning requires ‘continual reflection on the learning process, the contexts within which learning occurs, and the assumptions and values motivating the learning and influencing its outcomes’ (Yuthas et al., 2004, p. 239). As organizations fundamentally concerned with learning, universities are well placed in this regard to advance sustainability by focusing on effectiveness and reflection. However, they need to go beyond the theoretical and do more in practice. This is why the handbook uses case studies and examples of university-led projects and initiatives as the dataset to draw out lessons on transformational change in the academy.

5

6

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Despite good intentions, transformative change is hard to achieve and takes a lot of time and effort. Seeking radical change requires multiple actors operating in a non-partisan manner, creative thinking, navigation through uncertainty and the courage to tackle wicked problems. This relies on individuals and teams with the capabilities, knowledge, skills and mindsets to operate in this way to take forward the transformational changes within and by HEIs to deliver on sustainability and the SDGs.

Opportunities and Challenges Offered by Higher Education What are the opportunities and challenges for HE in taking forward knowledge advancement, attitude change, commitment to action and action delivery needed to fulfil ‘sustainable development’ by operating ‘sustainably’? What role does education in general and, HE in particular, have in creating or responding to the transformative change needed to deliver sustainability solutions? While Lovelock (2006) points to a lack of human intelligence and knowledge as major factors constraining innovative thinking and behaviour change, we disagree and, in attesting to be ‘stewards of the Earth’, highlight the critical role of knowledge advancement (research) and dissemination (learning and teaching) provided by universities across the globe as a potential platform to deliver transformative change. We recognize that local and national contexts as well as institutional archetypes and mission are important and these are reflected in the handbook’s chapters, with key insights that can help catalyse transformative change by and through HEIs. One substantial opportunity that presented itself in recent decades is access to and participation in HE globally. In the past ten years (2010–19), numbers attending HE rose globally from 182 million in 2010 to 227 million in 2019 (World Bank, 2021d). Table I.1 shows gross enrolment rates (percentage of eligible population enrolling in HE) globally and for each broad income band (based on Gross National Income per capita ranges). Notwithstanding the clear differential in percentage attendance between high-income and lower-income countries, the increase in attendance in the middle-income countries (where population growth has also been higher) is heartening. Higher numbers of educated young adults bring economic benefits to society through higher skill levels, more advanced problem-solving skills and, hopefully, the ability to challenge the ‘status quo’ as well as other societal benefits such as health and engagement in democratic processes. If HEIs are setting up these students for lifelong success, they need to ensure that these young adults are exposed to the multifaceted complexities of TABLE I.1  Percentage Gross Enrolment Rates in Tertiary Education

Category (delineated by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) per capita ranges)

2010

2018

8.6

9.5

110

Lower Middle Income

17.3

24.2

140

Upper Middle Income

32.6

53.2

163

High Income

72.9

75.7

104

World

29.6

38.4

130

Low Income

Source: World Bank (2021d).

6

% Change

Introduction

sustainability and thus able to face the daunting task of wicked-problem-solving, incorporate triple-loop learning, deal with interdisciplinary thinking and uncertainty as well as challenge unsustainable practices. The aspiration to provide an integrated sustainability offer by HEIs can be hampered by structural, sector-wide, government-led and funding constraints affecting how universities operate, are governed and led, in addition to how success is measured and what societal returns might be anticipated – so much so that there is disagreement as to the purpose of a university. In the UK, for example, universities are ‘measured’ by their research excellence (not necessarily its societal benefit) and graduate employability (measured by salaries not by positive benefit of their alumni to society and the environment), student satisfaction and performance outcomes, with funding for the most part following these metrics. Although national systems differ, the general trend globally is towards ‘massification’ of HE (Altbach et al., 2009) where the relationship between universities and public funding typically reflects a greater student contribution in the form of fees – albeit some are funded by government or private loans with payments linked to graduate salaries. This has created in many jurisdictions a market-based mass-market HE system (Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018). There is much criticism of this approach, with concerns that the stakeholder-led, market-driven approach dilutes the opportunity and need for universities to operate beyond instrumentalism – particularly if what is needed are future leaders to challenge current paradigms. However, if this expansion means that the societal impact of HE is greater, then so too is its responsibility to deliver on society’s needs. Radical perspectives to enable progress towards sustainability, such as those suggested by Pashby and Andreotti (2016) in relation to education for sustainability, call for alternative, liberal and critical approaches in HE to enable knowledge development and dissemination. The current systems, policies and funding mechanisms do not fully support this approach, however. The challenge then for universities is how either to deliver transformative change for sustainability within the constraints of current expectations on purpose and approach, structures, systems and funding mechanisms, or to change the parameters by which they can succeed. In reality, this bimodal approach is overly simplistic and, as the chapters in this handbook demonstrate, elements of ‘pragmatic change for transformation’ (Part 1, leveraging success from within the current HE landscape) and ‘radical change for transformation’ (Part 2, working outside of HE norms) are occurring co-dependently.

Structure of the Handbook Taking forward the approaches outlined, the handbook comprises two sections: 1. Part 1 concentrates on case studies, thought pieces and discourse where the focus is on how universities respond to factors external to their organization to deliver transformative change for sustainability. It explores how sustainability can be adopted as a driver of change within HEIs, as they react and respond to influencing factors outside the academy 2. Part 2 takes the organization itself as the starting point for transformative change for sustainability, focusing on changes within it to deliver this. It examines how a university working on sustainability can influence, effect and amplify change beyond the institution, working with and through others. Each carefully curated chapter reflects the key roles

7

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

a university can choose to play when it adopts sustainability as a lens to explore its core activities of teaching/learning, research/innovation and civic/community engagement. Clearly, the boundaries between these two generalized approaches are fuzzy with, in many cases, aspects of external and internal factors catalysing or responding to the transformative change for sustainability agenda. Throughout these, the chapters draw out and critically assess the elements that are enabling sustainability-led change or are hampering transformative change for sustainability. The book finishes with our conclusions where we curate key insights that can help both deepen an HEI’s engagement with the sustainability agenda and accelerate its sustainability journey. Looking at the topic of sustainability through the lens of transformational change enables us to capture how HEIs across different geographies and with radically different missions are contributing to sustainable development. Taking the work within the institution and that conducted with others positions HE as a change agent and highlights its transformational role at a systems level. Exploring how HE institutions are taking a mission-driven approach to sustainability reveals how consideration of sustainable development is embedded into their strategy and subsequent actions. Capturing what works, focusing on solutions and delivery with each HE-featured institution being different, the rich localism and learning shared means that others can curate a bespoke approach for their own sustainability journey. This handbook would not have been possible without the constructive, purposeful, professional and skilled contributions of all the chapter authors (biographical details of whom are outlined in the preliminary section) and their colleagues, students and graduates. We wish to extend our heartfelt gratitude to all of them for being part of this global scholarly collective effort and for their part in the co-creation of this handbook (see Acknowledgements section). Sustainability is an enduring theme for learning and humanity, and we attest to the critical role of universities and HE to creating a world that leaves no one behind.

Notes 1 Weighted figures give greater weight to species-rich systems. 2 Figures provided at 2011 power purchasing parity (PPP).

References 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 Organization (UNESCO), Paris. Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cambridge Dictionary (2021). ‘Transformative Change’, https://dic​tion​ary.cambri​dge.org/dic​tion​ary/engl​ ish/trans​form​atio​nal-cha​nge. Accessed 27 December 2021. Chankseliani, M., and McCowan, T. (2021). ‘Higher Education and the Sustainable Development Goals’. Higher Education, 81 (1–8). https://link.sprin​ger.com/arti​cle/10.1007/s10​734-020-00652-w. Accessed 1 January 2022.

8

Introduction

Climate.gov (2021). ‘Climate Change: Global Temperature’. https://www.clim​ate.gov/news-featu​res/ unders​tand​ing-clim​ate/clim​ate-cha​nge-glo​bal-temp​erat​ure. Accessed 26 December 2021. Daly, H. E. (1980). Economics, Ecology, Ethics: Essays toward a Steady-State Economy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Drucker, P. (1963). ‘Managing for Business Effectiveness’. Harvard Business Review, May. https://hbr. org/1963/05/manag​ing-for-busin​ess-effect​iven​ess. Accessed 1 January 2022. Education Technology Solutions (2017). ‘Triple-Loop Learning’. ETS Magazine, 21 March 2017. https:// educa​tion​tech​nolo​gyso​luti​ons.com/2017/03/tri​ple-loop-learn​ing/. Accessed 28 December 2021. Haddock-Fraser, J., Rands, P., and Scoffham, S. (2018). Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education, London: Bloomsbury. Islam, S. N., and Iverson, K. (2018). ‘From “Structural Change” to “Transformative Change”: Rationale and Implications’. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Paper, No.155 ST/ ESA/2018/DWP/155, United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/esa/desa/pap​ers/2018/wp1​55_2​ 018.pdf. Accessed 27 December 2021. Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lovelock, J. (2006). The Revenge of Gaia. London: Penguin. MDG Monitor (n.d.). ‘Category: Millennium Development Goals’, https://www.mdg​moni​tor.org/mil​lenn​ ium-deve​lopm​ent-goals/. Accessed 1 January 2022. Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Behrens, W., III (1972). The Limits to Growth, London: Earth Island Press. Pashby, K., and Andreotti, V. (2016). ‘Ethical Internationalism in Higher Education: Interfaces with International Development and Sustainability’. Environmental Education Review, 22 (6), pp. 771–87. Purcell, W. M., and Spengler, J. D. (2019). ‘University Engagement Driving Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals: Social Enterprise’. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference on Sustainable Development, 1 August 2019, Rome, Italy. https://ic-sd.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2019/11/ wendy_​purc​ell.pdf. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Kevin Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., and Foley, J. A. (2009). ‘A Safe Operating Space for Humanity’. Nature, 461 (24) (September), pp. 472–5. Schot, J., and Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). ‘Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change’. Research Policy, 47 (9), pp. 1554–67. Tosey, P., Visser, M., and Saunders, M. N. K. (2018). ‘The Origins and Conceptualizations of “TripleLoop” Learning: A Critical Review’. Management Learning, 43 (3), pp. 291–307. United Nations (2012). ‘The Future We Want’, in Outcome Document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 20–22 June, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 30 December 2021. United Nations (2021). ‘The Sustainable Development Goals Report’. https://unst​ats.un.org/sdgs/rep​ ort/2021/The-Sust​aina​ble-Deve​lopm​ent-Goals-Rep​ort-2021.pdf. Accessed 28 December 2021. Van Goethem, T., and van Zanden, J. L. (2021). ‘Biodiversity Trends in a Historical Perspective’, in OECD (ed.), How Was Life? Volume II: New Perspectives on Well-Being and Global Inequality since 1820. Paris: OECD Publishing. Work Foundation (2010). ‘Anchoring Growth: The Role of “Anchor Institutions” in the Regeneration of UK Cities’. https://www.resea​rchg​ate.net/ publication/303751278_Anchoring_Growth_The_role_ of_’Anchor_Institutions’_in_the_ regeneration_of_UK_cities. Accessed 30 December 2021. World Bank (2021a). ‘Population Total’. https://data.worldb​ank.org/indica​tor/SP.POP.TOTL?end=202 0&start=1960&view=chart. Accessed 26 December 2021. World Bank (2021b). ‘World Data’. https://data.worldb​ank.org/reg​ion/world. Accessed 26 December 2021.

9

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

World Bank (2021c). ‘World Poverty’. https://data.worldb​ank.org/topic/pove​rty?locati​ons=1W. Accessed 26 December 2021. World Bank (2021d). ‘Percentage Gross Enrolment Rate for Tertiary Education, Both Sexes’. https://datab​ ank.worldb​ank.org/indica​tor/SE.TER.ENRL?id=c755d​342&repo​rt_n​ame=EdStat​s_In​dica​tors​_Rep​ ort&popu​lart​ype=ser​ies. Accessed 26 December 2021. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yuthas, K., Dillard, J., and Rogers, R. (2004). ‘Beyond Agency and Structure: Triple-Loop Learning’. Journal of Business Ethics, 51 (2), pp. 229–43.

10

11

PART 1

Transformative Change from Outside to Inside the Academy WENDY M. PURCELL AND JANET HADDOCK-FRASER

The introduction highlights how the dynamic and discourse between universities and the environment within which they operate offer opportunities for synergistic co-creation towards transformative change for sustainability. Part 1 illustrates this through case studies and thought pieces that focus on how universities respond to factors external to their organization to deliver transformative change for sustainability. It explores how sustainability can be adopted as a driver of change within higher education institutions (HEIs), as they react and respond to influencing factors outside the academy. The world today is vastly different from when universities were founded, as are the expectations and mores of humankind. The development and purpose of universities has been well documented, from their monastic, theological roots, through bastions of philosophical debate developing into ‘ivory towers’, embellished by the influence of the enlightenment and industrial and scientific development. The trend in recent decades has been to enhance the relevance of universities to the societies they serve, although what this means is contended, as many of the chapter authors in this part of the handbook explore. We assert and support the notion that universities now need to be purposed to enhance and enable the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN) as well as to advance sustainability. Further, the mandate of higher education, through learning, research and engagement, places them ideally to deliver the transformative change needed through expansion of the knowledge and skills of their students, faculty and communities. This first part of the handbook takes us on a global tour to explore the successes and challenges faced by the higher education sector in leading, developing and delivering this. We visit universities in the UK and Europe, North and South America, Africa, Southeast Asia and Australasia garnering thoughts from academics, students, institutional leaders and professional service sustainability staff with substantial and deep expertise on what universities are doing and how they might take forward global sustainability challenges. The chapters range from a call for radical, structural change in the relationship between universities and society at a macro level to micro-ambitious change that has flourished to become mainstream and transformative. They note throughout that context is everything, given the level of development, government structures and priorities as well as the expectations of society on the education system framing responses to transformative change for sustainability.

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

The first two chapters focus on the macro level. Martin, Ives and Carney in Chapter 1 discuss the failings of a neoliberal, economy-led system and provide examples of alternative models of operation from the UK, Australia and Canada. Brown Goodall and Ivanova (Chapter 2) highlight how HEIs can assist national governments and international institutions at all levels of the governance process and how, as effective knowledge brokers, innovation agents and trailblazers, they are critical to creating and maintaining strategic alliances based on need, authentic interest and expertise. Chapters 3 to 6 review how core functions in universities can respond to the global sustainability agenda. In Chapter 3, a team from Dalhousie University in Canada (Aiken et al.) analyse the university’s efforts to ground its research and innovation expertise to respond to the SDGs. Chapters 4 and 5 move to how learning and teaching can change to respond to the SDGs within a business school context. In Chapter 4, Moratis and Beyne discuss progress at Antwerp Management School in Belgium and the development of the Global Leadership Skills programme, while Chapter 5 includes insights from Randles and a team of staff and students at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, on alternatives to top–down approaches to learning and education. Achievement of micro-ambition for transformative change is also demonstrated in Chapter 6 where Yeretzian discusses pedagogical approaches to achieve SDGs at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. Chapters 7 and 8 focus on case studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Nwogbo and Kadiri provide enlightening insights in Chapter 7 in their critique of the higher education sector in Nigeria, while in Chapter 8, Kakembo provides a practical example of how students and faculty at Ndejje University along with their local community have responded to energy and environment issues in the context of Uganda. Chapters 9 to 11 critique the ways in which universities engage and benefit from engagement and networking with external stakeholders. In Chapter 9, Lam and To discuss how at a jurisdiction level a collective of universities have been able to work together on the delivery of the SDGs by building on micro-level specific projects. Chapter 10 takes forward the community-collective approach through discussion of living labs by Sant’Anna and Santos at Centro Universitario Newton Paiva, Brazil, highlighting how engineering students benefit from this approach, developing soft skills and complex problem-solving capability, beyond the core curriculum. The importance of sector-level networking is examined by Haddock-Fraser in Chapter 11 where the role, opportunities and challenges faced by sustainability member associations is critiqued, noting their importance in working towards the global and national collective good through encouragement of information sharing and advocacy. Overall, the candour and critical reflective approach taken by the authors help us appreciate the fact that transformative change comes in many forms – from a small-scale idea of a faculty or staff member or student to institutional-led – or sector-wide – responses. Each speak to the importance of understanding others’ perspectives – whether institutional strategy, national regulations or cultures, individual motivations, or beliefs. Some speak of radical change for transformation; others to incremental change for transformation. Our view as editors is that context is everything, and change is possible and needed urgently at all levels across the higher education sector globally.

12

13

1

Universities as Agents of Change: Green Academy to Ecological University STEPHEN MARTIN, CHRISTOPHER D. IVES AND BARRY CARNEY

Introduction Our civilization, as we know it, is at a historical tipping point because of the environmental wreckage we are causing in the planetary biosphere. Accelerating, non-linear change in biophysical systems will determine the future of our world and will be characterized by huge discontinuities for human and natural systems, encompassing widespread natural disasters, mass migration and civil unrest (Folke et al., 2021). In this new age – the Anthropocene – we urgently need new ways of thinking and acting (Jucker, 2020; Ison and Straw, 2020; Shephard, 2020). The turbulence currently running through our interconnected environmental, socio-economic and educational systems caused by Covid-19 creates opportunities to transform all our systems at the deepest levels. Universities could play a significant part in this transformation process, but only if they themselves can become transformative. There is a growing and urgent need for our universities to become systemic learning organizations, if they are to play a critical part in addressing the issues we currently face (Sterling and Martin, 2019). We must amplify and accelerate a shift from the old model of the university as an ‘ivory tower’ towards an adaptive, innovating and co-evolutionary relationship with community and society. This transformative model must avoid the ideological effects of the standardizing global testing culture, and a rationale based solely on the needs of the economy. The traditional model must be critiqued and transformed in favour of a higher purpose role aligned to addressing the immense challenge and possibility of securing social and ecological well-being in our troubled times. As Bawden (2008) commented: There is a strange and inexplicable reluctance by our institutions of higher education across the entire globe, to overtly promote the fact that they are, first and foremost, agencies of human and social development. (p. 65) Bawden (2008) also argues that ‘project civilization’ is profoundly fragile – predicated on the stability of planetary systems – and our universities have extraordinary knowledge and capacity to protect it. However, change in higher education tends to arise from systemic external and internal factors (Wals and Corcoran, 2012). Thus, in the context of immense societal complexity, intentional transformation of universities’ institutional cultures, curricula and campuses requires

13

14

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

system-wide approaches (Sterling, 2021b). These must be facilitated by skilful management and cultivation of institution-wide awareness of the need for change, coupled with appropriate monitoring and evaluation (Scott and Gough, 2003; Trowler, 2010). While curriculum reform in response to contemporary planetary challenges is beginning to take place in many universities in the UK and elsewhere in the world, it is incremental and small scale. Although inclusion of sustainability content in selected units of teaching is commonplace, examples of progress towards whole institutional reform are harder to find. Some notable exceptions include the Hawkesbury Agricultural College initiative (Bawden, 2016) in New South Wales, Australia; the ‘regenerative sustainability’ initiative (Marcus et al., 2015) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada; and similar initiatives at several participating universities within the UK’s Green Academy programme (McCoshan and Martin, 2013), discussed later in this chapter. These illustrate how universities can actively promote and participate in the co-creation of societal transformations that go far beyond technology transfer and other economic contributions. There are early signs that these exceptions may be on a trajectory towards becoming the rule as attempts at institution-wide reform can be noted in a growing number of universities. However, urgent questions persist regarding how to reform knowledge systems at the necessary scale and pace required to address current and future planetary challenges (Fazey et al., 2020). It is evident that there is still a long way to go, yet the widening spread of sustainability-focused initiatives across universities should bolster resolve and common efforts. Considering the rapidly closing window of opportunity for humanity to keep the planet within safe ecological limits (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021; Ruckelshaus, 2020), and the dawning realization among governments, industry and civil society of the urgent need for transformative change, we explore both the nature and process of university reform required to meet pressing sustainability challenges. First, we present the need for wholesale university reform, by examining the fundamental principles of higher education considering contemporary global crises. Second, we explore the complex nature of institutional reform as applied to universities. Third, we present selected case studies to illustrate how institutional transformation can be achieved and how important barriers to change are identified. Finally, we lay out a series of recommendations and argue for the emergence of a new ecological and civic university model.

What Is the Purpose of a University in the Twenty-First Century? The traditional view is that university education provides a basis for extending and deepening human understanding in a disciplined, ethical and illimitable manner, including of concepts such as personal growth and character development. However, within Western, neoliberal economic settings, this view has been overtaken by the prevailing commercial ideals that hold that the purpose of higher education is to advance knowledge, promote social mobility and help ensure perpetual economic growth and competitiveness. As Marks and Steuer (2008, citing Lawson, 2006) have suggested: This commercialisation of higher education serves a bigger purpose, though. It softens students up for the rigours of globalisation. By creating a market, young people are encouraged to think and behave like rational economic man. They

14

Universities as Agents of Change

become ‘human capital’, calculating the rate of return on their university investment. A degree becomes a share certificate. Commercialisation conditions students to expect no help from others, or society, and therefore never to provide help in return. Debt and economic conditioning discourage graduates from going into lower-paid caring jobs – and instead into the City, where the real ‘value’ is. It fashions a Britain that competes rather than cares. (p. 10) This type of education creates citizens who remain stalwarts of the prevailing economic system and perpetuates values of individualism and transactional living. Educated to ‘succeed’ within existing parameters, graduates are consequently unable to lead as agents of progressive social change. Young people are increasingly concerned – and even fearful – of the future they are inheriting,1 yet the university education they receive rarely prepares them to bring the change that they – and the planet – requires. Universities must therefore rethink their ultimate purpose. What are universities for? Philosopher Maxwell (2020) suggests that we begin by asking: What is the fundamental problem that humans currently face? They propose two fundamental problems of learning: first, learning about the universe and about ourselves and other living things as parts of the universe; and second, learning how to create civilization. Maxwell (2020) argues that we have solved the first problem because, in the seventeenth century, we created modern science and technology, but we have yet to solve the second problem and our current global issues have arisen as a result. Science and technology have created many social benefits such as hygiene and medicine. However, without an accompanying wisdom of limits and constraints, they have also led to the creation of the global behemoths of industry and intensive agriculture, which, among other technological ‘achievements’, are driving increasing social inequalities and catastrophic ecological breakdown. Scharmer (2019) also questioned the role of universities in contributing to social progress and their failure to address urgent challenges of social breakdown, political unrest and massive environmental destruction. His prognosis aligns with Maxwell’s, namely that there is a lack of political will and a ‘knowing–doing’ gap, which Scharmer calls, in his blog, ‘a disconnect between our collective consciousness and our collective action’. They go on to call for both action learning that ‘shifts the outer place of learning from the classroom to the real world’, and whole person learning that ‘shifts the inner place of learning from the head to the heart, and from the heart to the hand’ (Scharmer, 2019, n.p.). This assessment is not new. Cultural theorist and author Williams long advocated the need to reconsider the conceptual differences between education and learning (Williams (1983) in McIlroy and Westwood, 1993). Crucially, Williams saw education as part of the process of social change itself. Education must be more than ‘the bottle with the message in it, bobbing on the tides and waves of history’ (Williams (1983), in McIlroy and Westwood, 1993, p. 255). Plutarch is often attributed with purporting that ‘education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel’. Ironically, this argument continues some 2,000 years later as modern education fills more vessels, often drowning the recipients! In revisiting the fundamental purpose of a university for the twenty-first century, there is a need to reconsider the conceptual differences between education and learning. The difference is one of value. Learning is what is sought; education or ‘official learning’ is what is offered – and the latter is shaped by the perception of these needs by the educators.

15

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Jucker (2020) offers a more recent critique of our educational systems. In their book Can We Cope with the Complexity of Reality?, they explore the critical issue of why craving easy answers is at the root of our problems. By reflecting on several decades of theory and practice in education for sustainability, they propose that education for a fair, open, just, equitable and environmentally sustainable world involves supporting the development of a sound understanding of complex reality and focusing on issues that urgently need to be addressed (such as overconsumption and the reinvention of democracy). Jucker (2020) differentiates intelligence from rationality, demonstrating how intelligence can be a tool for both propaganda and truth seeking, based on the ground-breaking work of Kahneman (2011) and Tversky and Kahneman (1974). Cognitive scientists divide our thinking into two categories: 1. System 1 – intuitive, automatic, fast thinking that may be prey to unconscious biases. 2. System 2 – slow, more analytical, deliberative thinking needing conscious effort. According to this view – called dual-process theory – many of our irrational decisions come when we rely too heavily on system 1 thinking that allows unconscious biases to cloud our judgement. As Glasser (2018) notes, an overuse of system 1 thinking can lead to antibiotic (as opposed to symbiotic) relationships with our environments. Studies by the Canadian psychologist Stanovich (1993) have elucidated that these cognitive biases are often more prevalent in those with higher intelligence quotients than those with lower ones. Therefore, education systems for the twenty-first century need to not only cultivate the knowledge that underpins system 2 thinking, but also to enable such thinking to be applied at appropriate times and settings. Indeed, Shephard (2020) defines effective university education as that which develops critical thinking, as this captures more precisely the social, environmental and ethical needs of civil society in a complex and rapidly changing world. Ison and Straw (2020) recount a predominance of first-order change makers – that is, the resulting change remains contained within the existing parameters of the system – compared to second-order change makers – that is, the change is made or sought at the systemic level. To address twenty-first-century challenges, universities must be institutions that develop both knowledge and wisdom. In our view, there are some fundamental flaws in our educational systems based on their failure to transform learners into active conceptualizers capable of critical reflection and to create lifelong learners adept at taking responsibility for their own learning. As we highlight later in the chapter, this was made clear through the experiential innovations of Hawkesbury Agricultural College over three decades ago (Ison and Straw, 2020). Current higher education systems often fail to cultivate deliberative, critical thinking applied to pressing contemporary challenges because they commonly fail to discern the relevant learning styles and preferences of individuals. Many of those who teach in universities find it almost impossible to change from a didactic form of teaching (often characterized as ‘death by PowerPoint’) towards the more adaptive and co-creative forms of learning that engage and enable learners. President of Arizona State University (ASU) Michael Crow asserts that universities are not fit for purpose in the twenty-first century (Crow and Dabars, 2015), arguing in a speech (ASU, 2018) that universities are presently ‘inadequate’ for five key reasons: 1. Universities are outcomes of their own design and its application. Notably, they teach and research in areas such as economics based on models that are outmoded, structuring learning 16

Universities as Agents of Change

2.

3.

4.

5.

around outdated notions of disciplinarity. Bawden (2016) would categorize this as ‘epistemic myopia’. Universities apply inadequate system level tools. They are reductionist in focus and fail to teach and research the wider, more complex global and social dimensions of their disciplinary traditions. Universities are inadequately representative of cultural diversity. This is especially in relation to that seen in wider society – such as Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) – and Indigenous peoples. This further narrows their contributions to knowledge creation and its wise application. Universities do not care about unsustainability and its social, environmental and economic consequences. They have no moral sensitivity because of their obsession with reductionism. Universities are arcane, non-adaptive institutions. If universities move at all, they do so at a pace which is not commensurate with the pace of change in the modern world.

ASU has made some outstanding progress in developing a more systemic and transdisciplinary approach to learning with over twenty-five interdisciplinary programmes and many global interdisciplinary research institutes. But even here Crow is critical, noting that ‘it’s still not nearly enough!’ (ASU21), and believes universities need to change everything down to their roots with sustainability as a core value in everything they say and do. Universities are currently ‘closed sequestered places not fully and pragmatically engaged with the real world’ (ASU21). Scharmer (2019) argues that as we move from one geological epoch, the Holocene, to the other, the Anthropocene, it is time to reconceive the twenty-first-century university. This is also reflected in and reinforced by the work of Fazey et al. (2020) who advocate the need to reconceptualize knowledge required for the twenty-first century as being intimately intertwined with action. Yet, the magnitude of this task is profound and requires deliberate and thoughtful attention. In critically reflecting on the shortcomings of the modern university, we are better equipped to characterize the effective, fit-for-purpose university, epitomized as a transformative, adaptive knowledge enterprise; working in real time and at scale to tackle the grand challenges of the Anthropocene. Universities must adapt and embrace their potential to tackle these grand challenges. As Calder et al. (2002, p. 99) have suggested: Colleges and universities are vested by society with the task of discerning truth, imparting values, and socializing students to contribute to social progress and the advancement of knowledge. They have a profound responsibility to impart the moral vision and technical knowledge needed to ensure a high quality of life for future generations. Sustainable development is the current context in which higher education must focus its mission.

Understanding Change Processes and Institutional Reform The role that universities must play in the transformation towards a more sustainable society is increasingly recognized in both scholarly and practitioner literature (Ramos et al., 2015). Consequentially, many universities have aligned themselves to the principles of sustainability 17

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and sought to advance the cause of sustainability through academic, operational and wider stakeholder outreach activities (Sterling et al., 2013; Campagnucci and Spigarelli, 2020). Despite this, progress has been criticized for being piecemeal and limited to isolated pockets within universities (Cotton and Alcock, 2013), technologically opportunistic, unresponsive to the social dimension and lacking overall coordination, leadership and coherence (Ramos et al., 2015; Adams et al., 2018; Butt et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2014), leaving some of the bigger questions relating to sustainability unanswered (Martin and Jucker, 2009). When seeking to transform an organization towards sustainability, we are faced with a wide range of ‘wicked’ problems (Martin and Murray, 2010) that include uncertainty, multiple stakeholders, multiple perspectives and competing values. In systems thinking, these are often described as messy problems which have unbounded characteristics (Martin and Murray, 2010). Part of the challenge of institutional transformation is that it must address organizational culture, which includes systems of beliefs, values, attitudes and customs held by groups of people and within which individuals and disciplinary teams operate. However, organizational culture is an elusive concept, and this area of change is rarely addressed in any systemic manner (Martin and Murray, 2010). By exploring the ways in which we understand how values and culture develop, we can begin to find ways of exploring solutions for the wicked problem of sustainability. Just as there are hundreds of definitions of sustainable development, there are hundreds of definitions of culture. All of which is unhelpful, because it might lead us to think of culture and sustainability as a ‘thing’ or a ‘state’ which belongs to an organization. Neither of these are static concepts, but a dynamic that everyone is creating, affirming and expressing. Any approach to sustainability within an organization needs to focus on facilitating change in organizational paradigms and not just structures, systems and processes. Hence, we argue that there is a need to investigate how to shape and modify culture for different higher education outcomes. As Sterling (2021a) advocates: The operative shared paradigm – its embedded assumptions, beliefs, and values – shapes, influences, and limits debate and practice. It moulds the culture of debate and practice as regards what are seen as norms, and conversely, what is seen as marginal, unimportant, or irrelevant. The paradigm has added potency where it is unconsciously held or unexamined, and I believe this is often the case institutionally, and amongst individual actors within higher education. (p. 8) We have used a Culture Web Model as a way of identifying some of the key characteristics of organizational culture (Martin and Murray, 2010) (Figure 1.1). The centre of the web is dominated by an organization’s paradigm. Seel (2000) draws upon the cultural web and defines organization culture as the emergent result of the continuing negotiations about values, meanings, and proprieties between the members of that and with its environment. (p. 2) The six arms of the web are seen as manifestations of the organization’s culture and values. Most change programmes concentrate on the arms of the web, such as the organizational structures and processes. Experience shows that these approaches do not lead to sustained change (Martin and Murray, 2010). Programmes with the specific purpose of organizational change are in the minority but are not altogether absent. There are also limited robust longitudinal evaluations of the processes 18

Universities as Agents of Change

Organizational Structure Power & Control Mechanisms

Symbols (Language) Organization Paradigm

Rituals & Routines

Stories & Myths Leadership Role Models

FIGURE 1.1  Culture Web Model (adapted from Martin and Murray (2010)).

of reform, and how these relate to the depth and magnitude of the change. Further knowledge of transformative praxis at the systems level is clearly called for. The following three case studies contribute to this sparse but vital area and provide faceted evidence on how institutional reform of educational entities might be enacted. The first is the case of Hawkesbury Agricultural College and its pioneering ‘Systems Agriculture’ degree programme that abandoned the preexisting curricula for an experiential, holistically framed model. Second, the UK Green Academy initiative – launched in 2011 – intended to leverage sustainability from a position of curriculum ‘add-on’ to become a widespread operational approach. Third, the University of British Colombia expands upon aspects of the Green Academy and provides insights into longstanding sustainability progress that is embedded into campus and culture. We examine each of these through the lens of the Culture Web Model to identify key factors in their success as well as attributes that may have limited their wider impact. Hawkesbury Agricultural College An example of the kind of education required was experimented with by Bawden (2016) and colleagues at Hawkesbury College in New South Wales. Hawkesbury College pioneered an agricultural education programme that positioned systemic praxes centrally in learning (Bawden, 2016). A three-year ‘Systems Agriculture’ (SA) degree programme, which provided a certified qualification comparable to a level six bachelor’s degree, ran from 1980 to 1995. It sought to educate through holistic processes grounded in experiential contexts. Hawkesbury’s Systems Agriculture approach was, and continues to be, widely celebrated for its contextually embedded education. Bawden and colleagues created innovative ways of learning that avoided the issues of traditional pedagogical models. The key for them was to shift the place of learning from the 19

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

campus to the community. They knew that students learn better by doing. Therefore, they created action-learning programmes in rural communities where the student becomes the change agent, and the teacher the coach who facilitates the learner’s potential. Developing action learning at scale requires quite different learning infrastructures, including classrooms that are not primarily about content delivery but about reflection on action. This requires a different type of faculty that can hold the space for student-centred forms of learning. These new forms of learning and assessment were based on delegating more power and responsibility to the students by initiating a progression process based on a competency assessment framework, co-constructed with the students. The curriculum objectives included autonomy in and for learning, systems agriculture and effective communication across systems thinking, knowing and doing. Importantly the design process featured the Kolb (1984) experiential learning model and its emphasis on conceptualization as the successor leading from the reflection step of the cycle. While many students tried to follow the Kolb sequence: experience → reflect → conceptualize → act, the majority missed out the conceptualization step because they were less effective at reflection. Bawden and others at Hawkesbury also found that students began to understand that they all had different learning styles that were not accommodated by the prevailing education system – crucially they recognized this was a failure of the education system, not of themselves. Hawkesbury College’s SA course designed real-world pedagogies that were inherently systemic (Bawden, 2016). Agriculture was both a study of, and study from within, its systems and subsystems – that is, it was not viewed as a standalone discipline. As such, Hawkesbury College set out to inspire multilevel systemic experimentation and exploration, and nurture graduates with demonstrable systemic understandings and competencies. The sustained success of the Hawkesbury SA programme was dependent upon widespread organizational change. During its operational phases, there were several instances where shifts away from the pre-existing culture occurred. We summarize the prominent features from this case and position them on the Culture Web Model in Figure 1.2: 1. Staff and student interactions broke away from ‘conventional’ structures and routine dynamics. 2. The curriculum and mechanisms for knowledge creation/transfer where radically overhauled. 3. Learning was an outcome of facilitation and processes of co-inquiry, rather than conventional didactic instruction. Sense-making and critical understandings occurred as emergent, ‘livedlearning stories’ which were contextual, (inter)personal and grounded in the field. However, the wider organizational value- and culture-shifts were protected by the dominance of the prevailing agricultural, social and higher educational institutional paradigm. This restricted the expansion of the SA model, and the programme was ended in 1995. UK Green Academy Change Process A deliberate attempt to shift higher education culture for sustainability in the UK is evident in the Green Academy change process (2017). Launched in 2011 by the Higher Education Academy (HEA), this was a small-scale intervention intended to have a large amount of leverage by creating change agents and building capacity in institutions for effecting institutional change – that is, to have a catalytic effect within the universities. An important consideration was not just

20

Universities as Agents of Change

2

Power & Control Mechanisms 1

Organizational Structure Symbols (Language) Organization Paradigm

Rituals & Routines

Stories & Myths Leadership Role Models

3

FIGURE 1.2  Significant cultural components of the Hawkesbury case study, mapped onto the ‘Culture Web’ (adapted from Martin and Murray (2010)).

to focus on those change agents likely to be enthusiasts in the process, but to engage with a wider sample of senior university managers (Pro Vice-Chancellors or equivalent), staff and students. The evaluation had both formative and summative aspects. In summative terms, the evaluation aimed to provide an objective view of the Green Academy’s effectiveness. At the same time, it provided an opportunity to inform development of the Green Academy approach through the drafting of case studies and a report that provided feedback to the institutions that were involved (McCoshan and Martin, 2012, 2017). The seven universities that participated were: Nottingham, Keele, Worcester, Canterbury Christ Church, Bristol, Southampton and Wales Trinity Saint David. The Green Academy teams addressed how to make sustainability part of institutional strategy. For all teams, there were two common features of any pre-existing approaches to ‘sustainability’: (1) the articulation and knowledge of sustainability curricula provision was extremely scattered and rare beyond academic disciplines traditionally interested in the subject – such as geography and environmental sciences; and (2) sustainability-related activity was often estates-led and environmentally focused. It was clear from the evaluations of the Green Academy initiative that positive outcomes of participating universities came via embedding education for sustainable development (ESD) into the entire curriculum – that is, beyond the ‘traditional’ disciplines, with champions or leaders of change processes not confined to ‘typical’ fields or departments. The Green Academy teams concentrated their efforts on widening approaches to include economic and social aspects as one way to engage disciplines that had not placed sustainability high on their agenda. They analysed current provision patterns and identified opportunities for engaging with staff in academic disciplines beyond the ‘usual suspects’. Although some teams conducted surveys, while others conducted audits, systematic approaches were still the exception rather

21

22

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

than the rule. In all cases, the programme ‘[gave] a boost to be more explicit about education for sustainable development in the strategic plan’ (McCoshan and Martin, 2017, p. 6). In one institution, the initiative developed around sustainability was seen by senior management as being ‘incredibly valuable to delivering the strategic plan as a whole’ (p. 6), including, for example, the development of local community partnerships. A few institutions in particular identified sustainability as a unique selling point. Where wider institutional changes were taking place, sustainability was used as a ‘glue’ to bind new structures. Some identified profound institutional changes, as one team leader noted: ‘in mid-2010, I wouldn’t have dreamt a chapter [on sustainability] in the strategic plan was possible’ (p. 6). Because of the Green Academy, institutions progressed sustainability agendas more quickly, in different ways, across a broader front and on a bigger scale than would otherwise have been possible. The process enabled participants to engage strategically with their institutions, embedding sustainability within strategic planning where before it had either been absent or confined to a narrower environmental definition. Individuals in the teams gained confidence to engage with senior managers and implement action plans to stimulate curriculum developments. The programme heightened awareness of students’ roles and raised awareness of sustainability, in some cases supporting the development of a comprehensive sustainability narrative involving presentations, institutional newsletters and high-profile celebratory events within institutions. The evidence also suggests that systematic mapping of sustainability in the curriculum had not yet become widespread, and related to this, targets for embedding sustainability remained underdeveloped. With respect to mapping, this situation meant that several institutions had relied on informal intelligence about what was going on to identify opportunities. This approach is quite understandable since the focus had been on getting activity started. Indeed, with reference to the Culture Web Model, this highlights the need to move beyond formal organizational structures and into ‘informal’ levels – that is, the realm of values and cultures. Moving the change process forwards would require more systemic approaches to support the integration of sustainability into institutional strategic plans. This is important in setting targets and monitoring progress, and especially where embedding sustainability in the curriculum does not take the form of electives. Where a more bottom–up approach has been adopted, mapping and targeting has a more significant role to play in understanding what local ESD activity is taking place. As one informant put it, ‘clear targets and deliverables are key to mature engagement’ (McCoshan and Martin, 2017, p. 11). The institutions demonstrated considerable progress across all areas. One particular benefit of the Green Academy pilot was to help provide a more cohesive approach to ESD that had previously been fragmented. Nevertheless, the teams identified ways to engage disciplines wherein sustainability had not been placed highly on their agenda. As Martin et al. (2014) reported, the seven Green Academy teams were unified in their identification of five focal areas important for catalysing change, namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

22

embedding sustainability into the curriculum changing the institutional strategy developing the institutional narrative engaging management engaging students.

Universities as Agents of Change

2

Organizational Structure

Power & Control Mechanisms

1

5

Organization Paradigm

Rituals & Routines

4

Symbols (Language) 3 Stories & Myths

Leadership Role Models

FIGURE 1.3  Significant cultural components of the Green Academy case study, mapped onto the ‘Culture Web’ (adapted from Martin and Murray (2010)).

These five dimensions can be positioned on the Culture Web Model (Figure 1.3). Using this heuristic, it becomes clear that a combination of actions were applied to bring change, including both practical interventions and less tangible but deeper actions to affect values and culture. Should multipronged approaches play more central and overt roles in enabling effective and long-lasting organizational change? University of British Columbia The University of British Columbia (UBC) has taken an alternative approach. One of the authors (SM) spent three weeks in 2016 and an additional period in 2017 at the university exploring the progress made. The UBC has nearly 50,000 students and a cultural heritage based on its campus being located on unceded traditional first nation territory. The Musqueam peoples have been stewards of this land, including much of the land now occupied by the City of Vancouver, for over 9,000 years. The university collaborates with them to ensure that they are partners in the pursuit of sustainability. The UBC was one of the signatories of the Talloires2 declaration in the 1990s and so has a long history of accomplishments in the field of sustainability. Uniquely, it has a twenty-year strategy agreed by the university council up until 2034 – although it is a little imprecise in terms of targets beyond 2020 (UBC 2021). At its Vancouver campus, sustainability is conceived as ‘simultaneous improvements in human and environmental wellbeing, not just reductions in damage or harm’ (UBC, 2014a, p. 1). This is called ‘regenerative sustainability’, and the strategy claims that by 2035 this vision of sustainability will be embedded across the university through teaching, learning, research, partnerships, operations, infrastructure and the UBC community.

23

24

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

The sustainability journey that the UBC has taken has several significant differences compared to the Green Academy, as well as several long-term challenges. The university has made some serious investment decisions in terms of campus developments that signify its commitment to regenerative sustainability, notably its living lab. This building is an impressive example of what the university call ‘a net positive operation’ since its design aims to not only reduce its impact on the environment but also improve the lives of its occupants and its community. The building houses the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS; Marcus et al., 2015) along with the twelve administrative staff that support the university-wide developments in sustainability. CIRS offers a new concept in building design whereby its ‘Meccano-like’ components and systems can all be replaced as newer, more innovative sustainability designs are developed which offer higher performing technologies. The UBC’s sustainability and learning attributes also offer a distinctive range of thematic strands and concepts based on well-known sustainability frameworks and world views. These can include references to new or historical social practices and cultural traditions derived from Indigenous and Aboriginal peoples, such as the Musqueam peoples. A central part of the university’s wide-ranging teaching and learning strategy is the idea that a student graduating from the university should have a rigorous grounding and demonstrable set of competencies that are reflected in four principal attributes (Marcus et al., 2015): holistic systems thinking, sustainability knowledge, awareness and integration, and acting for positive change. These attributes were developed by the University Sustainability Initiative (USI) Fellows (Marcus et al., 2015), a small team of self-selected academics from different disciplinary traditions. The fellows were provided with sustainability learning pathway grants to trial innovative ways of developing approaches to sustainability learning within their respective faculties. The desired attributes and the pathways described in the USI teaching and learning documentation is illuminated with examples, but it is too early to say how far these have been adopted across the university. So far, the USI have identified 636 sustainability-related courses and forty-eight sustainability related programmes across the university, but challenges remain with respect to identifying the proportion of overall university provision this represents and evaluating student learning outcomes and competencies. Some of the most innovative curriculum development at the UBC is delivered via student engagement activities – some of which may or may not comprise part of the formal undergraduate curriculum. These engagements can be categorized in several ways and include: 1. Scholars’ programmes – offering applied work experience both on and off campus, in partnership with the City of Vancouver (the Green City scholars’ programme; UBC, 2014b). 2. Sustainability resources – providing support to student groups and sustainability ambassadors. The Sustainability Education Resources Centre (UBC, 2014c) offers advice on sustainability co-curricular programmes and supports sustainability events around the campus, such as sustainable food schemes, car sharing and food growing on the student union roof allotment. 3. Enablement – facilitating the operation of sustainability projects. The Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) programme has, over the past fifteen years, pioneered over a 1,000 on-campus projects, shaped by a cooperative, staff–student model (SEEDS, 2021).

24

Universities as Agents of Change

4

Power & Control Mechanisms

Rituals & Routines

2

Organizational Structure Symbols (Language) Organization Paradigm

1

3 Stories & Myths

Leadership Role Models

FIGURE 1.4  Significant cultural components of the UBC case study, mapped onto the ‘Culture Web’ (adapted from Martin and Murray (2010)).

Here, we can begin to see how change-seeking and change-making initiatives operate and are interwoven at the level of organizational values and cultures. Below, we extract examples of the UBC’s effective initiatives and overlay them onto the ‘Culture Web’ (see Figure 1.4): 1. Intentionally defining and positioning the four principal attributes (mentioned earlier) centrally within teaching and learning strategies, delivering graduates who are agents of positive change. 2. Supporting projects rooted in the community and expanding the remit of ‘formal education’. 3. Embedding new, positive narratives into campus and curricula (e.g. the SEEDS initiative). 4. Providing top–down structural support, including staff/student resources, opportunities to proactively create and pursue new initiatives as well as physical places (buildings, campus locations) which embody this change.

The Ecological and Civic University Seeking to build on the successes reflected in these case studies and bring forward the vital lessons from any shortcomings, we advocate that a new model of human and social transformation based on the twin concepts of a ‘civic’ university and ‘ecological’ university – as defined by Barnett (2011) – would embed a university’s life within its local community and ecosystem, so that students, local communities and the environment benefit from the research and learning activities hosted by the university. A civic/ecological university is one that focuses on both its interconnectedness with the world and the interconnectedness of the world. Its tangible learning outcomes being

25

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

towards developing students as global citizens with a care or concern for the world and their contribution via civic engagement towards the realization of a more environmentally and socially just sustainable world. This characterization also encompasses the idea of a networked university – which engages actively both locally and globally to bring about a better world (Barnett, 2011). Active engagement and mutual learning, paired with participatory processes, would create an environment that promotes critical, systemic and future-oriented thinking. Recent examples of such engagement can be seen in the creation of citywide citizens’ assemblies to develop climate emergency and net-zero carbon plans, facilitated by civically minded universities, as exemplified in the UK by the cities of Bristol, Lancaster and Leeds (e.g. Leeds City Council, 2019). Another good example is the two universities of Nottingham establishing the Universities for Nottingham (UfN, 2020) Civic Agreement with the ‘people and place of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire’, which has been signed by key institutions in the city: the agreement, released in 2020, is an action plan for exploring how a university partnership might generate solutions to major local challenges. It seeks to change student, staff and campus behaviours to supply benefits across Nottinghamshire. Within the UfN coalition, both universities share a concern and responsibility for the well-being of their locality. The UfN Civic Agreement recognizes systemic co-dependencies and the universities’ inextricable links with the socio-political conditions of the city. Here, as with the Hawkesbury case, transformational processes are viewed as being inherently multidimensional and requiring systemic solutions. Such place-based, embedded initiatives are mirrored in the ‘Green Scholars’ programme at the UBC and the University of Cape Town’s new master’s programme in Sustainable Urban Practice that establish ‘urban integrators’ – that is, graduates who can span the divide between academia and practice to address urban sustainability challenges. These make a compelling case for transforming universities as a means of changing the way we see and create a sustainable and liveable world. As was true for the three case studies, today’s pioneering initiatives are charting new territory. They depend upon the creation and sustenance of entirely new structures, thinking and action. With valuable yet limited hindsight, and a blurred, complexity-laden foresight, how might we position the stepping stones towards the truly transformative universities that our times demand? How can we move swiftly and wisely towards ecological and civic universities? Where do our accomplishments converge to address today’s grand challenges? What does a right alignment of organization, values and cultures entail? Where Next for Our Universities? The Covid-19 pandemic has had a major operational and economic impact on all the UK’s universities that has initiated further institutional reflection on how they can reduce their carbon footprint and enhance campus biodiversity and well-being. This may offer another potential transformational trajectory for them, which could initiate support for the idea of civic universities in a post-Covid world (University Partnerships Programme (UPP), 2019). In an ageing and increasingly digital society, universities play a critical role in facilitating lifelong learning and will be crucial in helping to deal with challenges. They also are increasingly involved in activities that makes life meaningful and pleasurable for local people, which includes art, culture and a broader definition of education. Most institutions are increasing their online presence – whether 26

Universities as Agents of Change

reactively in the case of the Covid pandemic or more proactively considering an increasingly digitalized world. More than ever, this amplifies the role and importance of ‘place’. Universities, alongside national health services and local authorities, are key anchor institutions in their localities. The Netherlands is making noteworthy contributions to this positioning and its inherent responsibilities. There, the national policy agenda for higher education and research identifies knowledge valorization – that is, the creation of economic and social value from knowledge and social benefit – as a key priority. The ambition is that, by 2025, research universities and universities of applied sciences will form part of localized sustainable ecosystems alongside the secondary education sector, research institutes, government departments, local and regional authorities, companies, hospitals, community centres and sports clubs. This is the dawn of the ‘Ecological University’. The overall performance of universities’ contribution to this agenda is monitored through a process of performance agreements by the Dutch Government – now called Quality Agreements. The government can withhold funding if the plans do not meet the criteria. The separate ministries with responsibility for higher education and for city development have recently announced joint funding for ‘city deals’ specifically to support collaboration between universities and municipalities. Most Dutch universities and their municipalities are participating in the programme. The rationale for such an approach is clear. It is important for a city’s or region’s capacity for innovation that it has a strong relationship with knowledge institutes and that researchers, lecturers and students participate in solving social problems. Not only does this strengthen the problem-solving ability of the place, but it also contributes to the training of the students of the future – who will contribute to shaping society – and gives them a better understanding of social and environmental issues. Using the society as a rich learning environment for students is therefore an important theme. The idea is that students formulate the relevant research questions together with researchers and the field (businesses, government, social institutions and citizens’ initiatives); conduct further research into urban problems; and evaluate whether assumed problem-solving approaches are effective. This embedded and applied approach reflects that of the Hawksbury initiative discussed earlier and is a central, guiding purpose of the London Interdisciplinary School (LIS, 2020), a new learning institution in the UK. It is the first university in fifty years to be given degree-awarding powers – for its BASc (Bachelor of Arts and Sciences) degree in Interdisciplinary Problems and Methods – that signifies a potential cultural sidestep away from the degrees and learning pathways provided by existing HEIs. The emergence of alternative HEIs reflects a traction-gaining consciousness regarding the fundamental flaws of the dominant educational paradigm and the need for adaptive, co-creative and engaged forms of learning. With the current tagline ‘For those who want to shape the world, not just fit in’, LIS aims to cross traditional subject boundaries and facilitate graduates who are problem-solvers capable of tackling complex, real-world problems: to develop secondorder change makers. The founders, faculty, first enrolling cohorts and wider stakeholders of LIS perceive complex problems as requiring interdisciplinary solutions and recognize that wicked problems like sustainability cannot be solved through single-disciplinary approaches. To this end, this new HEI aims to equip its students with the ability to move across subject boundaries and synthesize core pillars of knowledge alongside the application of knowledge to tackling the problem at hand. As per the proposed civic/ecological university, complex problems are to be designed into learning processes, and solutions envisaged as emerging from new thinking, and via the promotion and exploration of diversity and interdisciplinarity. Internship programmes 27

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

aim to bridge the knowing–doing gaps which conventional university systems are criticized for perpetuating (or not rectifying, at the least). With the first cohort enrolling in 2021, successes of the LIS and other emerging alternative institutions are yet to be confirmed. However, the modernization of organizational values – in keeping with modern/future challenges – as well as the encapsulation of systems-first and transformations-focused educational models are surely positive explorations in the requisite direction. Modern science and technology have given humanity the power to cause extreme global destruction: wisdom has become a serious social necessity (Maxwell, 2014) alongside the need to reconceptualize knowledge required for the twenty-first century as being intimately intertwined with action (Fazey et al., 2020). In terms of the cultures and values that underpin and inform our behaviours, the abilities to perceive and reflect critically on these conditions are crucial. Finding interdisciplinary, intercultural and system-wide solutions is essential.

Conclusions The Anthropocene is tarred by straining biophysical limits, roaring natural disasters, buckling ecosystems and intensifying unrest. In this chapter, we have discussed the urgent need for new ways of thinking and acting, with universities and education playing a central role in ensuring positive global transformations. As we argue, the essential criterion for universities to transcend existing operational binds and become pioneering agencies of societal progress is also the crux point: To become leading agents of change, universities must themselves become transformative. To replace the operational norms for universities – for example, a predominant focus on unsustainable economic and technological contributions – and evolve from incremental, piecemeal methods, we have asked: ‘How might transformative praxis and deep-rooted cultures of sustainability nurture whole-system awareness and graduates fit for future citizenship?’ Drawing upon several case studies and examples, we perceive that ‘whole institution’ approaches require skilful management; strategic emphasis on institution-wide communication – with new, cohesive, fit-for-purpose narratives; wholesale awareness of the need for change; wholesale commitment to that change; curriculum designed as transformative, problem-oriented learning processes; the creation and implementation of novel monitoring and evaluation processes; and a greater understanding of the central importance of organizational values and cultures. Acknowledging the ever-growing complexities that underpin university life and the processes of deliberate change making, we have highlighted that sustainability and systemic competencies cannot just be built into taught content or written into the pages of the next year’s prospectus; they need building into the entirety of university operations and must become embedded within organizational values and cultures. The ecological university that we advocate creates an environment of critical, systemic and future-oriented thinking. If existing positive e­ xamples – some of which we have included within, and have helped inspire this c­ hapter – are accelerated, enhanced and appended by well-aligned efforts of other HEIs, a compelling case emerges for transforming universities as a means of transforming the world.

28

Universities as Agents of Change

If we are to transform our universities to meet the principles advocated by a growing number of influential authors, practitioners and leaders, then we need to co-create with students and communities a new and adaptive Ecological University. In our view, this can be achieved only through a process of deliberative co-creation involving students, academics and the communities that the university serves. Learners must become adaptive ecosystem leaders and as such become context- and place-based change makers. They will need the competencies to convene a diverse group of stakeholders and partners, and the journey must move from a silo to a system view, from ‘ego-system to eco-system’ awareness (Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013). Creating the sustainable and ethical space for such a journey is at the heart of all major leadership challenges today. It is a capacity that is largely missing in organizations and insufficiently developed in our universities. Universities could offer real-world platforms and ecosystem partnerships in the cities and regions that they are embedded in and enhance that capacity by providing relevant ‘out of classroom’ learning laboratories for student participation and learning by doing. As Glasser and Hirsh (2016) state: The existing, formal education system is built on creating first-order change, essentially doing more or less of different forms of what we are already doing. However, to engender deep meaning and a contextualized understanding of the interconnected sustainability challenges facing humanity, second-order change must also be enacted … this requires transformative system structure changes, which entail reimagining formal education so that it creates a robust foundation for improving quality of life for all. (p. 126) Strategies of gradual adoption and accretion simply will not suffice if education is to play a significant role in shaping a liveable and desirable future: ‘The global transformation of higher education towards sustainable development has yet to occur’ (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2014, p. 31). Education has significant regenerative potential that has obvious consequences for the organization of educational institutions, curricula and pedagogical practices. However, at present, it is insufficiently focused on supporting the creation of peaceful, civilized and sustainable societies (UNESCO, 2021). We need to generate transformational change in all educational provision to facilitate transformative societal change. This must seek to generate second-order learning and change in both educational systems and learners to shift conventional perspectives and practices sufficiently and urgently.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. Universities cannot be transformational agents for change without undergoing radical change themselves to focus on sustainability-first, not economy-first perspectives. 2. Wholesale transformational change requires whole institutional buy-in and operational change throughout all functions, not bolt-on, marginal, fragmented solutions. 3. Senior leadership and those involved in institutional governance need to believe and lead on the sustainability agenda to enable the bold, wholesale and radical change necessary.

29

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Notes 1 https://www.forceo​fnat​ure.xyz/resea​rch. 2 The Talloires Declaration (TD) is a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities. It has been signed by over 500 university leaders in over fifty countries (http://ulsf.org/talloi​res-decl​arat​ion).

References Adams, R., Martin, S., and Boom, K. (2018). ‘Conceptualizing of a University Sustainability Culture: An Enabling Framework’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, pp. 434–45. Arizona State University (ASU) (2018). ‘ASU Charter’. YouTube Video. https://www.yout​ube.com/ watch?v=-3Bg​u92K​9JI. Accessed 1 October 2021. Barnett, R. (2011). ‘The Coming of the Ecological University’. Oxford Review of Education, 37 (4), pp. 439–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054​985.2011.595​550. Bawden, R. (2008). ‘The Educative Purpose of Higher Education for Human and Social Development in the Context of Globalization’, in Global University Network (ed.), GUNI: Higher Education in the World 3. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 65–73. Bawden, R. (2016). ‘Transforming Systems: The Hawkesbury Initiatives in Systemic Development’. South African Review of Sociology, 47 (1), pp. 99–116. doi: 10.1080/21528586.2015.1131192. Butt, L., More, E., and Avery, G. C. (2014). ‘The Myth of the “Green Student”: Student Involvement in Australian University Sustainability Programmes’. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (5), pp. 786–804. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.754861. Calder, W., Clugston, R. M., and Corcoran, P. B. (eds) (2002). ‘Introduction: Higher Education for Sustainable Development’. Higher Education Policy, 15, pp. 99–113. Campagnucci, L., and Spigarelli, F. (2020). ‘The Third Mission of the University: A Systematic Literature Review on Potentials and Constraints’. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 161, pp. 1–31. Cotton, D. R. E., and Alcock, I. (2013). ‘Commitment to Environmental Sustainability in the UK Student Population’. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (10), pp. 1453–71. Crow, M. M., and Dabars, W. B. (2015). Designing the New American University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fazey, I., Schapke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., Page, G., Patterson, J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D., Goldstein, B., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard, A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., and Young, H. R. (2020). ‘Transforming Knowledge Systems for Life on Earth: Visions of Future Systems and How to Get There’. Energy Research & Social Science, 70. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101​724. Folke, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Galaz, V., Scheffer, M., Henrik, O., and Walker, B. H. (2021). ‘Our Future in the Anthropocene Biosphere’. Ambio, 50, pp. 834–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13​ 280-021-01544-8. Glasser, H., and Hirsch, J. (2016). ‘Towards the Development of Robust Sustainability Competencies’. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 9 (3), pp. 121–34. Glasser, H. (2018). ‘Toward Robust Foundations for Sustainable Well-Being Societies: Learning to Change by Changing How We Learn’, in Justin W. Cook (ed.), Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31–89. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). ‘Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis’. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ison, R., and Straw, E. (2020). The Hidden Power of Systems Thinking. London: Routledge. 30

Universities as Agents of Change

Jucker, R. (2020). Can We Cope with the Complexity of Reality? Why Craving Easy Answers Is at the Root of Our Problems. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lawson, N. (2006). ‘Market Logic Turns a Degree into a Share Certificate’. Guardian, 10 August. Leeds Climate Change Citizens Jury (2019). ‘Home Page’. https://www.leeds​clim​ate.org.uk/sites/defa​ult/ files/REP​ORT%20V1.1%20FINA​L_0.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2021. London Interdisciplinary School (LIS) (2020). ‘Home Page’. https://www.london​inte​rdis​cipl​inar​ysch​ ool.org. Marcus, J., Coops, C., Ellis, S., and Robinson, J. (2015). ‘Embedding Sustainability Learning Pathways across the University’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 13. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.cos​ust.2015.07.012. Marks, N., and Steuer, N. (2008). ‘University Challenge: Towards a wellbeing Approach to Quality in Higher Education’. New Economics Foundation. https://newec​onom​ics.org/2008/06/uni​vers​itychalle​nge. Martin, S., and Jucker, R. (2009). ‘Educating Earth Literate Leaders’, in B. Chalkley, M. Haigh and D. Higgitt (eds), Education for Sustainable Development: Papers in Honour of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014). London: Routledge. Martin, S., and Murray, P. (2010). ‘The Role of Wicked Problems, Values in Personal and Organisational Change’. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, pp. 163–9. Martin, S. Dillon, J., Higgins, P., Peters, C., and Scott, W. (2013). ‘Divergent Evolution in Education for Sustainable Development Policy in the United Kingdom: Current Status, Best Practice, and Opportunities for the Future’. Sustainability, 5, pp. 1522–44. Martin, S., McCoshan, A., and McEwen, L. (2014). ‘Embedding Sustainability into the Higher Education Curriculum: Lessons from the UK’s Green Academy Change Programme’. Paper Presented at the Online World Sustainability Forum, 1–30 November 2014. Maxwell, N. (2014). How Universities Can Help Create a Wiser World: The Urgent Need for an Academic Revolution. Exeter, UK: Societas. Maxwell, N. (2020). Our Fundamental Problem: A Revolutionary Approach to Philosophy. Montreal: McGill University Press. McCoshan, A., and Martin, S. (2012). ‘Evaluation of the Impact of the Green Academy Programme’. Higher Education Academy Report. https://efsand​qual​ity.glos.ac.uk/tool​kit/Eval​uati​on_o​f_th​e_Gr​een_​ Acad​emy.pdf. McCoshan, A., and Martin, S. (2013). ‘From Strategy to Implementation: The Second Evaluation of the Green Academy Programme’. Higher Education Academy Report. https://www.heacad​emy. ac.uk/resour​ces/det​ail/sus​tain​abil​ity/green-acad​emy: The Higher Education Academy. Accessed 3 October 2021. McCoshan, A., and Martin, S. (2017). ‘From Strategy to Implementation: The Second Evaluation of the Green Academy Programme’. Higher Education Academy Report. https://www.iau-hesd.net/sites/defa​ ult/files/docume​nts/2nd_green_acad​emy_​eval​uati​on_2​014_​fina​l_0.pdf. McIlroy, J., and Westwood, S. (eds) (1993). ‘Adult Education and Social Change’, in Border Country: Raymond Williams in Adult Education. Lectures and Reminiscences in Honour of Tony McLean, WEA Southern District, 1983. London: NIACE, pp. 255–64. Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., van Hoof, B., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., and Ceulemans, K. (2015). ‘Experiences from the Implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 3–10. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle​pro.2015.05.110. Ruckelshaus, M. H., Jackson, S. T., Mooney, H. A., Jacobs, K. L., Kassam, K. A. S., Arroyo, M. T., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A. M., Boyd, J., Joppa, L. N., and Kovács-Hostyánszki, A. (2020). ‘The IPBES Global Assessment: Pathways to Action’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35 (5), pp. 407–14.

31

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Scharmer, O. (2019). Vertical Literacy: Reimagining the 21st-Century University. Field of the Future Blog. https://med​ium.com/pre​senc​ing-instit​ute-blog/verti​cal-liter​acy-12-pri​ncip​les-for-rein​vent​ ing-the-21st-cent​ury-uni​vers​ity-39c29​4819​2ee. Scharmer, O., and Kaufer, K. (2013). Leading from the Emerging Future: From Ego-System to EcoSystem Economies. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Scott, W., and Gough, S. (2003). Key Issues in Sustainable Development and Learning: A Critical Review. London: Routledge Falmer. Seel, R. (2000). ‘Culture and Complexity: New Insights on Organisational Change’. Organisations & People, 2 (2), pp. 2–9. Shephard, K. (2020). The Sustainable University: Seeking Intellectual Independence in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Berlin: Springer. Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) (2021). http://bit.ly/SEED​SPro​ject​Libr​ary. Accessed 1 October 2021. Stanovich. K. (1993). ‘Dysrationalia: A New Specific Learning Disability’. Journal of Learning Difficulties, 26 (8), pp. 501–15. Sterling, S. (2021a). ‘The Pedagogy of Transition: Educating for the Future We Want’. https://grea​ttra​nsit​ ion.org/gti-forum/pedag​ogy-tra​nsit​ion. Accessed 10 January 2022. Sterling, S. (2021b). ‘Concern, Conception, and Consequence: Re-thinking the Paradigm of Higher Education in Dangerous Times’. Frontiers in Sustainability, 23 December, 2:743806. doi: 10.3389/ frsus.2021.74380. Sterling, S., and Martin, S. (2019). ‘On Track for a Sustainable University?’ IAU Horizons, 24, pp. 26–8. Sterling, S., Maxey, L., and Luna, H. (2013). The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects. Earthscan Reader Series. London: Routledge. Trowler, V. (2010). ‘Student Engagement Literature Review York’. Higher Education Academy Report. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazon​aws.com/ass​ets.cre​ode.advanc​ehe-docum​ent-mana​ger/docume​nts/hea/priv​ ate/studentengagementli​tera​ture​revi​ew_1​_156​8037​028.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2021. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). ‘Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’. Science, 185, 1124–31. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2014). ‘Shaping the Future We Want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005–14’. http://relief​web. int/sites/relief​web.int/files/resour​ces/Shap​ing%20the%20Fut​ure%20We%20W​ant.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2021. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2021). ‘International Commission on the Futures of Education’. https://unes​doc.une​sco.org/sea​rch/N-EXPL​ORE-ad01b​ eeb-cdfd-48be-87f4-a9f6c​e9ec​018. Accessed 26 September 2021. University of British Columbia (UBC) (2014a). ‘20 Year Sustainability Strategy’. https://sust​ain.ubc.ca/ news/20-year-sus​tain​abil​ity-strat​egy. Accessed 26 September 2021. University of British Columbia (UBC) (2014b). ‘Scholars Programme’. https://www.sust​ain.ubc.ca/teach​ ing-appl​ied-learn​ing/ubc-sus​tain​abil​ity-schol​ars-prog​ram. Accessed 26 September 2021. University of British Columbia (UBC) (2014c). ‘Sustainability Education Resources Centre’. https://sust​ ain.ubc.ca/eve​nts/sus​tain​abil​ity-educat​ion-resou​rce-cen​tre-open-house. Accessed 26 September 2021. University of British Columbia (UBC) (2021). ‘UBC’s 20-Year Sustainability Strategy’. https://sust​ ain.ubc.ca/sites/sust​ain.ubc.ca/files/uplo​ads/pdfs/Conver​sati​ons2​034/Hand​out.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2021. University Partnerships Programme (UPP) (2019). ‘Truly Civic: Strengthening the Connection between Universities and Their Places’. UPP Foundation Civic Universities Commission. https://upp-fou​ndat​ ion.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2019/02/Civic-Uni​vers​ity-Com​miss​ion-Final-Rep​ort.pdf. Wals, A. E. J., and Corcoran, P. B. (2012). Learning for Sustainability in Times of Accelerating Change. Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

32

33

2

Collective Ambition for Global Action: Role for the Knowledge Sector MELISSA BROWN GOODALL AND MARIA IVANOVA

Introduction Global compacts, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2015) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations (UN) General Assembly, 2015), are essential for ensuring that governments work together towards shared priorities. These accords articulate collective ambitions for global actions and outcomes and commit nation states to national-level implementation. They are important instruments of multilateralism, that is, ‘international governance of the many’ (Kahler, 1992, p. 681). Essential for addressing the interconnected global problems humanity is facing, such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, health threats and social equity, multilateralism cannot be defined solely by the number of parties at the table. It requires adherence to a set of principles, norms and rules in relation to an action aimed at a collective result. To this end, it demands knowledge generation and dissemination as well as effective mechanisms to develop and disperse innovation. In essence, the deep engagement of actors beyond governments will be critical to the resolution of ‘wicked problems’ – urgent problems that evolve over time and demand evolving solutions (Levin et al., 2012). Governments have sought to address wicked problems through multilateral agreements and through dialogues, declarations and pledges made at global summits. The implementation of commitments, however, is contingent on action by local authorities, businesses, civil society and citizens whose engagement has been rather ad-hoc and inconsistent. Businesses and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are increasingly involved in UN processes, but academic institutions, termed here ‘the knowledge sector’, have not engaged systematically and have no visible collective presence in multilateral processes. Yet, higher education institutions (HEIs) are primary producers of high-quality research on current and emerging grand challenges. They also provide robust preparation of the next generation of professionals and leaders across all sectors of society and levels of governance. Here, it is argued that there can and indeed should be a more clearly defined role for HEIs to engage in governing the global commons (Global Commons Alliance, 2020). This chapter presents an overview of UN mechanisms to engage major groups and other stakeholders in the policy processes, and it examines how and why HEIs have engaged in sustainability at a global level. It also is draws out HEIs’ comparative advantage,

33

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

with examples of their role as knowledge brokers, agents of innovation and trailblazers, and it proposes options for improved impact in this regard.

Collaborative Global Governance Active engagement of non-governmental actors in UN processes dates back to the first UN Conference on the Human Environment, the 1972 Stockholm Conference (Ivanova, 2021). The outcome document that marked the inception of the concept of global environmental governance declared thus: ‘To defend and improve the human environment for present and future generations has become an imperative goal for mankind … To achieve this environmental goal will demand the acceptance of responsibility by citizens and communities and by enterprises and institutions at every level, all sharing equitably in common efforts’ (UN General Assembly, 1972, ¶Il §7, Preamble). The importance of input from diverse stakeholders and the creation of networks to advance knowledge transfer and capacity building has since been integrated into all key UN conferences and processes on environment and sustainability (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1992; Johnson, 1992; Commission on Global Governance, 1995; World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), 2002; UN General Assembly, 2012). Twenty years ago, the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) emphasized that partnerships for sustainable development should adhere to a universal set of guiding principles that stress local involvement and the global context, link to globally agreed outcomes, produce tangible results, embrace transparency and accountability, and adopt integrated and multidisciplinary approaches. These principles further underscore that such partnerships should be voluntary, mutually respectful and offer new and/or added value to participants (WSSD, 2002, ¶II §7 (b), p .9). Funding mechanisms and availability should also be clearly established at the outset. The Plan of Implementation (United Nations, 2002) that followed the WSSD highlighted the value of partnerships in a variety of contexts, including public–private, north–south, communitybased and in the interest of dealing with specific topics such as agriculture, energy and chemicals (United Nations, 2002). As a result, partnerships have become a key participatory mechanism for engaging in sustainable development through enhanced international collaboration. Dynamic collaboration with shared purpose was well explained by Vincent Ostrom and colleagues (1961)when they defined the term polycentricity as ‘many centers of decision-making which are formally independent of each other’ (p. 831). The subject of Ostrom’s work at the time was research on municipal governance that compared entirely autonomous government agencies and completely centralized governance. Later, Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom conducted research on the application of this concept for the purpose of natural resource management and underlined that those global problems are not caused globally and cannot be solved entirely at the global level (Ostrom, 2008). Elinor Ostrom argued that global solutions are time-consuming and tend to be ineffective if they are not undergirded by implementation efforts at various scales. Galaz et al. (2012) articulate four stages of polycentric coordination. The first stage reflects a set of organizations communicating about a cause or set of causes, but without coordination. In the second stage, these groups start to develop formal partnerships and coordinate on goals. For the third phase, various actors commit to and execute shared projects. The final stage is achieved when the groups have formalized strong ties and developed a portfolio of shared initiatives. 34

Collective Ambition for Global Action

Because of the highly collaborative nature of this final phase, it typically requires some structural changes to the participating organizations – especially for the purposes of problem-solving and dispute resolution. Thanks in large part to the defined pathways of the major groups, NGOs, businesses, state- and municipal-level governments as well as other groups have become increasingly visible partners in establishing shared goals and commitments to support multilateral environmental agreements. This is imperative, as each of these sectors has distinct assets. Businesses effectively control the global economy and – as a generalization – are traditionally motivated by profit. While NGOs tend to advocate for causes specific to their mission, they are subject to the priorities of their funders/donors. Local governments are arguably a lynchpin for connecting global and federal policy to communities, though municipal-scale priorities are subject to the ebb and flow of electoral priorities and limited finances. While the science and technology community is undeniably critical for roles such as monitoring, evaluation and developing solutions to the most pressing challenges, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Transformative change in how society functions will not come about strictly through science, or even the science–policy interface. Using Galaz’s phases of polycentricity (Galaz et al., 2012) to stage the current mode of shared global governance, it would sit at the third level, that is, many actors have agreed on shared priorities and then committed to execute shared projects. However, the stakeholder roster is not complete, and the distribution of roles, responsibilities and relationships are not always clear. Further to this, in 2011Santos and Pacheco wrote that ‘cooperation will be maximised when risk is high and groups are small because goal achievement involves stringent requirements’ (2011, p. 10.422). In 2013, Vasconcelos and colleagues demonstrated that local groups are better equipped than larger-scale groups to respond to risk quickly and with measurable results (2013, p. 798). Building their experiments and assertions on scale, they state, for example, that ‘unlike global institutions, often associated with marginal improvements of cooperation, local institutions promote group coordination to avoid a collective disaster, mostly for low perception of risk’ (Vasconcelos et al., 2013, p. 798). Galaz et al. (2012), however, adopt a different approach. Rather than considering group size in the context of global versus local, they advance a model for the organization of like-institutions through networks. This concept has the potential to build on the empirical findings of the Vasconcelos study, as the network groups are still effectively small, but could arguably be more effective because of their shared interests and geographic distribution (Vasconcelos et al., 2013).

Universities as Allies in Advancing Solutions In considering the fundamental precepts of polycentric governance, few groups are as ideally qualified to enact transformative change as HEIs. Over 20,000 HEIs operate worldwide, with communities ranging in size from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of students (Pérez, 2011). HEIs have the capacity to develop new technologies and transdisciplinary approaches to complex problems, enable experimentation and learning at multiple levels (Galaz et al., 2012) and are key sources and disseminators of knowledge. They can and do work across all scales – informing local, state and federal levels of governance – and frequently partner with the private sector and NGOs. 35

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

HEIs can be anchor institutions in their respective communities (Ivanova, 2021). Anchor institutions are relatively large place-bound and mission-based non-profit organizations that are socially and economically intertwined with their local community, play an integral role in the local economy and have an explicit social purpose (Birch et al., 2013; Camden Higher Education and Health Care Task Force, 2008; Dubb et al., 2013). They are hubs with the requisite expertise, leadership, capacity and connectivity to implement multilevel programmes. The concept is grounded in the study of partnerships and coordination at the community level where anchor institutions are often the driving force in community renewal (Maurrasse, 2007; Birch et al., 2013; Porter, 2010). An anchor institution fosters partnerships and collaboration among a cluster of organizations in order to facilitate progress towards a common goal (Ivanova, 2021). It serves as a driving catalytic force and provides leadership, resources, coordination and oversight that enhance the activities of various individual organizations and help ensure stability, consistency and progress of the greater effort. While the nature and context of HEIs vary dramatically, regional and international university sustainability networks are emerging with the shared purposes of information exchange and highlighting common solutions. For example, the mission of the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN, 2021) is to ‘provide an international forum to support higher education institutions in the exchange of information, ideas, and best practices for achieving sustainable campus operations and integrating sustainability in research and teaching’. To advance this mission, ISCN supports collaborative programming across six continents as well as peer consultation and exchange programmes and opportunities for student fellowships. The missions of HEIs span the confluence of teaching, research and service; these are exceptional strengths when advancing sustainable development initiatives. The participation of universities also brings with it the intellect and expertise of the faculty, which means that research, investigation as well as data collection and analysis can become applied and experiential learning. However, we need to see more of this and thus explore further what might be barriers to deeper engagement. In turn, this can enhance the capacity of UN and government programmes as well as that of other sectors. Because HEIs typically function on longer planning cycles than companies plan and their metrics for success are not directly tied to profit, they are subject to less risk than businesses when testing emerging technologies and systems. Finally, many universities have the capacity to act as neutral fora for dialogue and exploration (Carcasson, 2010) – a valuable quality that can help transcend the political tensions that frequently encumber UN discussions. Beyond the intellectual benefits of university engagement, many universities function as microcosms of society: providing transportation, food, energy, shelter and community for students, faculty and staff. This offers the potential of ‘boots-on-the-ground’ applications of new systems and tactics. The integration of the mission of a university with its operations – the emerging concept of the campus as a living lab (The Campus as Living Lab, 2021) – has tremendous potential, both in terms of identifying replicable and scalable concepts and in offering the students who occupy those campuses a robust culture of sustainability and hands-on learning opportunities. A final point in favour of universities as valuable players in advancing polycentric approaches to governing the global commons is the adaptive nature of such systems. On the intellectual side, faculty members generate new knowledge and/or apply it to innovate and maintain professional status. Logistically, a university community is constantly evolving as students graduate and new students matriculate, a dynamic that shapes the workforce of societies 36

Collective Ambition for Global Action

by training tomorrow’s leaders and professionals and offers fresh perspectives and inspirations with every new class of students. Not all HEIs are able to embrace all these attributes, and the nature of academia does have its detracting factors. Faculty members may be committed to empirical integrity in a way that precludes applied research. Student participation on data collection or experiments may compromise the reliability of project implementation. Non-faculty staff members can be effective champions but may be subject to competing demands and work priorities. Funding restrictions, in terms of either financial resources available or stipulations from funders, may influence the structure of projects. Similarly, public institutions may be subject to strict oversight from government agencies. These potential complications are not enough to eclipse the positive factors that position universities as critical catalysts for enduring change. Notwithstanding these issues, the combination of how HEIs function as systems, their focus on solution seeking and their capacity for knowledge transfer render them foundationally well-suited to cultivate and participate in governance of the global commons (Global Commons Alliance, 2020). Universities as Pathways for Diversity and Inclusion The 2021 climate change negotiations at COP26 in Glasgow concluded with relatively lacklustre promises and outcomes and a newly brightened spotlight on the global disparities (UNFCCC, 2021; Ülgen, 2021). The reality that the global north is largely responsible for climate change while the global south will be disproportionately affected by its impacts has been an important and contentious discussion point throughout the global climate negotiations (Schwarte and Massawa, 2009). While the equity issues associated with climate action and impacts are certainly echoed in other fora, the need to address the disconnects and the urgency for doing so are more evident. Recent literature illuminates the lack of representation of academic voices from the global south in the most respected peer-reviewed publications. For example, Carbon Brief analysed the researchers listed on the Reuter’s ‘Hot List’, which is a ranking of the 1,000 most influential climate researchers from 2016 to 2020, and found that 90 per cent were from the global north, while 7.5 per cent were from Asia, 2.8 per cent South America and 0.7 per cent Africa (Tamman, 2021) with just 122 of the Hot List members being women (Tandon, 2021).While Reuters issued the Hot List with ample caveats about how the data were collected and the bias towards prolific writers, even with these possible flaws and margins of effort, these data indicate an egregious bias (Tamman, 2021). It is also telling, as global equity is considered with the need for urgent and informed actions as well as generation of knowledge and tactics. If the authoritative voices being referenced in the literature and negotiations are almost entirely composed of perspectives from the global north, it is less likely that policymakers in the global south will see connections with the challenges they face. Indeed, solutions posited by experts from wealthy, secure countries may be entirely theoretical to those dealing with the immediate concerns of the global south, such as poverty, hunger and access to resources. Expertise from the global south is imperative in dealing with the key environmental and social challenges of our time: climate change, for example, will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable communities, and addressing it will require localized empowerment (Denton, 2013). Navigating the challenging pathways that currently exist takes time, resources and connections. Creating a formal pathway for academic participation would amplify the perspectives of experts 37

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

from the global south, while giving those stakeholders connections to important decision-makers as well as peers around the world. In turn, this would enhance the learning experience of students at the home institutions of these researchers, further building capacity in tomorrow’s professionals. Labyrinthine Engagement Opportunities While there are ways for academic stakeholders to participate in multilateral processes, the pathways to do so are not always clear or direct. In recognition of the well-established principle that sustainable development cannot be achieved by governments alone, in 1992, the UN established nine major groups to foster active participation of a variety of actors (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, n.d.). They included business and industry, children and youth, farmers, Indigenous peoples, local authorities, NGOs, scientific and technological community, women, and workers and trade unions (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), n.d.). The Major Groups Programme was set up within the Division for Sustainable Development in the UN DESA to incorporate the views of these sectors of society into intergovernmental processes. Since 1998, multi-stakeholder dialogues have become the participatory mechanism that the UN uses, enabling direct interaction among major groups and member states on specific topics. Focused dialogues, round tables and official meetings are regular activities that integrate major groups. The Commission on Sustainable Development – a UN body operating between 1992 and 2013 – convened thematic discussions, expert panels and interactive discussions throughout its official sessions and during the high-level governmental segment (UN DESA, 2021b). Major groups contributed their expertise to technical discussions on specific issue areas, offering solutions for implementing sustainable development and highlighting the importance of partnerships. At the Rio+20 Conference in 2012, governments adopted Resolution 66/288, ‘The Future We Want’, reaffirming the importance of engaging the nine major groups in pursuing sustainable development (UN General Assembly, 2012). The resolution acknowledged the positive role of each major group and the significance of involving all relevant decision-makers in planning and implementing sustainable development policies. The resolution also emphasized that broad public participation, access to information in addition to judicial and administrative proceedings were essential to the promotion of sustainable development. Meaningful involvement and active participation of regional, national and subnational legislatures and judiciaries demanded engagement from a range of new stakeholders (UN General Assembly, 2012). In 2013, Resolution 67/290 established the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) and identified private philanthropic organizations, educational and academic entities as well as other stakeholders active in areas related to sustainable development as additional relevant stakeholders (UN General Assembly, 2013). The nine major groups expanded to Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGoS), and the resolution established guidelines for their engagement (UN General Assembly, 2013): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 38

Attend all official meetings of the forum. Have access to all official information and documents. Intervene in official meetings. Submit documents and present written and oral contributions. Make recommendations. Organize side events and round tables, in cooperation with Member States and the Secretariat.

Educational and Academic Activities

Children and Youth

Volunteer Groups

Indigenous Peoples

Persons with Disabilities Older Persons

Business and Industry

Sendai Stakeholders

Workers and Trade Unions

STAKEHOLDERS

Local Authorities

Asia-Pacific Regional Mechanisms

Scientific and Technological Community

Together 203 -

Farmers

Focal points of the other stakeholders or their designated representatives

Organizing partners

FIGURE 2.1  Overview of current Major Groups and Stakeholders, as identified by UN DESA (adapted from DESA website).

Financing for Development Group

Women

NonGovernmental Organizations

NINE MAJOR GROUPS

MGoS: Major Group and Other Stakeholder MGoS CM: The Coordination Mechanism of the MGoS

2 organizing partners /focal points from each MGoS form the Steering Group

STEERING GROUP

The Steering Group is responsible for facilitating the participation of MGos at HLPF and its related activities

39

Collective Ambition for Global Action

39

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

UN DESA collaborates closely with MGoS through a coordinating body of facilitators known as Organizing Partners that comprise accredited organizations which serve as facilitators, coordinate inputs and streamline communications from their constituencies. To ensure openness and transparency, they report their activities and governance, which include a written description of their selection/election criteria and a list of the organizations the major group consulted with. Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the current MGoS (UN DESA, 2021a). Although some scientists make connections through the Scientific and Technological Community major group, and some universities have managed accreditation through the processes established for NGOs, these are not systematic or well-defined entry points. Student groups have made forays through the major group for Children and Youth, but their activities tend to be more focused on activism than long-term knowledge-centric collaboration. The more recently established Educational and Academic Entities stakeholder group, on the other hand, focuses on the implementation of SDG 4 – to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all – rather than on engagement of HEIs in the policy process. The Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) was another outcome of the Rio+20 conference. Signed by over 300 universities in 2012, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) touted it as the document with the highest number of signatories coming out of the Rio conference (Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, 2021a). Since the dissolution of the CSD, HESI has become a partnership between the UN DESA, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Global Compact’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative, the United Nations University (UNU), UN-Habitat, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). HESI’s stated purpose is to ‘provide higher education institutions with a unique interface between higher education, science, and policy making’ (UN DESA, 2021c). However, participation seems to be limited to international networks, national and regional organizations and student organizations (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2021a). While there is undoubtedly merit in fostering collaboration among these groups, it is unlikely to yield the most powerful benefits from HEIs – connections to research, teaching and youth leadership. The current processes for engaging academic stakeholders are therefore piecemeal, at best. Table 2.1 offers statements of purpose for five of the existing entry points, along with notes on the limitations of each. While academic groups and individuals can and do participate in UN processes through these channels, doing so often requires perseverance, tenacity, connections and, indeed, creativity. As an established entity with the power to convene member states and advance multilateral agreements, the UN must continue to be central to the efforts to address increasingly urgent environmental and social problems at the global scale. Partnerships and networks are critical, however, to enhance capacity for regulation, implementation and evaluation. Scholarship in higher education translates into the identification of problems, articulation of policy, creation of solutions and facilitation of behaviour change. The haphazard engagement of educational institutions would need to be transformed into more systematic, focused and effective partnerships that include participation from a broad variety of experts across disciplines, states 40

Collective Ambition for Global Action

and sectors. Effective partnerships co-create and co-deliver knowledge and tailored solutions to complex issues and provide vehicles for enhancing capacity and improving implementation (Brinkerhoff, 2008). Next Generation Leadership and Innovation Academic institutions can function as knowledge brokers, agents of innovation and trailblazers. Here, a set of mini-case studies serve to highlight the value proposition of HEIs. The knowledge broker example features the Environmental Conventions Index developed at the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts Boston, which assesses the implementation of major multilateral environmental agreements. The agent of innovation example is a programme at Yale University that examines how the teaching and research of all faculty members at the university connect to the SDGs. The trailblazer example is the Global University Climate Forum, led first by Yale University and now by the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with a range of partners, is a programme that encourages student activists to develop local-scale projects that yield measurable results in the context of global negotiations. Knowledge Broker: The Environmental Conventions Index as a Mechanism for Accountability Evidence that the planetary boundaries which ensure the fragile balance required for life on Earth have been crossed is mounting (Steffen et al., 2015). Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), also known as global environmental conventions, are the main mechanism for promoting national action and intergovernmental cooperation to resolve environmental problems. They are expected to guide governments’ behaviour and establish policy frameworks to address multiple environmental challenges such as the safeguarding of species, ecosystems and human health. Countries and international institutions invest considerably in the negotiation and implementation of these agreements, yet the level of application has not been empirically measured in a consistent and comparative manner and is mostly unknown. Executing the obligations under environmental conventions reflects the extent to which countries are committed to environmental protection and demonstrates good governance. Comparative information about member states’ performance on their obligations provides an indispensable knowledge base (Escobar-Pemberthy and Ivanova, 2020). Initiatives focused on empirically measuring the level of implementation are just beginning and the Environmental Conventions Index, developed by the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts Boston (Escobar-Pemberthy and Ivanova, 2020), is a prominent example. Through the Environmental Conventions Index, the Center for Governance and Sustainability has created policy programming for national governments and international institutions illustrating the capacity for transformation that HEIs can catalyse. Engaging faculty and students in the co-design, co-creation and co-delivery of an innovative policy tool, the centre has developed a mechanism for assessment and learning that engages the knowledge sector, national governments and international institutions. Created by a team of scholars in response to an analytical request from the UNEP, the Environmental Conventions Index provides an independent and systematic review mechanism to compare progress in the definition of national policies. The index is an empirical tool that measures the implementation of global environmental conventions and enables self-assessment 41

42

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

TABLE 2.1  Selected Existing Pathways for Academic Participation in UN Processes

Pathway

Purpose

Limitations

Major Group for Children and Youth

The major group for Children and Youth represents the voice of children and young people within UN processes for sustainable development. Where possible, it aims to reach consensus with regard to children and young people so these can be presented to decisionmakers; where this is not possible, it facilitates the diversity of voices of children and young people (Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, 2021b).

Limited to an age group (up to twenty-four years) that excludes HEI researchers.

Scientific and Technological Community Major Group

The Scientific and Technological Community major group seeks to secure a mandate for science at the UN and integrate science in major global policy processes, such as the implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, 2021c).

Specific to the science–policy interface and often technology-focused.

NGO Major Group

The NGO major group supports and facilitates the participation of NGOs in the processes directly and indirectly related to the HLPF on Sustainable Development. The membership is broad and varied and actively seeks to widen engagement and reach out to NGOs active in any thematic area linked to sustainable development.

Structured to invite advocacy-driven participation, which is not consistent with the empirical nature of HEIs.

Education and Academia Stakeholder Group

The Education and Academia stakeholder group brings together human rights-based education civil society organizations as well as academia organizations and networks that work on the right to education and selforganize to engage with the monitoring and review of the SDGs, with a focus on Goal 4 (Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, 2021d).

Targeted at advancing education rather than including research and education in UN processes and decisions.

Higher Education Sustainability Initiative

Through its strong association with the United Nations, A strong mandate with the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative aims to limited opportunities provide higher education with an interface between for direct involvement. higher education, science and policymaking by raising the profile of higher education in supporting sustainable development, convening multi-stakeholder discussions and action as well as sharing best practices (UN DESA, 2021c).

Note: Statements of purpose were extracted from websites as cited; limitations are reflections of the authors.

42

Collective Ambition for Global Action

and comparison with peers. It assesses the actions signatory countries have taken to fulfil their commitments and includes six conventions in two thematic clusters – biodiversity, and chemicals and waste – and holds the potential to be expanded to include other conventions. The index is grounded in the national reports submitted by state parties to each convention and is presented as a composite score from zero to five covering data from 2001 to 2021. It illustrates trends across countries, within countries (across issues and over time) and across conventions (EscobarPemberthy and Ivanova, 2020). It creates a baseline against which to assess performance and empower subsequent analyses of factors that enable or prevent countries from implementing their obligations. This is especially important to developing countries as they seek to improve their capacity to solve environmental problems more efficiently and effectively. Acting as an honest knowledge broker, the Center for Governance and Sustainability devised the new knowledge tool in collaboration with a UN institution and supported by a national government and a foundation (the Government of Switzerland and Carnegie Corporation of New York funded the development of the index). Currently, there is no one accepted global standard for measuring whether countries are fulfilling their MEA obligations. The convention secretariats and a range of institutions assess member states’ efforts at implementation of the separate conventions as well as the needs for improving national capacity. Such consultations and initiatives, however, take place independently and while efforts at synergies are advancing, activities remain disparate and disjointed. Working across the science–policy interface, the centre has developed and expanded the index and its application and obtained a series of research grants. As a knowledge broker, the Center for Governance and Sustainability contributes to meeting the needs for improved reporting, relevant analysis and capacity building to facilitate implementation. When relevant and reliable information and support are available, countries are better able to improve performance. The centre uses the index knowledge tool to convene governments in the context of the UN environmental governance system to identify their performance, compare it with peers and facilitate knowledge exchange and learning. It has designed a series of online trainings for government officials in East Africa, North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The courses engage member state representatives in discussions on implementation across environmental issues at the national, regional and global levels. Through the MEA online courses, countries have an opportunity to learn from their own performance across the conventions as well as from their peers. The result is a distinct change in the operations of national governmental institutions catalysed by the work of faculty and graduate students at an HEI in collaboration with UN agencies. In essence, the index is an example of an analytical tool that an HEI can provide but that can be effective only when co-delivered with UN institutions – the convention secretariats and the UNEP. The index has created a consistent and reliable baseline against which to assess performance, actions and expectations. It enables the collection and analysis of empirical evidence and the development of sound conclusions. As a knowledge centre in an HEI, the Center for Governance and Sustainability has the credibility and legitimacy to rank countries and compare their performance, something that UN agencies are unlikely to do. This is a central argument here, in that HEIs fill a niche that would otherwise remain unfilled. When results are delivered in collaboration with the UN agencies, national governments are motivated to design and develop the appropriate regulatory interventions. Importantly, a systematic and consistent measurement of implementation delivered in collaboration between the UN and higher education will allow

43

44

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

international institutions and member states to determine whether and how the conventions help resolve the problems they were intended to address. Agent of Innovation: The Yale Faculty SDG Matrix Adopted in 2015 by 193 countries, the UN SDGs address today’s most pressing global challenges (Ivanova and Escobar-Pemberthy, 2017). However, while the goals offer a unifying platform for setting priorities, the leap from this global framework to local action is huge. Furthermore, significant knowledge gaps need to be filled in order to achieve the goals by 2030. For example, according to Kroll et al. (2019), the goals that focus on poverty alleviation, human health, clean energy, economic growth and industry are likely to benefit from synergies among them, while those aimed at responsible consumerism, climate action, life below water, peace and justice, and partnership for the goals will require trade-offs and in some cases success on some goals may diminish the possibility of accomplishing others. In recognition of the need to generate new transdisciplinary knowledge and test novel solutions, the Yale Office of Sustainability began a project in 2016 to determine how teaching and research at Yale aligns with the seventeen SDGs. This work was not about integrating the goals into curriculum or applying them to campus sustainability. Rather, it was an effort to identify expertise at Yale University that was advancing achievement of the goals. Collection of the data had the additional benefit of generating a searchable database of faculty members, wherein the goals could be used to generate lists of faculty across disciplines with shared interests. Student assistants collected data on each of Yale’s 4,400+ faculty members by entering information found on the faculty biography pages, in syllabi and laboratory pages, and related content into an online form (Yale University, 2020). This form was essential for streamlining data collection and reducing human error. Periodic gatherings of the students, who were from a variety of disciplines, allowed for discussion of questions, interpretations and disciplinary queries. Over the course of two years, the students created a database with over 100,000 data points. The first iteration was completed in 2018 – a process that has been documented in the 2020 report, ‘A How-To guide for assessing research and teaching connecting to the Sustainable Development Goals’, so that other HEIs may build on this work (Goodall and Jankowski, 2020). In 2019, the team conducted a pilot to cross-check the results. Each faculty member in the Yale School of the Environment received a tailored email informing them of the exercise and offering them their results. The email also solicited corrections – less than 10 per cent of the faculty requested updates, and those who did mainly added between one and three goals that had not been captured by the research team. Following that exercise, in 2020, the team used a central database of faculty members to identify individuals who had joined or left the Yale teaching community and updated the dataset to reflect the new information. This exercise, while hardly comprehensive, offered some important insights into how Yale’s teaching and research could and should inform solutions to global challenges. 1. Yale University is conducting research connected to each of the goals. 2. Every department or school has at least one faculty member whose scholarship relates to the SDGs.

44

Collective Ambition for Global Action

3. At the time of data collection, 44 per cent of Yale faculty were teaching or researching topics related to at least two SDGs. 4. Yale is particularly active on research relating to SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Figure 2.2 shows the aggregated conclusions from the 2018 report (Goodall and Moore, 2018, p.10). Not only does this work effectively demonstrate Yale’s aggregate potential for addressing global environmental and social challenges, the exercise of cataloguing the university’s faculty members resulted in a dynamic, searchable database that can be used to connect across disciplines and goals. For example, it is possible to query all faculty members interested in both climate and health, or to search for all faculty members in select schools and departments working on projects connected to selected goals. As the need to urgently address the climate and biodiversity crises and the reality of preparing for future pandemics and extinction-level events are considered, the knowledge housed in HEIs is invaluable and should inform decision-making processes and structures. While this initiative was effectively a series of pilot studies, the model could be easily scaled to establish a global database to foster collaborative research and knowledge exchange.

FIGURE 2.2  Chart from 2018 Yale SDG Report. Box sizes are relative to number of faculty teaching or conducting research connected to each goal. Source: https://camp​uspr​ess.yale.edu/clima​tefo​rum/. Note: Around a half of Yale’s faculty have primary appointments in the School of Medicine, which is why the number for SDG 3 is disproportionate.

45

46

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Trailblazer: The Global University Climate Forum as a Model for Inspiring and Connecting Tomorrow’s Professionals The Global University Climate Forum (the Forum) is a novel approach to engaging and inspiring the next generation of climate leaders, and an example of the dynamism of collaboration in higher education (Yale, 2020). Around the world, college and university students have become increasingly vocal and agitated about climate action, representing a powerful and growing movement that has potential to change the course of history. Yet, it is not yet clear whether climate strikes or divestment protests will have the desired outcome of effecting comprehensive systemic changes to avoid climate disaster. Led first by Yale University and now by the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with a range of partners, with funding from the International Alliance of Research Universities, ISCN as well as the University of Edinburgh, the 2020 Forum convened student leaders around the themes of knowledge exchange, networking, innovation and best practices. Originally, the Forum was slated to be a one-day event in Glasgow to line up with 26th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Glasgow, Scotland, in 2020 (COP26). As with previous iterations, it was designed to offer thought-provoking opportunities for students already planning to attend the COP. This COP, marking the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement on climate change, was to be a stocktaking opportunity. COP26 was postponed for a year because of the global health crisis, but the pandemic did not quell the increasingly urgent energy of young activists around the world. While there are few if any positive aspects to a pandemic, the new circumstances did allow the Forum organizers to create a more sophisticated, more inclusive programme with longer-term networking and larger outcomes than previously envisioned. In August of 2020, a call for proposals asked student teams to share their ideas for a project that would yield measurable results over six months. Multidisciplinary student teams (suggested size two to five persons) had two options for enrolment using an online application form that offered four tracks: 1. Inspiration and empowerment: Develop a creative approach to raising awareness and influencing others using tactics such as video, art, writing or social media. 2. Ideas into action: Propose a student-led climate-related project on campus or in the community that will affect measurable change over the course of six months. 3. Governance and policy: Select a local, national or global climate policy or governance mechanism and conduct an analysis on how it can be improved or how an academic institution can contribute to its implementation. 4. Innovation and imagination: For projects that do not fit into the other tracks, ideas in this category can be revolutionary, entrepreneurial and creative. In each case, the team had to submit a vision statement and indicate how they would measure success over the course of six months. While the ultimate aim of any climate-related project should be reduced emissions, raising awareness and fostering connections are important and often-overlooked elements of successful campaigns. Hence students were encouraged to be creative in establishing baselines and targets. Each team was required to have an advisor affiliated with their school – a faculty member, staff member or alumnus – and the application solicited specific roles for each member of the team. Participation required three phases:

46

Collective Ambition for Global Action

1. Proposal development: Submission was required through an official form and some needed refinement based on reviewer feedback. 2. Workshop attendance: Each member of the team had to attend at least three online sessions during the week of 9 November 2020. 3. Project execution: Teams had six months to implement and test their ideas. During this time, they were required to post monthly updates through an online portal that allowed them to interact with one another. Any student who completed all three phases of the programme received a certificate, and final reports from successful teams were integrated into a publication released just after the 2021 COP. During the week of 9 November 2020, which would have been the first week of the COP (postponed due to the pandemic), the Forum hosted twenty webinars curated to offer content that the students were unlikely to have access to in a standard university classroom, such as ‘Sustaining Yourself to Create a More Sustainable World’ and ‘Climate Change, Global AntiBlackness and Implications for Health’ (Global University Climate Forum, 2020). The organizers went to great lengths to ensure that the speakers were geographically distributed and offered a diversity of perspectives. To ensure accountability as well as interaction, students were asked to complete pre- and post-session surveys. All sessions were recorded to allow asynchronous participation – with some were offered twice to accommodate time zones. The first workshop was a pre-recorded interview with Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, architects of the Paris Climate Accords and co-authors of The Future We Choose (Figueres and Rivett-Carnac, 2020), about their work to create a culture of climate optimism. Figure 2.3 shows the full line-up of speakers from the 2020 workshop series. Nearly 600 students in 134 teams hailing from forty-four countries were accepted to the Forum (see Figure 2.4). The online nature of the 2020 programme made it more accessible to a broad array of students around the world, many of whom would not have been able to attend an in-person event. Live attendance of each webinar ranged from 75 to 275 students, and additional views for each video tended to be over 100. All videos are archived on the Forum’s YouTube site (Global University Climate Forum, 2020), and the organizers maintained steady communications with information about events and networking throughout the six-month reporting period. Nearly eighty teams submitted final reports on their projects, representing a 40 per cent attrition rate from the original proposals. This is not surprising given how long the pandemic impacted activities. Roughly, 30 per cent of the final reports referenced Covid-19 related barriers and mid-stream adjustments, but those who persisted offered a remarkable array of tangible and fruitful outcomes. Indeed, some of the projects evolved in ways that may have longer-lasting impact than originally envisaged. For example, the team from Makerere University Business School in Uganda originally planned to plant 500 indigenous fruit trees to raise awareness about climate change and highlight the need for gender-inclusive approaches to addressing the climate crisis. Because of the pandemic lockdown, they were not able to host in-person tree plantings, but the group pivoted to a series of online events and social media campaigns that may well have larger-scale impact. This forced innovation was echoed in projects throughout the Forum, but

47

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

FIGURE 2.3  Speakers from the Global University Climate Forum 2020 Workshop Series, Yale. Source: Authors.

FIGURE 2.4  Map of teams accepted to the Global University Climate Forum 2020, Yale. Source: Authors.

48

Collective Ambition for Global Action

while it was clear that the students experienced stress and frustration, the resilience of these next generation leaders was remarkable. The student reports, each of which highlights a unique and creative idea in action, are the heart of a digital publication called The Knowledge Sector: The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Addressing Global Environmental Challenges (University of Pennsylvania, 2021), which offers ideas for how academic assets might help to solve wicked challenges.

Conclusions Humanity is at an unprecedented point in history: the devastating and unpredictable societal impacts of the global health pandemic are compounded by the evident and increasing urgency of addressing the interconnected climate, biodiversity and pollution crises (UNEP, 2021). Public attention and awareness have reached new heights with demand for action at all levels of governance. Governments have committed to achieving the SDGs by 2030, less than a decade away, and to enact transformative change of the global approach to climate change. Actions to do so will be critical and require reimagined and reinvigorated global governance mechanisms. In September 2019, in support of the ‘decade of action’, the UN Secretary-General called on all sectors of society to mobilise for a decade of action on three levels: global action to secure greater leadership, more resources and smarter solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals; local action embedding the needed transitions in the policies, budgets, institutions and regulatory frameworks of governments, cities and local authorities; and people action, including by youth, civil society, the media, the private sector, unions, academia and other stakeholders, to generate an unstoppable movement pushing for the required transformations. (UN Secretary-General, 2021) This is a positive and visionary statement urging a step change in how non-governmental actors engage in developing solutions and ensuring progress. The next generation of agreements and institutions will have to evolve in ways that more actively involve a variety of stakeholders (especially HEIs), foster collaboration among UN programmes and offer reliable and consistent feedback on the viability of policy and implementation initiatives. The UN will continue to be a facilitator, and national governments will still be involved as architects and negotiators, but the success of future endeavours will hinge on the active participation of multiple sectors and implementation of initiatives at various scales. The knowledge sector and the HEIs that are central to it will be critical to a powerful articulation of a collective ambition to generate global shared action. HEIs can assist national governments and international institutions at all levels of the governance process – problem definition, data tracking and analysis, policy option development, capacity enhancement, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. HEIs are effective knowledge brokers, innovation agents and trailblazers, and they are critical to creating and maintaining strategic alliances based on need, authentic interest and expertise.

49

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT





1. A more clearly defined role for HEIs to engage in governing the global commons needs to be articulated to harness the impact and influence of universities globally more fully in advancing sustainability. 2. While there are UN processes, university associations and networks, a more concerted effort to engage academic stakeholders is urgently required to both drive and capture the collective actions of universities towards global goals for sustainability. 3. Students are key stakeholders in collective sustainability actions and more ways to mobilize their efforts around sustainable development projects need to be found.

References Birch, L. E., Perry, C. D., and Taylor, H. L., Jr. (2013). ‘Universities as Anchor Institutions’. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17 (3), pp. 7–15. Brinkerhoff, J. (2008). ‘Partnerships as a Means to Good Governance: Toward an Evaluation Framework’, in P. Glasbergen (ed.) Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Camden Higher Education and Health Care Task Force (2008). A 5 Year Winning Investment: Camden’s Anchor Institutions Provide Jobs, Services, and a Bright Future. Camden, NJ: Camden Higher Education and Health Care Task Force. Carcasson, M. (2010). ‘Facilitating Democracy: Centers and Institutes of Public Deliberation and Collaborative Problem Solving’. New Directions for Higher Education, 152, pp. 51–7. doi: http://doi. org/10.1002/he.412. Accessed 15 December 2021. Commission on Global Governance (1995). Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Denton, F. (2013). Climate Adaptation. Evolving Concepts of Development through the Experience of Developing Countries. Ottawa, Ontario: International Development Research Centre. Dubb, S., McKinley, S., and Howard, T. (2013). The Anchor Dashboard: Aligning Institutional Practice to Meet Low-Income Community Needs. College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland. Escobar-Pemberthy, N., and Ivanova, M. (2020), ‘Implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Rationale and Design of the Environmental Conventions Index’. Sustainability, 12 (17), p. 7098. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su1​2177​098. Accessed 16 December 2021. Figueres, C., and Rivett-Carnac, T. (2020). The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Galaz, V., Crona B., Österblom H., Olsson P., and Folke, C. (2012). ‘Polycentric Systems and Interacting Planetary Boundaries: Emerging Governance of Climate Change – Ocean Acidification – Marine Biodiversity’. Ecological Economics, 18, pp. 21–32. Global Commons Alliance (2020). ‘The Global Commons’. https://global​comm​onsa​llia​nce.org/glo​balcomm​ons. Accessed 13 November 2021. Global University Climate Forum (2020). ‘Global University Climate Forum Workshop Series’. Yale University. YouTube Video. https://www.yout​ube.com/c/Globa​lUni​vers​ityC​lima​teFo​rum2​020/vid​eos. Accessed 15 December 2021. Goodall, M., and Jankowski, A. (2020). ‘How-To Guide for Assessing Research and Teaching Connecting to the Sustainable Development Goals’. Yale Office of Sustainability. https://sus​tain​abil​ity.yale.edu/ academ​ics-resea​rch/scho​lars​hip-and-sdgs. Accessed 15 December 2021.

50

Collective Ambition for Global Action

Goodall, M., and Moore, E. (2018). ‘Yale Scholarship and the Sustainable Development Goals’. Yale Office of Sustainability. https://sus​tain​abil​ity.yale.edu/academ​ics-resea​rch/scho​lars​hip-and-sdgs. Accessed 14 December 2021. International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://intern​atio​nal-sust​aina​ ble-cam​pus-netw​ork.org/. Accessed 13 December 2021. Ivanova, M. (2021). The Untold Story of the World’s Leading Environmental Institution: UNEP at Fifty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ivanova, M., and Escobar-Pemberthy, N. (2017). ‘The UN, Global Governance and the SDGs’, in Bleischwitz et al. (eds), Routledge Handbook on the Resource Nexus. New York: Routledge/Earthscan. Kahler, M. (1992). ‘Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers’. International Organization, 46 (3), pp. 681–708. http://www.jstor.org/sta​ble/2706​992. Accessed 15 December 2021. Kroll, C., Warchold, A., and Pradhan, P. (2019). ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are We Successful in Turning Trade-Offs into Synergies?’ Palgrave Communications 5, 140. doi: https://doi. org/10.1057/s41​599-019-0335-5. Accessed 13 December 2021. Levin K., Cashore B., Bernstein S., and Auld, G. (2012). ‘Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change’. Policy Sciences, 45, pp. 123–52. doi: 10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0. Accessed 15 December 2021. Maurrasse, D. (2007). Cityanchors: Leveraging Anchor Institutions for Urban Success. Chicago: CEOs for Cities. Ostrom, E. (2008). ‘Polycentric Systems as One Approach for Solving Collective-Action Problems’. SSRN. http://pap​ers.ssrn.com/abstr​act=1304​697. Accessed 15 December 2021. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., and Warren, R. (1961). ‘The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry’. American Political Science Review, 55 (4), p. 831. doi: http://doi. org/10.2307/1952​530. Accessed 15 December 2021. Pérez, J. (2011). ‘Ranking Web of World Universities’. http://www.webo​metr​ics.info/. Accessed 28 October 2011. Porter, M. (2010). Anchor Institutions and Urban Economic Development: From Community Benefit to Shared Value. Washington, DC: Inner City Economic Forum Summit. Santos, F., and Pacheco, J. (2011). ‘Risk of Collective Failure Provides an Escape from the Tragedy of the Commons’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (26), pp. 10421–425. doi: http:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.101​5648​108. Accessed 15 December 2021. Schwarte C., and Massawa, E. (2009). ‘Equity Issues in the Climate Change Negotiations’. The European Capacity Building Initiative (ECBI). https://pubs.iied.org/sites/defa​ult/files/pdfs/migr​ate/G03​002.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2021. Steffen, W. et al. (2015). ‘Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet’. Science, 347 (6223), p. 1259855. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/scie​nce.1259​855. Accessed 13 December, 2021. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform (2021a). ‘Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI)’. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/sdi​nact​ion/hesi. Accessed 15 December 2021. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform (2021b). ‘Children and Youth’. https://sus​tain​able​ deve​lopm​ent.un.org/majo​rgro​ups/child​rena​ndyo​uth. Accessed 15 December 2021. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform (2021c). ‘Scientific and Technological Community’. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/majo​rgro​ups/scite​chco​mmun​ity. Accessed 15 December 2021. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform (2021d). ‘Education and Academia’. https://sus​tain​ able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/majo​rgro​ups/educa​tion​anda​cade​mia. Accessed 15 December 2021. Tamman, M. (2021). The Reuters Hot List. Reuters. https://www.reut​ers.com/inves​tiga​tes/spec​ial-rep​ort/ clim​ate-cha​nge-sci​enti​sts-list/. Accessed 14 December 2021. Tandon, A. (2021). ‘Analysis: The Lack of Diversity in Climate-Science Research’. Carbon Brief. https://www.carb​onbr​ief.org/analy​sis-the-lack-of-divers​ity-in-clim​ate-scie​nce-resea​rch. Accessed 15 December 2021. The Campus as Living Lab (2021). ‘Campus as Living Lab – Transforming Campuses into Scalable Sustainable Testbeds’. https://campus​asli​ving​lab.org/. Accessed 15 December 2021. 51

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Ülgen, S. (2021). ‘How Deep Is the North-South Divide on Climate Negotiations?’ Carnegie Europe. https://car​negi​eeur​ope.eu/2021/10/06/how-deep-is-north-south-div​ide-on-clim​ate-negot​iati​ ons-pub-85493. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations (2002). A/CONF.199/L.7 – Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg: United Nations. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/mile​ssto​nes/wssd. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations (UN) Secretary-General (2021). ‘Decade of Action’. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent/dec​ade-of-act​ion/. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (n.d.). ‘About Major Groups and Other Stakeholders’. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/about​majo​rgro​ups.html. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992). Agenda 21, Rio Declaration, Forest Principles. New York: UN General Assembly. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), and Johnson, S. (1992). The Earth Summit: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). London: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (n.d.). ‘About Major Groups and Other Stakeholders’. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent. un.org/about​majo​rgro​ups.html. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2013). ‘Division for Sustainable Development Areas of Work: Partnerships – About – Mandate – Bali Guiding Principles’. http://sus​ tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/cont​ent/dsd/dsd_a​ofw_​par/par_ma​nd_b​alig​uidp​rin.shtml. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2021a). ‘Map for NGO MG Site’. https://docs.goo​gle.com/drawi​ngs/d/16dlRl2k6wmoNtqJJ​hjej​ysY_​6nUD​p2lc​xz6b​hKqa​Pow/edit. Accessed 8 November 2021. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2021b). ‘Major Groups and Other Stakeholders’. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. https://sus​tain​able​deve​ lopm​ent.un.org/mgos. Accessed 8 November 2021. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2021c). ‘Higher Education Sustainability Initiative’. https://sdgs.un.org/top​ics/educat​ion/hesi. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2021). ‘Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Emergencies’. https://www.unep.org/resour​ ces/mak​ing-peace-nat​ure. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015). Paris Agreement. Paris: Conference of the Parties (COP21). https://unf​ccc.int/sites/defa​ult/files/engl​ish_​pari​s_ag​reem​ ent.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2021). The Glasgow Climate Pact. Glasgow: Conference of the Parties (COP26). https://unf​ccc.int/sites/defa​ult/files/resou​rce/cop2​ 6_au​v_2f​_cov​er_d​ecis​ion.pdf. Accessed 18 November 2021. United Nations (UN) General Assembly (1972). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Stockholm: United Nations. https://world​serv​ice.org/stockh​olm.html. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations (UN) General Assembly (2012). ‘A/RES/66/288 – The Future We Want’. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). https://www.un.org/ga/sea​rch/view_​doc. asp?sym​bol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E. Accessed 15 December 2021. United Nations (UN) General Assembly (2013). ‘A/RES/67/290 – Format and Organizational Aspects of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development’. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=111&nr=188 8&menu=35. Accessed 15 December 2021.

52

Collective Ambition for Global Action

United Nations (UN) General Assembly (2015). ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly’. https://www. un.org/ga/sea​rch/view_​doc.asp?sym​bol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed 12 December 2021. University of Pennsylvania (2021). ‘The Knowledge Sector: The Role of Higher Education Institutions in Addressing Global Environmental Challenges’. https://web.sas.upenn.edu/clima​tefo​rum. Accessed 15 December 2021. Vasconcelos, V., Santos, F., and Pacheco, J. (2013). ‘A Bottom-Up Institutional Approach to Cooperative Governance of Risky Commons’. Nature Climate Change, 3 (9), pp. 797–801. doi: http://doi. org/10.1038/nclim​ate1​927. Accessed 15 December 2021. World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) (2002). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Final Text of Agreements Negotiated by Governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 26 August–4 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. https://dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/rec​ord/478​154. Accessed 15 December 2021. Yale University (2020). ‘Global University Climate Forum’. Yale Sustainability. https://camp​uspr​ess.yale. edu/clima​tefo​rum/. Accessed 15 December 2021.

53

54

54

55

3

Framing a University Research and Innovation Strategy around the SDGs ALICE AIKEN, JOELLA MILLER, JENNIFER MORAWIECKI, ROCHELLE OWEN AND TARA WRIGHT

Introduction The United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UN General Assembly, 2015) serve as an accepted framework for tackling the world’s most serious problems. Recognizing that the challenges posed are global in scope, highly complex and interrelated, there is widespread agreement that solutions can be best achieved through collective and cross-sectoral efforts. Researchers have grouped the SDGs to align with definitions of sustainability that propose a concentric circle paradigm, where the biosphere is placed in the outer ring as the provider and limiter of human and ecosystem growth and health (Rockström and Sukhdev, 2014). While there is recognition that a global sustainable future cannot be achieved through changes in one sector alone, higher education is seen as a major force in working towards the realization of sustainable development (Wright, 2009). Higher education institutions (HEIs) are recognized as having a moral responsibility to become physical models of sustainability and centres of sustainability research and teaching expertise (Clugston and Calder, 1999), as well as having a social responsibility to foster sustainable societal development through increasing public awareness of sustainability and the education of future leaders (Martins et al., 2015). In a joint statement issued to the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, the three largest university associations in the world proclaimed that none of the seventeen SDGs can possibly be achieved without the contribution of research, and in particular research in HEIs (International Association of Universities, 2019). Scholarly research is recognized as an essential contribution universities can make in the field of Sustainability and Higher Education (SHE). As McMichael et al. (2003, p. 1920) state, ‘Addressing sustainability is more than an academic exercise. It is a vital response to a rapidly evolving crisis and should be at the top of our research agendas.’ Researchers at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, have been engaging in sustainability research for decades; however, it was not until 2018 that the university released its first institutional statement explicitly intended to guide its research community towards the SDGs (Dalhousie University, 2018). This chapter aims to offer insights into the research enterprise at Dalhousie and to highlight recent efforts to ground its strategic direction for research and

55

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

innovation in the SDGs, employing a critical lens that draws from the SHE literature as well as organizational change (OC) theory. The goals of this chapter are to highlight what Dalhousie has accomplished to date, reflect upon its strengths and determine opportunities for further change in its continued efforts to integrate sustainability within its research and innovation enterprise. In so doing, other institutions may find this critical analysis useful and consider applying lessons learnt at Dalhousie in their own efforts to advance global sustainability on their campuses via their own researcher communities.

Background: Dalhousie University, Sustainable Development and the SDGs in Its Research Enterprise Dalhousie University is a research-intensive, post-secondary educational institution with a broad mandate to serve Nova Scotia, Canada, and the world through activities that integrate research, scholarship, teaching and service. Considered a research-intensive university, it offers more than 200 undergraduate and graduate degree programmes to over 21,000 students. Dalhousie has long engaged in sustainability initiatives and is a signatory to the Talloires Declaration (1990), the Halifax Declaration (1991), the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) International Declaration on Cleaner Production (2001) and the Universities and Colleges Climate Change Statement for Canada (2009). In 2008, the Office of Sustainability, the College of Sustainability and the Dalhousie Student Union Sustainability Office were formed, and the President’s Advisory Council on Sustainability was created. In 2011, Dalhousie joined the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and participates every three years in an international campus sustainability reporting initiative through the Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (STARS). In terms of university operations, progress on many key operational indicators is tracked and reported, including student engagement and reductions in energy, carbon, water and waste (Office of Sustainability, 2020). In the 2020–1 fiscal year, Dalhousie’s researchers attracted over C$194 million1 in external research funding. The university’s research and innovation activities are driven by the values of responsible conduct of research, collaborating across disciplines, training the next generation of researchers, mobilizing knowledge to sustain change, and partnering with the world. It should be acknowledged that while these values could be complementary to sustainability-related research, they do not guarantee that any research undertaken by the university’s researchers will be focused on sustainability or the SDGs. In early 2018, the Office of the Vice-President Research and Innovation (OVPRI) at Dalhousie University launched a consultative process to support the creation of a new ‘Strategic Direction’ intended to guide the university’s research and innovation activities over a five-year period. During the consultative process, a question posed by the research community was, ‘How do we know we are solving the world’s greatest problems, and who decides what those problems are?’ This question compelled the leadership team to think more deeply about the kind of framework strategy that would allow researchers to ensure their work had relevance locally, nationally and globally. It became apparent that the UN SDGs provided the ideal framework to ground Dalhousie’s approach. The result was ‘Impact Together’, the university’s Research and Innovation Strategic Direction, 2018–2023 (Dalhousie University, 2018). It identified the locus of 56

Research and Innovation Strategy

Dalhousie’s research strength within five signature research clusters: Sustainable Ocean; Healthy People, Healthy Communities, Healthy Populations; Clean Tech, Energy, the Environment; Food Security; and Culture, Society, Community Development. The clusters are further informed by two cross-cutting themes: Big Data and Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Figure 3.1). When Dalhousie’s Research and Innovation Strategic Direction was launched in September 2018, it was unique in its explicit grounding in the SDGs. It was anticipated that by aligning the Strategic Direction with the SDGs, Dalhousie would be able to leverage its greatest research strengths to partner with others around the globe and focus efforts on solving some of the most complex global issues of this century.

FIGURE 3.1  Dalhousie University signature research clusters and cross-cutting themes Source: Dalhousie University, n.d. a.

57

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Applying a Critical Lens This chapter explores what Dalhousie has accomplished in grounding ‘Impact Together’ in the SDGs, critically examines the strengths of this approach and determines where there may be opportunities to change course or modify tactics. SHE literature and OC theory offer a lens through which to examine Dalhousie’s progress to date. The literature conceptualizes OC as a continuum (Sylvestre and Wright, 2016). At one end of the scale, changes that occur are within the pre-established norms of an organization (Argyris and Schön, 1996) where incremental change (Boonstra, 2004) or adaptive change (Friedman et al., 2005; Senge, 1990) is seen. This type of change does not require an organization to examine critically the underlying assumptions that underpin its current set of practices. To date, the majority of SHE change initiatives globally have been this incremental change type (Sylvestre et al., 2014a; Sylvestre and Wright, 2016). At the other end of the continuum, change occurs when an organization fundamentally rethinks the basic premise upon which it is built. This is where radical change (Lichtenstein, 2000) and often whole-institution transformation (Kezar, 2001; Sterling, 2013) occurs. While modifications to institutions’ structures and procedures can be indicators that some change has transpired, there will not be radical behavioural change until there has been a genuine shift in individuals’ underlying assumptions and values (Simsek and Seashore Lewis, 1994). Achieving this degree of cultural change within a university is a grand challenge. A number of change management theories provide insight into why and how organizations change. Cameron and Green (2009) compared several change theories to the four organizational metaphors identified by Morgan (1986) as machine, political system, organism, and flux and transformative entity. Understanding the multidimensional structure in universities, outside influences and their impact on research efforts can help to inform strategy and evaluation. The academic structure in a university is different from that of the administration, which could be referred to as a ‘machine’-style structure using Morgan’s (1986) typology. Administrative change initiatives focus on structural components like organization-wide planning, reporting and evaluation frameworks, leadership direction and communications, recognition, engagement and project funding. The structure in academia differs, with its focus on individual autonomy, decentralized authority, and problem-based and theoretical inquiry. Researchers define individual research priorities. For example, when trying to influence change towards sustainability within the context of higher education, academic structures such as tenure come into play. While a university like Dalhousie can choose to frame its research and innovation strategies around sustainability and the SDGs, the university is limited in how it can direct and influence researchers’ focus and activities. Given the principle of academic freedom, scholars cannot be compelled to pursue particular research topics (Dalhousie Faculty Association, 2020, Article 3). Institutional transformation in academia must therefore rely on initiatives that encourage scholars to conduct research that has relevance to the SDGs and rewarding or profiling initiatives that do just that. SHE scholars have been calling for the radical rethinking of universities for over two decades and often criticize what they see as ‘bolt-on’ approaches to sustainability rather than engaging in a fundamental rethinking of the enterprise of higher education and its impacts on sustainable development (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2010; Sylvestre and Wright, 2016; Wals, 2011). Many argue that incremental change is not enough for higher education to remain relevant in the time of the

58

Research and Innovation Strategy

Anthropocene (Lambrechts et al., 2013). Universities’ traditionally slow approach to change will not be sufficient to ‘tackle the urgent and complex challenges associated with the SDGs’ and lead to true transformation (Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2020, p. 38). As Sterling (2004, p. 50) so aptly states: the effect of patterns of unsustainability on our current and future prospects is so pressing that the response of higher education should not be predicated only on the ‘integration of sustainability’ into higher education, because this invites a limited, adaptive, response … [W]‌e need to see the relationship the other way around – that is, the necessary transformation of higher education towards the integrative and more whole state implied by a systemic view of sustainability in education and society. While it is recognized that whole-institution transformation is incredibly difficult (Birnbaum, 2000), a complete re-visioning of the fundamental norms and structural relations that culturally define contemporary universities is regarded among SHE scholars as essential (Sterling, 2013; Tilbury, 2013). Further, a rethinking of a university’s research enterprise is a crucial component of the change that SHE scholars are promoting (White, 2013). In addition, it is necessary to assess what structures limit scholars from engaging more deeply with sustainability (Blewitt, 2013; The Treaty Circle, 2012). In 2011, Tilbury developed a framework to facilitate critical shifts in sustainability research in higher education towards a new paradigm (Table 3.1). These shifts represent what SHE scholars regard as essential changes that must be undertaken if universities are to lead the development of a sustainable future and demonstrate that achieving sustainability requires challenging norms across the spectrum of the research enterprise (Tilbury, 2011). Tilbury (2011) contends that higher education can play a significant role in the realization of sustainable development; however, they note that achieving change for sustainability within universities is challenging and requires more than knowledge of the principles of sustainability. Tilbury (2011) argues that universities need to critically reflect on their activities and ensure they are aligned with sustainable development in order to transform their institutions and lead social change for sustainability. University leadership and senior management are essential to the TABLE 3.1  The Shift of Sustainability Research in Higher Education

Shift from

Moving towards

Research that is discipline-focused

Research that is inter- and multidisciplinary

Research that has academic impact

Research that has social impact

Research that informs

Research that transforms

Research that focuses on technological and behaviour change

Research that focuses on social and structural change

Researcher is an expert conducting research on people

Researcher is a partner conducting research with people

Source: Table created with information from Tilbury (2011).

59

60

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

process of transforming higher education so it can ‘play its part in transforming social practices and contribute to more sustainable futures’ (Tilbury, 2011, p. 26). This chapter will now turn to an examination of examples of Dalhousie’s engagement in sustainability research. The subsequent evaluation of current initiatives and future opportunities will use Tilbury’s framework and the critical lens of OC theory.

The Case of Dalhousie University and the SDGs Grounding Research and Innovation in the SDGs The language of an administrative organization is communicated through its plans, policies, reports and messages. Grounding its Research and Innovation Strategic Direction in the SDGs served as a critical first step in Dalhousie taking action to support these global goals. This alignment was welcomed by a core of Dalhousie researchers who were already familiar with the SDGs and who saw clear connections between the SDGs and their own work; it was also intended to interest other researchers who saw their work fitting into the broader theme of sustainability, but who perhaps did not have a framework in which to situate it. Others were less clear about such linkages, and it was soon apparent that statements of policy alone would not be sufficient to adequately support the SDGs and encourage more Dalhousie researchers to connect their work to them. Throughout 2019, the OVPRI undertook several actions designed to raise the profile of the SDGs and bring their importance to the attention of all Dalhousie researchers, as well as to encourage those who were unsure of the connections (or saw no connections at all) between their work and the SDGs to think more deeply about possible linkages. These actions are monitored by OVPRI personnel and reported upon annually with the key performance indicators established for the Research and Innovation Strategic Direction. One such action was the introduction of an annual SDG research survey among scholars. In spring 2019, the OVPRI launched a survey to better understand how researchers at Dalhousie were engaging with the SDGs and increase their awareness of the relevance and applicability of the SDGs to their research agendas (Dalhousie University, 2020, p. 27). The survey was completed by fewer than 1 per cent of researchers, which may point to self-selection (i.e. only 1 per cent of Dalhousie researchers contextualize their work within the SDGs). Alternatively, the relatively low response may have been due to the time of year the survey was administered, a lack of incentivization to complete or the unfamiliarity of process. The survey was repeated in 2020 and received twice as many responses. The survey will be repeated annually, with a view to increasing the response rate over time. Nonetheless, initial results of the survey offer insights into the number of faculty at Dalhousie who identify as sustainability scholars. When analysing the results, it was clear that the most popular SDGs identified by researchers as aligning with their work included SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 13 (climate action). Survey results are used to promote research at Dalhousie and inform further development of the Research and Innovation Strategic Direction. They also have potential to identify nextlevel support for SDG researcher learning and values discussions. Such support could include the creation of goal-specific listservs, centralized backing for SDG researchers’ learning and

60

Research and Innovation Strategy

development, inter-sectoral symposia on complex SDG problems via connections with broader networks to which Dalhousie belongs, and community and cultural exchanges to witness and discuss sustainability challenges and opportunities. Shifting towards Inter- and Multidisciplinary Research Tilbury (2011) notes the importance of challenging university silos and encouraging faculty to look outside the boundaries of their own disciplines to combine their insights with the different perspectives and methodologies of colleagues in other disciplines. A cross-disciplinary approach is required for the advancement of the SDGs as they cover a wide range of topics and require expertise from multiple disciplines to develop solutions (SDSN, 2020). Beyond a need for cooperation, there is also a shared responsibility across disciplines to conduct research and move towards sustainability (Brandli and Salvia, 2021). Shifting away from disciplinary-focused research can be difficult for universities because of their traditionally compartmentalized academic structure (McCowan et al., 2021). The traditional siloed organization of universities into subject-specific faculties hampers the development of interdisciplinary efforts that sustainability requires because such formal structures lack the flexibility needed for cross-discipline and collaborative research (Hoover and Harder, 2015). Though difficult to implement, inter- and multidisciplinary research projects are needed for the advancement of the SDGs (SDSN, 2020) and managing SHE (Adams, 2013). Dalhousie’s shift towards greater inter- and multidisciplinary research is evidenced in the university’s Sustainable Ocean research cluster (Dalhousie University, n.d. b). Research is conducted across multiple disciplines within Dalhousie, as well as with researchers and organizations outside of the university to support this cluster and the associated SDG 14 (life below water). Within Dalhousie, scholars across faculties collaborate on ocean-related projects and research. They also collaborate with researchers from other institutions and with industry, supporting the university’s cross-cutting theme of Innovation and Entrepreneurship which facilitates collaboration between companies and university researchers. These strands of activity were brought into multidisciplinary focus in 2016 with the establishment of the Government of Canada-funded Ocean Frontier Institute (OFI, n.d.). The OFI is now an international, transdisciplinary hub for ocean and marine research, bringing together global experts from the academy, industry and government to share talent, resources and information. Through this partnership, innovative solutions have been developed that strengthen the economy and protect the environment (OFI, n.d.). The OFI recognizes that ocean problems require multisectoral and interdisciplinary solutions, with input from fields including natural sciences, engineering, computer sciences, social sciences and the humanities. It works with domestic and international governments, industry and non-governmental organizations to translate research results into public policy. With its inter- and multidisciplinary approach, Dalhousie has become a world leader in ocean research, directly supporting SDG 14. New multisectoral approaches have allowed Dalhousie to begin acquiring the benefits that Tilbury (2011) and other scholars describe in promoting a shift away from discipline-focused research. Inter- and multidisciplinary research often results in new methods, approaches to research as well as development of added insights into sustainability challenges. The OVPRI works to develop other initiatives that encourage multi/interdisciplinary research and spotlight

61

62

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

areas of strength at Dalhousie. One key means through which this is being achieved is via the university’s centres and institutes. As noted in the university policy governing centres and institutes (Dalhousie University, 2019, p. 1), Dalhousie encourages their establishment to promote interdisciplinary research endeavours, to further the research interests, and to meet the needs of the University community in the pursuit of research broadly understood … Formal recognition of Centres and Institutes is intended to strengthen, coordinate, or facilitate collaborative scholarly purposes or activities not readily undertaken within the University’s departmental and unit structures, and is intended to offer new areas of activity consistent with the University’s research mission, including the strategic direction and priorities. Greater emphasis is now being placed on the alignment of centre and institute activity with the SDGs. Since oversight for centres and institutes rests with the OVPRI, the annual reporting required from each centre or institute includes an assessment of its alignment and contributions to relevant SDGs. This required reporting of SDG contributions is viewed as necessary within the international community as it acts as an essential institutional mechanism to ensure and encourage the progress of the SDGs and hold centres and institutes accountable (SDSN, 2020). In addition, a ‘Next Wave’ fund has been launched, whereby centres and institutes can apply for funding that provides a one-time boost of support in undertaking initiatives that expand and build upon their usual slate of activities. Application criteria for the Next Wave fund include alignment with Dalhousie’s strategy, including relevant SDGs. Including this information in funding applications provides incentives for researchers to engage more extensively with the SDGs (SDSN, 2020). Dalhousie’s centres and institutes support the university’s shift towards interdisciplinary research, and the OVPRI’s oversight of the centres and institutes allows for the inclusion of SDG reporting during their annual reports and specific funding applications. Shifting towards Research Having More Social Impact To shift towards research having social as well as academic impact, institutions must change the frameworks and systems they use to assess the quality of their scholars’ research and determine promotions, funding and external recognition (Tilbury, 2011). Rather than focusing solely on academic impact, research should be assessed using criteria that acknowledges the research’s social impact and how it affects thinking, policy and communities of practice (Tilbury, 2011). This idea has been slowly integrated into high-profile assessment systems, such as Impact Rankings of the Times Higher Education (THE, 2020) and the Princeton Review’s Guide to Green Colleges (Princeton Review, n.d.), which in turn can influence the type of research conducted by institutions (Tilbury, 2011). To put greater emphasis on social impact, Dalhousie has begun employing alternative frameworks to classify and assess its research, both internally and externally. To highlight this growing focus, in 2019 the OVPRI began encouraging its researchers to include relevant SDGs as keywords when submitting grant proposals internally for institutional review. Dalhousie’s research administration software is used by all researchers in the process of submitting applications for external research funding, and as part of the application process, researchers are asked to input details of their research project and select keywords that best

62

Research and Innovation Strategy

describe the research. In May 2019, the software was programmed to include each of the seventeen SDGs as potential keywords that could be selected by researchers. Reporting undertaken as of 1 April 2020 indicated that nearly one year after these keywords were made available, out of the 1,295 funding applications submitted in the system, 512 (or 39.5%) identified at least one SDG as relevant to the research project. This has been established as a baseline measure, and the OVPRI has established a target of year-over-year increases in this percentage. In April 2021, updated reporting indicated that out of 1,279 total applications submitted in the previous year, 895 (or 70%) identified at least one SDG as relevant to the research. This action aims to raise awareness of the SDGs’ importance within the university’s Research and Innovation Strategic Direction, as well as to encourage scholars to think about social impact and the specific SDGs with which their research efforts align. In addition, this exercise provides the OVPRI with data on which SDGs are the most prevalent among research proposals and can indicate change over time. In tandem with this internal shift, Dalhousie has expanded its participation in global rankings exercises beyond those that focus exclusively on traditional academic measures of teaching and research. In 2019, Dalhousie participated for the first time in the annual THE Impact Rankings. THE developed this ranking to measure universities meeting the SDGs and attaining social impact, and it provides comparisons across three broad areas: research, outreach and stewardship. It stands in contrast to longer established university ranking systems that focus exclusively on research and teaching performance (THE, 2021b). Participation in international rankings that consider social impact is recommended by academics as a means to counter the negative effects of typical rankings on universities’ sustainability efforts (McCowan et al., 2021). Dalhousie’s research efforts played a significant role in being ranked in the top 100 and 200 worldwide in 2020 and 2021 respectively (THE, 2020, 2021a) with its best performance seen in SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 14 (life below water). Dalhousie’s values tie research and teaching to civic responsibility (Dalhousie University, 2021). Within Nova Scotia and the Atlantic region, negative social and environmental impacts on Indigenous and African Nova Scotian communities have been well-documented (Waldron, 2018; Paul, 2006). Supporting community-led research, traditional ecological knowledge frameworks and focused research efforts on topics such as disproportional health impacts on communities of colour are areas for greater focus to address issues of equity and reconciliation. Shifting towards Research That Can Transform Society to a More Sustainable Future Tilbury (2011) suggests that SHE research must shift from informing practice to transforming practice. To be successful in attaining the SDGs, major transformations are needed in how decisions and activities are approached (SDSN, 2020; Adams, 2013). Research initiatives should go beyond solely presenting information to also include ways in which society can be transformed to create a more sustainable future. Universities should encourage transformative and restorative mindsets among its scholars, which will lead to a shift towards research that can transform society (Leal Filho and Vargas, 2021), rather than merely inform it. Dalhousie’s signature research cluster of Clean Technology, Energy, the Environment (Dalhousie University, n.d. c) can be examined in-depth to provide examples of university research initiatives that are being conducted with the SDGs in mind and which are leading to sustainability transformations.

63

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

The cluster of Clean Technology, Energy, the Environment has focused on achieving a more sustainable future through the development of new and renewable energy resources. Work in this cluster is being driven by the Clean Technologies Research Institute, whose researchers are developing products that improve performance, productivity and efficiency, while at the same time reducing costs, energy consumption and waste (Clean Technologies Research Institute, n.d.). Most notably, the laboratory of Dr Jeff Dahn, Canada Research Chair in Battery and Fuel Cell Materials, focuses on the physics and chemistry of materials for energy storage and is advancing lithium-ion battery technology through improving the energy density, increasing the safety, decreasing the cost and lengthening the cycle and calendar lifetime of the batteries (Jeff Dahn Research Group, n.d.). Supported by Tesla Motors and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the laboratory has developed the first ‘million-mile lithium-ion battery’ that promises to transform and accelerate the global move to electric vehicles (Schmidt, 2019). In a more recent development, the university has developed a broad inter-disciplinary institutional ‘Clean Research’ strategy (Clean Technologies Research Institute, n.d.) which will cement the university’s commitment to conducting innovative and impactful research that advances knowledge to address climate change. Governmental priorities across the globe, coupled with the growth of a clean technology market that is expected to range between US$2.5 trillion and US$6.4 trillion in value by 2022–3, signal a clear sense of urgency to address climate change (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2020). It is Dalhousie’s intent that its research community will be key contributors in fostering action at both local and global scale. The importance of a multilayered lens using all Tilbury’s (2011) criteria will help to create a new framework for the future. In support of research with greater transformative potential, it is critical that Dalhousie encourage its researchers to focus on how their work can move beyond the informative stage. A key strategy in this endeavour is the promotion of knowledge mobilization (KM) activities. KM helps make research useful to society by supporting engaged scholarship from inception to impact. Comprised of a suite of services that connect academic research, researchers and students with individuals and organizations, effective KM develops sustainable solutions to social, cultural, economic, environmental and health challenges. Involving scholarship across all disciplines, KM has strong potential to inform decisions about public policy, business and professional practice, and social programmes. SHE scholars argue that KM is crucial for the advancement of the SDGs. KM encompasses the sharing of knowledge and the exchange of solutions, both of which allow for institutions to leverage the expertise of others and lead to more impactful transformative research (Abebe, 2016; Kickbusch and Hanefeld, 2017). Dalhousie’s goal is to develop novel approaches to KM continuously and to make KM an integral part of every research project plan (OVPRI, n.d.). In support of this work, the university is an institutional member of several organizations focused on supporting KM, including Research Impact Canada and Community-Based Research Canada (CBRC). Shifting towards Research That Focuses on Social and Structural Change To effect change needed to bring about whole-institution transformation, as described in OC theory, Tilbury (2011) indicates that research needs to shift from focusing largely on technological 64

Research and Innovation Strategy

and behavioural change towards more social and structural change. Research focusing on technological developments supports the advancement of a sustainable world, but technological solutions alone are not sufficient (Adams et al., 2018). Universities face difficulties in achieving their sustainability goals by being too centred on technological initiatives and operational solutions, which have not been very impactful, and by failing to consider the more important components related to sustainable development. This includes the social dimension, long-term strategies and system-wide changes that create enduring effects (Adams et al., 2018). To achieve such a shift and avoid stifling progress in realizing the SDGs, university research must move from micro-level technological research to macro-level research focusing on broader societal and environmental changes. Dalhousie’s efforts in this space can be examined within the context of the university’s Culture, Society, Community Development signature research cluster and the Innovation and Entrepreneurship cross-cutting theme. Under Culture, Society, Community Development (Dalhousie University, n.d. d), research is conducted to inform conversations about social justice, amplifying marginalized voices and growing communities. This cluster encompasses research on building diverse, sustainable, responsible, smart organizations and communities. In 2020, Dalhousie launched the Restorative Research, Innovation and Education Lab (Schulich School of Law, 2020). Housed within the Schulich School of Law, the Restorative Lab is the world’s first international laboratory focused on a human-centred, proactive approach to justice focused on understanding and responding to impacts and the needs of affected individuals and communities, bringing people together to find meaningful and lasting justice solutions. The Restorative Lab’s vision is to be a global centre of excellence that will accelerate the growth and development of a restorative approach, a key component to transform the justice system in Canada; its work supports SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Restorative justice research plays an important part in achieving the SDGs (Penal Reform International, 2016). In 2017, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime held an expert group meeting on restorative justice in criminal matters, during which the group acknowledged that restorative justice is consistent with the SDGs’ aim to leave no one behind (UN Economic and Social Council, 2018). In addition, the group specifically emphasized the relevance of restorative justice in achieving SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Research on restorative justice leads to social and structural change through inspiring the transformation of criminal justice systems to promote restorative outcomes for those involved (UN Economic and Social Council, 2018). Looking further to the horizon, Dalhousie’s new Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E) is poised to evolve from what has until now been a focus on technological and behavioural change towards programming that encourages social and structural change. In its initial phase, I&E activities at Dalhousie focused on encouraging students and scholars to work collaboratively with local industry on design of information technology, ‘tough tech’ and other technical solutions to business problems. It has also been strongly oriented towards linkages with the investor/start-up community by equipping students with the skills they need to pitch their innovations to companies and start their own businesses (I&E, n.d.). Over the past year, however, I&E leadership at Dalhousie has begun conceptualizing ways in which ‘social entrepreneurship’ could be supported. As an attempt to draw upon business techniques to find solutions to social problems, the concept of social entrepreneurship may be applied to a variety of organizations, and typically tries to further broad social, cultural and environmental goals. 65

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Shifting towards Researchers as Partners Conducting Research with People Tilbury (2011) advocates for a shift in the relationship between researchers and their subjects. Typically, researchers take on the role of experts and conduct their research on people. Tilbury asks institutions to challenge this norm and shift towards researchers acting as partners conducting their research with people. Other SHE scholars agree with Tilbury and encourage academics to venture outside university boundaries and engage with those who are involved in and affected by sustainable development challenges (Müller-Christ et al., 2013; SDSN, 2020). At Dalhousie, initiatives focused on Indigenous research, as well as those conducted through the Food Security signature research cluster (Dalhousie University, n.d. e), are supporting participatory research techniques and challenging the typical power imbalance that stems from researchers’ dominant role as the experts. A prominent example of this shift towards research with, rather than on, people is exemplified by the Wabanaki-Labrador Indigenous Health Research Network (WLN) hosted at Dalhousie (Wabanaki-Labrador Indigenous Health Research Network, n.d.). The WLN’s efforts to build and improve capacity for Indigenous-led and Indigenous-governed health research in Atlantic Canada directly supports SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities). The WLN is founded on partnership with Indigenous Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik, Inuit and Innu communities and organizations in Atlantic Canada. In supporting such communities and organizations to advance their own health research priorities, and explore opportunities that are inclusive of holistic, Indigenous cultures and practices, the network is poised to effect transformative change to Indigenous health research in the Atlantic region and Canada, with lessons to be shared internationally. The WLN is working to correct imbalances long evident in research on Indigenous communities, in which historically there was little opportunity for the communities themselves to be involved in shaping the direction of that research – with results that were of little benefit (or even harmful) to those communities (Murray-Arnold, 2020). The WLN is contributing to an overall goal of establishing a pan-Canadian network of centres focused on capacity development, research and knowledge translation centred on Indigenous peoples that will provide environments for Indigenous health research in Canada that are driven by, and grounded in, Indigenous communities. A further example is evident in Dalhousie’s research into sustainable food resources and the development of solutions for global food challenges. The Department of Plant, Food and Environmental Sciences in the Faculty of Agriculture conducts work that aligns with the collaborative research style that Tilbury (2011) proposes. Currently, researchers are working directly with regional potato growers to produce high-quality potatoes in the most efficient way. This includes an effort to be more environmentally friendly with a focus on producing food with a positive environmental impact on the soil, air and water needed for growth. In addition, this research initiative looks to produce potatoes that are adaptive to different climates and provide a healthy food choice. Working directly with potato growers has provided the researchers with feedback and support, which has influenced the whole research team to become more committed to conducting the work (Thompson, n.d.). This research, encompassed within the Food Security signature research cluster, challenges the typical role of a researcher. Here, instead of researchers taking on a hierarchical expert mindset, they are working with growers to develop more innovative solutions.

66

Research and Innovation Strategy

In order to continue highlighting and promoting research that is focused on working with key populations, Dalhousie is seeking to replicate the success of initiatives like WLN with and for equity-seeking and historically disadvantaged communities – in particular, the AfricanNova Scotian community. In proclaiming the UN International Decade for People of African Descent at Dalhousie in 2014, the university recognized African Nova Scotians as a distinct people and acknowledged how they have shaped the province and the university over many centuries. Notably, planning is now underway to establish a transdisciplinary Black Studies Research Institute (Dalhousie University, n.d. f) at Dalhousie. Acknowledging with research the historical and current issues that Black communities face, and what has to date been limited acknowledgement of Black Studies as a scholarly discipline, the BSRI will help provide better support and more informed resources for Black Studies and, more broadly, Black researchers and students at Dalhousie. The institute will aim to position Dalhousie as a national and international leader in Black Studies, growing the research profile in this area such that Dalhousie will become a leading university for Black research and innovation. Engaging the community and developing relationships with populations who are affected by sustainable development challenges is vital to enabling change towards sustainability (Stephens and Graham, 2010). During the 2019 SDG Summit, there was a call for an increase in local communities’ roles in the efforts to achieve the SDGs if the SDGs are going to be realized by 2030 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019). The UN Secretary-General specifically highlighted the idea that local communities and stakeholders understand their needs the best and are critical partners in achieving the SDGs (United Nations, 2019). It is now recognized that effective research spans a broad continuum, from basic/discovery, to applied, to communitybased efforts. It is critical that efforts to educate and encourage the research community to engage across this spectrum continue if it is to be truly impactful.

Conclusions There is growing consensus among sustainability scholars that universities can play a key role in the transition to a sustainable future. However, becoming leaders in sustainability scholarship also necessitates universities rethinking the basic assumptions upon which their institutions are built and the structures that limit scholars and institutions from engaging more deeply with the SDGs and sustainability research in general. This chapter has examined the ways in which sustainability has been incorporated into research policy and practice at Dalhousie University and has evaluated the university’s efforts to date in framing its Research and Innovation Strategic Direction around the SDGs. When looking at the university through the lens of OC and SHE literature, it becomes clear that while actions have been taken to encourage researchers to contemplate the SDGs in the context of their research and innovation activities, Dalhousie has not yet achieved the radical or whole-institution transformational change that SHE scholars deem necessary for universities to be true leaders in sustainability scholarship. Rather, Dalhousie has been able to draw upon internal and external shifts in global sustainability thinking to increase the grounding of research within a sustainability framework at the university. Dalhousie has nonetheless experienced incremental institutional change as demonstrated in the examples shared here – which constitute steps in the right direction.

67

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Elements of structural change within the university, as evinced by the initiatives described throughout this chapter, have the potential to impact how the institution is viewed from the outside, but can also affect how the researchers within the university view themselves. As Ornetzeder and Rohracher (2005) state, exposing individuals to discussions about sustainability is an important though often neglected factor in social learning and change processes. Change that is orchestrated in a centralized manner from the top of an institution is less likely to lead to transformative institution-wide change (Simsek and Seashore Lewis, 1994), yet it is also clear that within the university context, senior management teams ‘hold the key to transforming [higher education] so that it can play its part in transforming social practices and contribute to more sustainable futures’ (Tilbury, 2011, p. 26). When it comes to sustainability research specifically within the context of the university, there are roles for both individuals and leadership. Research is a crucial factor in the success of sustainability integration in HEIs (Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2015). Higher education administrators need to support bottom–up initiatives with researchers and encourage cohesion among them, rather than imposing changes from the top down (McCowan et al., 2021). Opportunities for advancing a broader culture of change can include multiple strategies, such as replication of successful research cluster approaches with additional SDG-related cluster areas and supporting social research methods that focus on solving community social equity problems. It can also include strategies such as resourcing SDG researcher exchanges and knowledge development fora, supporting student and research programme funding, and enhancing communication channels and administrative supports such as fundraising, communication and marketing, government relations and overall coordination. In undertaking this institutional journey over the past four years, and upon critical reflection, it is apparent that there have been a number of lessons for Dalhousie from which other institutions might learn in formulating their own endeavours. First, incremental change needs to begin somewhere, and the units of the university where sustainability work takes initial root are perhaps best positioned to encourage its outward flourishing to all parts of the university. Indeed, such growth and consolidation are critical if institutional-level change is ever to be achieved. Universities must strive to avoid a ‘siloed’ approach to sustainability initiatives; otherwise, this can give an impression of tokenism or box-checking and increase the risk that the SDGs never become fully integrated at a broad institutional level. This is Dalhousie’s current challenge; its next step will to be devise a series of actions and activities that will allow its community of scholars, students and staff to reflect on successes to date and plan for future growth and expansion. In so doing, Dalhousie also needs to formulate novel ways of engaging its researchers further, attracting those not already connected and encouraging them to participate. In addition, relying solely on appeals to ‘the institutional good’ is often not sufficient incentive. The university’s new ‘Strategic Plan for 2021–2026’ titled ‘Third Century Promise’ embeds the SDGs across several of its pillars (Dalhousie University, 2021), but the university’s success will be predicated on the provision of appropriate support that will ensure implementation of the SDGs in meaningful ways, both on and off campus. It will require allocation of dedicated resources and personnel, as it is unrealistic to expect that this critical work can be done in an ad hoc fashion by individual members of the community, off the side of their desks. Such an endeavour will likely also require strong engagement and partnerships with external stakeholders for global impact, which – as a civic university rooted in its community – Dalhousie is fortunately well positioned to undertake. 68

Research and Innovation Strategy

Dalhousie University has a rich history of engagement in sustainability in higher education initiatives, and a number of individual faculty members have contributed significantly to a vision of a sustainable future through their scholarly activities. To date, however, sustainability research has not been formally guided by a university policy. Acknowledging the importance of the SDGs within the Research and Innovation Strategic Direction has acted as a vector for further incremental change within Dalhousie as an institution, with the expectation that this is just the beginning of a broader, multifaceted institutional alignment around the SDGs and sustainability scholarship. It has positioned Dalhousie on a path towards becoming a transformational leader in reimagining the role of the university in creating a sustainable future.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT 1. Understanding individuals’ motivations to engage in sustainability research is paramount, whether driven by curiosity, ethical positioning, institutional incentives or enhanced standing. Engagement itself is the endpoint, regardless of the reason for it. 2. Transformational change can start with incremental change in ‘pockets’ within an organization. However, creating institutional legitimacy for change requires substantial coordination and consistent messaging. 3. Change requires buy-in and support ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’. In this way, institutional strategic direction relates to pragmatism in delivery thereby harnessing the head–heart–hands of individuals.

Note 1 Approximately US$152 million.

References Abebe, J. O. (2016). ‘Knowledge Management Strategy for Localizing SDGs at the Multi/Country Level’. Accelerating the Progress Towards the Localization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). https://sdgs.un.org/sites/defa​ult/files/publi​cati​ons/2325Kn​owle​dge%20Man​agem​ent%20S​trat​egy%20 for%20Loc​aliz​ing%20S​DGs%20at%20N​atio​nal%20Lev​els.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2021. Adams, C. A. (2013). ‘Sustainability Reporting and Performance Management in Universities: Challenges and Benefits’, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 4 (3), pp. 384–92. Adams, R., Martin, S., and Boomb, K. (2018). ‘University Culture and Sustainability: Designing and Implementing an Enabling Framework’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, pp. 434–45. Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Birnbaum, R. (2000). ‘The Life Cycle of Academic Management Fads’. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (1), pp. 1–16. Blewitt, J. (2013). ‘EfS: Contesting the Market Model of Higher Education’, in S. Sterling, L. Maxey and H. Luna (eds), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 71–86. Boonstra, J. J. (2004). ‘Introduction’, in J. J. Boonstra (ed.), Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. New Jersey: Wiley, pp. 1–21.

69

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Brandli, L., and Salvia, A. (2021). ‘Climate Change and Sustainability: Concepts, Evidence and Global Frameworks’, in T. McCowan, W. Leal Filho and L. Brandli (eds), Universities Facing Climate Change and Sustainability. Germany: Körber-Stiftung and GUC Hamburg, pp. 23–37. Cameron, E., and Green, M. (2009). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page. Clean Technologies Research Institute (n.d.). ‘Research Areas’. https://www.dal.ca/dept/ctri/resea​ rch-areas.html. Accessed 13 December 2021. Clugston, R. M., and Calder, W. (1999). ‘Critical Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education’, in W. Leal Filho (ed.), Sustainability and University Life. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 31–46. Colleges and Institutes Canada (2020). ‘SDG Toolkit for Canadian Colleges and Institutes’. https://sdgcic​ angu​ide.pre​ssbo​oks.com/. Accessed 22 June 2021. Dalhousie Faculty Association (2020). ‘A Collective Agreement between the Board of Governors of Dalhousie University and the Dalhousie Faculty Association 2020–2022’. https://www.dfa.ns.ca/publi​ cati​ons/col​lect​ive-agreem​ent-2020-2022. Accessed 4 June 2021. Dalhousie University (n.d. a). ‘Signature Research Clusters’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/Signat​ureR​esea​ rchC​lust​ers.html. Accessed 3 December 2021. Dalhousie University (n.d. b). ‘Sustainable Ocean’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/Signat​ureR​esea​rchC​lust​ ers/Susta​inab​leOc​ean.html. Accessed 3 December 2021. Dalhousie University (n.d. c). ‘Clean Tech, Energy, the Environment’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/Signat​ ureR​esea​rchC​lust​ers/CleanT​echE​nerg​ythe​Envi​ronm​ent.html. Accessed 3 December 2021. Dalhousie University (n.d. d). ‘Culture, Society, Community Development’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/ Signat​ureR​esea​rchC​lust​ers/Culture​Soci​etyC​ommu​nity​Deve​lopm​ent.html. Accessed 3 December 2021. Dalhousie University (n.d. e). ‘Food Security’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/Signat​ureR​esea​rchC​lust​ers/ FoodS​ecur​ity.html. Accessed 3 December 2021. Dalhousie University (n.d. f). ‘Institutes and Centres’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/cen​tres​_and​_ins​titu​tes. html. Accessed 10 December 2021. Dalhousie University (2018). ‘Impact Together: Dalhousie’s Research and Innovation Strategic Direction’. https://cdn.dal.ca/cont​ent/dam/dalhou​sie/pdf/resea​rch-servi​ces/SRP/Dalhou​sie%20Uni​vers​ity%20St​ rate​gic%20Dir​ecti​ons%20Summ​ary%20CRC_​CFI%20FI​NAL.pdf. Accessed 11 October 2021. Dalhousie University (2019). ‘Research Centres and Institutes Policy’. https://cdn.dal.ca/cont​ent/dam/ dalhou​sie/pdf/dept/uni​vers​ity_​secr​etar​iat/pol​icy-rep​osit​ory/Resea​rch%20Cent​res%20and%20Ins​titu​ tes%20Pol​icy%20-%20J​une%202​019.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2021. Dalhousie University (2020). ‘Dalhousie Research and Innovation Annual Report’. https://cdn.dal.ca/cont​ ent/dam/dalhou​sie/pdf/resea​rch/2020DalhousieResear​chan​dInn​ovat​ionA​nnua​lRep​ort.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2021. Dalhousie University (2021). ‘Third Century Promise: Dalhousie University’s Strategic Plan 2021–2026’. https://cdn.dal.ca/cont​ent/dam/dalhou​sie/pdf/about/Strate​gic-Plann​ing/Dalhou​sie-Uni​vers​ity-Strate​ gic-Plan-2021-2026.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2021. Environment and Climate Change Canada (2020). ‘A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy: Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan to Create Jobs and Support People, Communities, and the Planet’. https://www.can​ada.ca/cont​ent/dam/eccc/docume​nts/pdf/clim​ate-cha​nge/clim​ate-plan/healthy_envir​ onme​nt_h​ealt​hy_e​cono​my_p​lan.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2021. Ferrer-Balas, D., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Buckland, H., Ysern, P., and Zilahy, G. (2010). ‘Going Beyond the Rhetoric: System-Wide Changes in Universities for Sustainable Societies’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (7), pp. 607–10. Friedman, V. J., Lipshitz, R., and Popper, M. (2005). ‘The Mystification of Organizational Learning’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14 (1), pp. 19–30. Hoover, E., and Harder, M. K. (2015). ‘What Lies Beneath the Surface? The Hidden Complexities of Organizational Change for Sustainability in Higher Education’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 175–88.

70

Research and Innovation Strategy

International Association of Universities (2019). ‘Higher Education’s Essential Contribution to the SDGs’. https://www.iau-hesd.net/sites/defa​ult/files/iauacu​auf_​stat​emen​thig​her-educ​atio​n_s-essent​ial-contr​ibut​ ion-to-the-sdgs.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2021. Jeff Dahn Research Group (n.d.). ‘About’. https://www.dal.ca/diff/dahn/about.html. Accessed 1 June 2021. Kezar, A. J. (2001). ‘Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations’. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28 (4), pp. 1–153. Kickbusch, I., and Hanefeld, J. (2017). ‘Role for Academic Institutions and Think Tanks in Speeding Progress on Sustainable Development Goals’. BMJ, p. 358: j3519. Lambrechts, W., Mula, I., Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., and Gaeremynck, V. (2013). ‘The Integration of Competences for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: An Analysis of Bachelor Programs in Management’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, pp. 65–73. Leal Filho, W., and Vargas, V. (2021). ‘The Role and Impact of the University’, in T. McCowan, W. Leal Filho and L. Brandli (eds), Universities Facing Climate Change and Sustainability. Germany: KörberStiftung and GUC Hamberg, pp. 38–52. Lichtenstein, B. B. (2000). ‘Self-Organized Transitions: A Pattern amid the Chaos of Transformative Change’. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4), pp. 128–41. Martins, N., Amaral, L., and Borges Gouveia, J. (2015). ‘Quest for a Sustainable University: A Review’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16, pp. 155–72. McCowan, T., Leal Filho, W., and Brandli, L. (2021). ‘Executive Summary’, in T. McCowan, W. Leal Filho and L. Brandli (eds), Universities Facing Climate Change and Sustainability. Germany: KörberStiftung and GUC Hamberg, pp. 6–11. McCowan, T., Leal Filho, W., and Vargas, V. (2021). ‘Overcoming Obstacles to Sustainability: Lessons from the Seven Countries’, in T. McCowan, W. Leal Filho and L. Brandli (eds), Universities Facing Climate Change and Sustainability. Germany: Körber-Stiftung and GUC Hamberg, pp. 124–41. McMichael, A. J., Butler, C. D., and Folke, C. (2003). ‘New Visions for Addressing Sustainability’. Science, 302 (5652), pp. 1919–20. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Müller-Christ, G. et al. (2013). ‘The Role of Campus, Curriculum, and Community in Higher Education for Sustainable Development: A Conference Report’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, pp. 134–7. Murray-Arnold, T. (2020). ‘Indigenous-Academic Collaboration Aims to Transform Health Research in Mi’kma’ki, Labrador and Beyond’. Dal News, 30 June. https://www.dal.ca/news/2020/06/30/indi​geno​ us_a​cade​mic-collab​orat​ion-aims-to-transf​orm-hea​lth-resea.html. Accessed 1 June 2021. Ocean Frontier Institute (OFI) (n.d.). ‘About OFI’. https://oce​anfr​onti​erin​stit​ute.com/about-ofi. Accessed 1 June 2021. Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E) (n.d.). ‘Dalhousie Innovates’. https://dalin​nova​tes.ca/. Accessed 18 October 2021. Office of Sustainability (2020). ‘Dalhousie Sustainability Progress Report for Campus Operations 2010–2020’. https://www.dal.ca/dept/sus​tain​abil​ity/resour​ces/Repor​ts_a​nd_P​olic​ies.html. Accessed 28 May 2021. Office of the Vice-President Research and Innovation (OVPRI) (n.d.). ‘Knowledge Mobilization at Dal’. https://www.dal.ca/resea​rch/KMbat​Dal.html. Accessed 12 June 2021. Ornetzeder, M., and Rohracher, H. (2005). ‘Social Learning, Innovation and Sustainable Technology’, in W. L. Filho (ed.), Handbook of Sustainability Research. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 147–76. Paul, D. N. (2006). We Were Not the Savages: Collisions between European and Native American Civilizations. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing. Penal Reform International (2016). ‘Global Prison Trends Special Focus 2017: The Sustainable Development Goals and Criminal Justice’. https://cdn.pena​lref​orm.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2016/06/ Global_Priso​n_Tr​ends​_201​7_Sp​ecia​l_Fo​cus.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2021. Princeton Review (n.d.). ‘Guide to Green Colleges’. https://www.prin​ceto​nrev​iew.com/coll​ege-ranki​ngs/ green-guide. Accessed 3 December 2021.

71

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Rockström, J., and Sukhdev, P. (2014). ‘From MDGs to SDGs: Transition to a Development Paradigm of Human Prosperity within a Safe Operating Space on Earth’. Paper Presented at the 11th Session of the UN Open Working Group. https://sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/getWS​Doc.php?id=4989. Accessed 16 June 2021. Schmidt, B. (2019). ‘Tesla Battery Team Breaks One-Million-Mile Barrier – and the Implications Are Huge’. The Driven, 12 September. https://thedri​ven.io/2019/09/12/tesla-batt​ery-team-bre​aks-one-mill​ ion-mile-barr​ier-and-the-impli​cati​ons-are-huge/. Accessed 29 June 2021. Schulich School of Law (2020). ‘Dalhousie Officially Launches First Ever International Restorative Justice Lab’. Dal News, 10 June. https://www.dal.ca/news/2020/06/10/dalhou​sie-off​icia​lly-launc​ hes-first-ever-intern​atio​nal-restor​ati.html. Accessed 11 June 2021. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency. Simsek, H., and Seashore Lewis, K. (1994). ‘Analysis of the Change Process in a Large, Public University’. Journal of Higher Education, 65 (6), pp. 670–95. Stephens, J. C., and Graham, A. C. (2010). ‘Toward an Empirical Research Agenda for Sustainability in Higher Education: Exploring the Transition Management Framework’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, pp. 611–18. Sterling, S. (2004). ‘Higher Education, Sustainability, and the Role of Systemic Learning’, in P. B. Corcoran and A. E. J. Wals (eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise and Practice, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, pp. 49–70. Sterling, S. (2013). ‘The Sustainable University’, in S. Sterling, L. Maxey and H. Luna (eds), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects, New York: Routledge, pp. 17–50. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2020). Accelerating Education for the SDGs in Universities: A Guide for Universities, Colleges, and Tertiary and Higher Education Institutions. New York: SDSN. Sylvestre, P., and Wright, T. (2016). ‘Organizational Change and Organizational Learning for Promoting Higher Education for Sustainable Development’, in M. Barth et al. (eds), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development. London: Routledge. Sylvestre, P., Wright, T., and Sherren, K. (2014a). ‘Exploring Faculty Conceptualizations of Sustainability in Higher Education: Cultural Barriers to Organizational Change and Potential Resolutions’. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 7 (2), pp. 223–44. Thompson, M. (n.d.). ‘Gefu Wang-Pruski’. https://www.dal.ca/facu​lty/agri​cult​ure/we-are-agri​cult​ure/ourfacu​lty/gefu-wang-pru​ski.html. Accessed 1 June 2021. Tilbury, D. (2011). ‘Higher Education for Sustainability: A Global Overview of Commitment and Progress’, in Global University Network for Innovation (ed.), Higher Education’s Commitment to Sustainability: From Understanding to Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 18–28. Tilbury, D. (2013). ‘Another World Is Desirable’, in S. Sterling, L. Maxey and H. Luna (eds), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospect. New York: Routledge, pp. 71–85. Times Higher Education (THE) (2020). ‘Impact Rankings 2020’. https://www.times​high​ered​ucat​ion.com/ ranki​ngs/imp​act/2020/over​all#!/page/0/len​gth/25/name/dalhou​sie/sort​_by/rank/sor​t_or​der/asc/cols/ undefi​ned. Accessed 1 June 2021. Times Higher Education (THE) (2021b). ‘Impact Rankings: FAQs’. https://www.times​high​ered​ucat​ion. com/world-uni​vers​ity-ranki​ngs/imp​act-ranki​ngs-faqs. Accessed 18 May 2021. The Treaty Circle (2012). ‘The People’s Treaty on Higher Education for Sustainable Development’. https://sus​tain​abil​ityt​reat​ies.org/draft-treat​ies/hig​her-educat​ion/. Accessed 10 July 2013. United Nations (2019). Report of the Secretary-General on SDG Progress 2019 (Special Edition). New York: United Nations. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019). ‘Increased Community-Based Engagement Seen as Critical to Build Climate Action and Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/zh/desa/increa​sed-commun​ity-based-eng​agem​ent-seen-criti​cal-build-clim​ ate-act​ion-and. Accessed 5 June 2021.

72

Research and Innovation Strategy

United Nations Economic and Social Council (2018). Outcome of the Expert Group Meeting on Restorative Justice in Criminal Matters: Report of the Secretary-General. Vienna: United Nations. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2001). ‘International Declaration on Cleaner Production’. https://cdn.dal.ca/cont​ent/dam/dalhou​sie/pdf/dept/sus​tain​abil​ity/resour​ces/polic​ies-andgui​deli​nes/UNEP%20Decl​arat​ion.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021. United Nations (UN) General Assembly (2015). ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. https://www.un.org/ga/sea​rch/view_​doc.asp?sym​bol=A/ RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed 29 May 2021. Verhulst, E., and Lambrechts, W. (2015). ‘Fostering the Incorporation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Lessons Learned from a Change Management Perspective’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 189–204. Wabanaki-Labrador Indigenous Health Research Network. (n.d.). ‘About the Network’. http://waban​akilabr​ador​netw​ork.ca/. Accessed 1 June 2021. Waldron, I. R. G. (2018). There’s Something in the Water: Environmental Racism in Indigenous and Black Communities. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing. Wals, A. E. J. (2011). ‘Learning Our Way to Sustainability’. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5 (2), pp. 177–86. White, R. (2013). ‘Sustainability Research: A Novel Mode of Knowledge Generation to Explore Alternative Ways for People and Planet’, in S. Sterling, L. Maxey and H. Luna (eds), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects, New York: Routledge, pp. 168–91. Wright, T. (2009). ‘Sustainability, Internationalization, and Higher Education’. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118, pp. 105–15.

73

74

74

75

4

Experiencing Sustainability: Developing Students’ Global Leadership Skills LARS MORATIS AND JAN BEYNE

Management Education for Sustainability Under the guise of a plethora of labels and concepts, attention to sustainability in management education has increased over the past two decades and many business schools around the world have committed to integrating sustainability into their programmes (Doh and Tashman, 2014; Larran Jorge et al., 2017; Jack, 2019). Still, attention to sustainability may be relatively isolated within curricula through so-called saddlebag strategies, that is, simply adding courses to the programme (Sharma and Hart, 2014), having limited study weighting compared to other subjects, or only addressed as part of a marketing or strategy course. In fact, some consider the attention given to sustainability in many cases to be a mere polishing of the business school’s offerings and primarily motivated by marketing considerations (Parker, 2018). Such piecemeal or superficial approaches are in stark contrast to approaches that strive to fully integrate the subject into management curriculum as propagated by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME; Greenberg et al., 2017). Integral to the mission of Antwerp Management School (AMS) is to help create sustainable value by shaping talent to become global citizens, mastering the art of decision-making and leading people (AMS, n.d. a, b). Attention to sustainability has developed at AMS over the past few years, from an elective topic that existed in the relative margins of the curriculum to the current situation that reflects elements of both a saddlebag strategy and fuller integration. A key component and driver of this development is the Global Leadership Skills programme (GLS) launched in 2019.

The Global Leadership Programme AMS frames the quest for sustainability as a process of sustainable transformation: a journey of profound change during which individuals search for ways to reverse the forces of disintegration in the global economic, social and ecological systems and create a future that is more integrated (AMS, n.d. b; Visser, 2015). One of the main strategic objectives of AMS is to make the shift from merely imparting knowledge – the traditional aim and intent of management education – to the broader development of impactful and responsible managers, leaders and global citizens. In

75

76

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

relation to this objective, AMS has, since 2015, evaluated the pillars of self-awareness, global perspective and societal consciousness. In 2019, AMS launched its GLS programme: an intensive one-year track integrated into all full-time master’s programmes, putting the development of global, critical and sustainable mindsets at the centre of all the school’s educational programmes (AMS, n.d. b). Throughout this programme, students are exposed to a mixture of exercises, self-analysis instruments, moments of reflection, individual follow-ups, collective sessions and peer coaching. AMS faculty offer students relevant frameworks that help them understand who they are and how they relate to others. Students get to know their strengths and needs and define their own areas for growth. They learn how to work in a team setting, how to avoid or resolve conflicts, how to handle a high workload, how to negotiate the most effective ways forward and how to provide more impactful and confident presentations. In the end, AMS faculty challenge the students in developing a personal leadership claim, anchored in sustainability. This leadership claim is grounded in the idea that future leaders need to acquire self-awareness, a global perspective and societal consciousness skills, in order to effectively respond to the world’s most pressing sustainability challenges. These three pillars are described as follows: 1. Self-awareness is knowing about motivations, preferences, values and personality. It allows individuals to understand how these factors influence a person’s view of the world, their behaviour, choices and interactions with other people. Self-awareness exercises comprise, for instance, grasping internal feelings and thoughts, interests, strengths and limitations, values, biases, skills, goals, abilities, leadership orientation and preferred communication style (De Vos et al., 2019). 2. Global perspective aids individuals to work with others from different backgrounds, particularly bringing in a world view. Through exercises, individuals develop cultural intelligence – a critical competency in an increasingly diverse world. Individuals gradually reshape their thinking to be more sympathetic to different cultures and develop a behaviour to be more skilled and appropriate when interacting with people from another culture. This way, people score higher on cultural knowledge, mindfulness and cross-cultural skills (De Vos et al., 2019). 3. Societal consciousness begins by recognizing the areas of systemic breakdown in society. This is what Visser (2018) calls the five forces of fragmentation (also called the five triggers for transformation): disruption, disconnection, disparity, destruction and discontent. Consequently, it is critical to work on direct solutions to each of these forces of fragmentation. Societal consciousness helps individuals to think about ways to reverse these triggers for transformation using the five counterforces of integration: secure, smart, shared, sustainable and satisfying solutions, by using various sustainability frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Visser, 2018; De Vos et al., 2019). Onboarding is a three-day introduction programme for all incoming full-time master’s students, during which professors introduce their students into the GLS programme. Several workshop sessions aim to identify and familiarize students with key sustainability issues and concepts, including the SDGs, transparency, materiality, greenwashing, systems thinking and the role of consumers in achieving and compromising sustainability (see, e.g., Visser, 2018).

76

Experiencing Sustainability

Action Learning Projects As of the academic year 2019–20, full-time master’s students at AMS participate in an Action Learning Project (ALP), a mandatory part of the GLS programme. The purpose of the ALP is to give students the opportunity to practice their cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary leadership and team working skills and to contribute to one of the SDGs (while recognizing the links with all other SDGs). As such, students work in cross-programme and multicultural teams of five to six people each. All ALPs need to respect three general guidelines: 1. Projects should focus on one or more SDGs within a timeframe of six months. 2. Projects must involve organizing and persuading other people, who are not on the team, to achieve a goal set by the project team. 3. Projects should provide significant opportunities for all team members to exercise their leadership skills and/or make progress on the areas targeted in their personal development plans. Through these ALP projects, students learn to collaborate in a culturally diverse team, practice their leadership skills and contribute to sustainable transformation – and in doing so, they are able to step out of their comfort zone and grow as a person. From the start, AMS is responsible for choosing the staff involved in these ALPs by assigning an AMS staff member to each project. This not only helps students to connect with AMS and to ‘feel at home’, but also serves to raise awareness about the SDGs and sustainability among AMS staff. The role of these mentors is to connect with the student group and meet them several times during their ALP. Students can also reach out to the mentor in case they have (practical) questions regarding their project. When students have content-related questions, the mentor refers them to the GLS faculty. Every ALP group receives an outcome document where they can keep track of their actions during the year. The outcome document consists of the description of the ALP, the title, the dates and description of the main actions taken, a list of the group members, group member pictures in addition to useful links and key outcomes. During the year, student groups present their projects to one another to learn from each other and support their progress. At the end of the academic year, all groups need to complete a peer-review document. Through this document, they rate their fellow students as well as themselves. Students need to evaluate their own general effort and that of their team members to arrive at a result for the teamwork element. In addition, they need to mark each score in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Both the overall GLS programme and the ALPs contribute to the development of selfawareness, a global perspective and societal consciousness and aim to foster competencies in sustainability competencies and the SDG (e.g. Brundiers et al., 2020; Alm et al., 2021). On the one hand, students identify various dimensions of sustainable development and relevant SDGs, reach out to other businesses and organizations, experience teamwork as well as develop project and time management skills (the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of sustainable development). On the other hand, students develop a critical posture towards the concept of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) or sustainable business, they experience the impact of sustainability in professional and social contexts, and they need to think about the ‘why’ of sustainable development. In order to measure the impact of the GLS programme, the authors (LM and JB) studied how the three enablers of self-awareness, global perspective and societal consciousness contributed

77

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to the development of ‘sustainability intelligence’. Inspired by the work of Rimanoczy (2014) and the Sustainability Mindset Indicator, a Sustainability Intelligence Questionnaire (SIQ) was designed. This questionnaire consisted of fifteen statements (five for each enabler) that students can score on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The following results (averages) are based on the data from 113 respondents who followed the GLS programme from September 2019 until June 2020: 1. For the enabler self-awareness, the results showed that most students strongly agree with the statement ‘I get to know myself better’ (3.76). Students rated ‘The GLS course changed the direction of my personal interests’ the lowest, with an average score of 3.01/5. 2. For the enabler global perspective, the statement ‘I am able to cooperate better with others’ scored highest (3.98). The statement ‘I am now not only aware of the psychological limitations of humans in developing sustainable behaviour, but also have the ability to turn these limitations into opportunities by learning to work with them’ also received a high score (3.61). The lowest score was attributed to the statement ‘I am better in sense making, in which I can assign meanings to ongoing occurrences’ (3.52). 3. For the enabler societal consciousness, respondents rated the statements ‘I am able to identify the key ways in which a company can have a negative impact on society and the environment’ (3.87) and ‘I am able to apply norms, values, targets and principles of sustainability to my own activities’ (3.84) very high. The statement ‘I envisioned new, truly sustainable value creation processes’ received the lowest score (3.15). Overall, the highest global average score was attributed to the enabler societal consciousness (3.66), followed by global perspective (3.64) and self-awareness (3.42). More details on this study are available in Beyne et al. (2022).

Experiencing Sustainability through Management Education One of the key observations, both before and after the introduction of the GLS programme, was that most students enrolling at AMS had only a limited knowledge about the spectrum of manifestations of sustainability in a business context. Aiming to immerse students in the topic of sustainability from day one onwards and engage them in concrete, direct and personal ways with the subject matter, the explorative and experiential learning exercise ‘Buying into Sustainability’ was developed as part of the onboarding days of the GLS. The remainder of this chapter elaborates on this practical operationalization of the GLS objectives. Through this exercise, presented in this chapter in a way that should enable management educators to contextualize it within their own practice, students are challenged to collect, discuss, assess and present sustainability-related product and company information within a short period of time, as well as experience and reflect on their own role as consumers in sustainability. Although this exercise has been used for graduate students, it is equally suited as an exercise that can be used during a programme rather than just at its start. In addition, it can be easily adapted to fit a particular course (e.g. marketing, supply chain management) and is suitable for undergraduate students as well. Although the exercise has been used by AMS as a group assignment for students from different cultural backgrounds, it can be used as an individual assignment, irrespective of a student’s cultural background. The following section briefly addresses several theoretical 78

Experiencing Sustainability

foundations of the exercise. Subsequently, learning objectives are specified, instructions for running the exercise are given, variations of the exercise are discussed, and instructions for debriefing the exercise are addressed.

Theoretical Foundations Sustainability is a relatively abstract, multifaceted and contested notion (e.g. Okoye, 2009). As such, it is subject to interpretation, and people may have different ideas and hold contrasting opinions about it depending on their personal values, political beliefs, cultural backgrounds and geographic origins (Visser, 2008; Matten and Moon, 2008). Nevertheless, the UN SDGs provide an authoritative, universal agenda comprising several of the world’s most pressing sustainability challenges, ranging from eradicating poverty and hunger to halting biodiversity loss and combatting climate change (United Nations, 2015). In business, sustainability plays an important role as companies are seen as both being responsible for creating and capable of remedying many of today’s social and ecological problems. Under the guises of ‘sustainable business’ and CSR, for example, companies engage in a myriad of activities through which they shape their roles in society, informed by ethical principles, strategic choices, political beliefs or business case considerations (Garriga and Mele, 2004). Sustainability manifests itself in corporate practices through a range of activities, including cause-related marketing, eco-efficient production, ethical supply chains, sustainability reporting, cross-sector partnerships and philanthropy (e.g. Visser, 2011; Seele and Lock, 2015). In addition, against the background of corporate scandals, instances of business misconduct and greenwashing, assessing the credibility of sustainability claims by companies has surfaced as a critical area of attention (Moratis, 2015; Van der Ven, 2019). This is not only relevant from an academic perspective, but also relates to the role of the consumer and their position towards CSR in practice. Here, different dimensions of sustainability coalesce, including decisions in the purchasing process, the use of products and the disposal of waste, and the effects of these activities on people’s lives, corporate conduct and broader society. Against this background, experiential learning, especially with an interactive and explorative outlook, seem particularly suited for learning about sustainability, since this enables students to integrate abstract and practical knowledge through doing and interacting and support the translation of their experiences into new knowledge through reflection (Kolb, 1984). Such an engaging learning process could open new horizons for students as it enables them to experiment and put into practice what they have learnt and to identify how they relate to products, companies, their role as a consumer and the multifaceted nature of sustainability.

Learning Objectives For the exercise ‘Buying into Sustainability’, the following learning objectives were specified: 1. Experiencing teamwork and developing project and time management skills. 2. Identifying dimensions of CSR and sustainability concepts and recognizing their manifestations in corporate practice. 3. Recognizing sustainability as an eternally contested concept and developing a susceptibility for different interpretations of sustainability. 79

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

4. Appreciating the role of personal values, political beliefs, culture and geography in defining CSR and sustainability. 5. Exploring the links between CSR and sustainability and functional management disciplines. 6. Finding and using relevant sources of sustainability data and assessing these data in the context of the sustainability claims made by companies. 7. Developing a critical posture towards CSR and sustainability and claims thereof by companies. 8. Experiencing and reflecting on the role of consumers in sustainability and on the effects of (un)sustainable consumption on business and society.

Running the Learning Exercise Overview ‘Buying into Sustainability’ is a group exercise, inviting students to buy a product, analyse and discuss the product-related and corporate sustainability claims; dispose of the product in a responsible way; and prepare a short presentation about the results and their experiences. To accommodate for group diversity, enable the division of tasks in this exercise, and at the same time encourage good quality discussions, groups may consist of four to six students. Logistics It is important for students to have at least some background in sustainability and related concepts that are relevant from the perspective of this exercise. This may be realized through providing students with some pre-reading material or a lecture. At AMS, the exercise has typically taken place in the afternoon after the professors had introduced their students to foundational CSR and sustainability knowledge. The morning session is aimed at enabling students identify and familiarize themselves with key issues and concepts, including the SDGs, transparency, materiality, greenwashing and the role of consumers in achieving and/or compromising sustainability (see, e.g., Moratis, 2014; Visser, 2018; Mihajlovic, 2020). At the end of the morning session, students received a fifteen-minute instruction about the exercise by a professor. The duration of the exercise typically is three to four hours, including the short presentations by the students as the final part of the exercise in the afternoon. Instructions After rendering the general idea and flow of the exercise, as well as the timeframe, the professor provides the students with the following instructions: 1. Create groups of four to six people (students are encouraged to choose to work with fellow students they do not already know). 2. Buy a product whose price does not exceed €5 of their own choosing in a store nearby (students need to find consensus on the product they will buy, which may already trigger debate and make assumptions and preferences that students have explicit). 3. Collect, discuss and assess sustainability-related product and company information (the professor gives some suggestions for identifying data sources). 80

Experiencing Sustainability

4. Reflect on the various aspects and interpretations of sustainability related to the product and the company (the professor explicitly invites students to bring their diverse backgrounds, personal values and world views to the table). 5. Reflect on the roles consumers may have in achieving and/or compromising sustainability and the effects of (un)sustainable consumption on companies and broader society. 6. Dispose of the product in a sustainable way (during the exercise or afterwards). 7. Prepare a short presentation based on the findings, impressions and experiences during the exercise.

Variations The exercise can be run in different group sizes and may even be used as an individual assignment. In this latter case, the exercise may serve as an assessment of a student’s understanding of the various aspects of sustainability and their critical attitude towards the information presented through product labels, corporate websites or even commercials. In addition, a professor may instruct an international student body to create groups based on geography, cultural regions or level of socio-economic or human development (i.e. developing versus developed countries or country scores based on the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (Wackernagel et al., 2019)) in order to investigate differences in interpretations of the sustainability concept and the assessment of sustainability-related information. It can also be decided to ‘postpone’ such differences towards the end of the exercise (i.e. group presentations) by means of composing more homogenous or less diverse groups for this exercise. Examples may include forging groups of students from the same cultural region or having the same expressed gender. In this way, differences may be amplified and discussed afterwards (during the closing plenary session) rather than during the group process. Another variation of the exercise is to focus it on a single functional management discipline. Examples may include a focus on operations (emphasizing sustainability issues in the production process), logistics (emphasizing sustainability issues in the supply chain of products) or human resource management (emphasizing social aspects of sustainability). While such a disciplinary focus may allow for in-depth exploration of various dimensions of sustainability, assigning different disciplinary foci to different groups enable comparisons between perspectives and the identification of, for instance, trade-offs and tensions in sustainability when discussing students’ findings. As a final suggestion, the exercise can focus on services instead of products, allowing students to experience differences in the availability and quality of sustainability-related information between intangibles and physical goods.

Debriefing the Learning Exercise The observations regarding the findings and experiences of the students during the exercise are given in Figure 4.1, which are aggregate observations based on three consecutive runs of the exercise. Due to time-related restrictions during the onboarding days, the debriefing strategy simply consisted of an interactive plenary reflection by students and their professors on the findings and experiences of the exercise as presented by students. Another, more elaborate, way of debriefing the exercise includes inviting students to reflect in written form on findings and 81

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Whereas students sometimes bought the same or a similar product, their findings relating to the sustainability of the product and the availability and quality of relevant information differed. While some of the students recognized the role of consumers as the main cause for patterns of unsustainability, others tended to identify the role of companies – and the power structures they represent – as the central culprit. Yet others realized this is a shared responsibility. Many students linked their findings to the SDGs, even though this was not a requirement of the exercise. They demonstrated knowledge about some of the world’s most pressing sustainability issues and the ability to integrate this knowledge into their views about consumer responsibility in sustainability. Overall, a slight majority of students indicated that their findings would probably result in behaviour change by them, adjusting their purchasing preferences towards sustainability. Most students agreed on the observation that analysing (product-related or corporate) sustainability claims leads to a cascade in identifying other dimensions of sustainability performance. Students generally found (product-related or corporate) sustainability claims hard to objectify and concluded that they are not fully able to assess the veracity of such claims. Identifying sustainability disposal strategies appeared to be difficult and tiresome, particularly because of the composite nature of many products and their packaging. Many students relied on internet-based data sources, such as corporate websites and analyst reports, rather than contacting people that are involved in selling the product (e.g. shop clerks). Students were sometimes disappointed by the results, since they expected sustainability claims to be stronger than they actually appeared after having investigated them. The notion of sustainability as a contested concept was generally recognized, with products’ sustainability dimensions to be myriad, difficult to determine, and sometimes ambiguous or even contradictory. This impression was enhanced by differing beliefs that students held based on their cultural background, values and worldviews.

FIGURE 4.1  Observations regarding the findings students shared through their presentations as part of the buying into sustainability exercise, Antwerp Management School. Source: Authors

experiences afterwards and challenge them to draw some conclusions. For example, exploring possible effects of their consumption patterns, alternatives to the products they have recently bought or are planning to buy, strategies for enhancing the credibility of corporate sustainability claims or effective consumer information through products. • Though students bought the same or a similar product at times, their findings relating to the sustainability of the product and the availability and quality of relevant information differed. 82

Experiencing Sustainability

• While some of the students recognized the role of consumers as the main cause for patterns of unsustainability, others tended to identify the role of companies – and the power structures they represent – as the central culprit. Yet others realized this is a shared responsibility. • Many students linked their findings to the SDGs, even though this was not a requirement of the exercise. They demonstrated knowledge about some of the world’s most pressing sustainability issues and the ability to integrate this knowledge into their views about consumer responsibility in sustainability. • Overall, a slight majority of students indicated that their findings would probably result in behaviour change by them, adjusting their purchasing preferences towards sustainability. • Most students agreed on the observation that analysing (product-related or corporate) sustainability claims leads to a cascade in identifying other dimensions of sustainability performance. • Students generally found (product-related or corporate) sustainability claims hard to objectify and concluded that they are not fully able to assess the veracity of such claims. • Identifying sustainability disposal strategies appeared to be difficult and tiresome, particularly because of the composite nature of many products and their packaging. • Many students relied on internet-based data sources, such as corporate websites and analyst reports, rather than contacting people that are involved in selling the product (e.g. shop clerks). • Students were sometimes disappointed by the results, since they expected sustainability claims to be stronger than they appeared after having investigated them. • The notion of sustainability as a contested concept was generally recognized, with products’ sustainability dimensions to be myriad, difficult to determine and sometimes ambiguous or even contradictory. This impression was enhanced by differing beliefs that students held based on their cultural background, values and world views. Suggestions for questions that can be asked during the debriefing, categorized by topic, include: 1. Assessing the credibility of sustainability claims: Do (product-related or corporate) sustainability claims need to cover both ecological and social aspects to be credible? Can such claims also be credible when only one aspect is covered? In general, what factors make sustainability claims credible? To what extent is the credibility of sustainability claims a matter of ‘being in the eye of the beholder’? Can companies in so-called vice industries (e.g. tobacco, alcohol and weaponry) make credible sustainability claims at all? To what extent have you been able to obtain factual sustainability information about the supply chain of the company during the exercise? How do you know if such information is correct? Have you encountered examples of greenwashing during the exercise? 2. The role of the consumer in sustainability: In general, do you consider consumers as a force for positive change when it comes to sustainability? With the aim of spurring sustainability, do you consider sustainable consumption a better strategy than reducing overall consumption? What would be the reasons for you to boycott a product or a company? To what extent do you think boycotts are effective in influencing corporate behaviour? What are the main barriers for people to buy sustainable products, according to you? Do you think that a focus on individual 83

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

consumers and their purchasing power or a more systemic approach towards sustainability that challenges power relations between business and politics, for instance, will result in better ecological and social outcomes? 3. Differing interpretations of sustainability: Did you notice different interpretations of sustainability by group members during the exercise? If so, what are possible explanations for these differences? Which factors influence people’s conceptions and perceptions of sustainability? Do you consider sustainability to represent universal values? To what extent do the SDGs apply evenly to countries around the world? Do you consider some SDGs more important than others? Should companies market sustainable products differently to different target audiences? How do you think that demographic factors influence interpretations of sustainability? 4. Disposal of the product: Was it or will it be easy to dispose of the product in a responsible way? Were the product and/or its packaging designed to be disposed of in a sustainable way? If not, what should be done in order for it this to happen? Is there always a responsibility for the company when it comes to the disposal of the product? Should the costs of disposal be accounted for in a product’s pricing? After the presentations, the professors and students go through a more personal reflection and may briefly discuss the findings. Since many sustainability professors and students are also involved in sustainability as consumers, they may recognize the dilemmas and cognitive dissonance many consumers experience and discuss different coping strategies for dealing with this cognitive dissonance (see Thøgersen, 2004).

Conclusions Over the past couple of years, AMS has developed and implemented a comprehensive initiative aimed at integrating sustainability into the heart of the school and the full-time master’s programmes it offers. Through the GLS, AMS aims to challenge students to develop selfawareness, a global perspective and societal consciousness. In order to help them realize this, and as a practical was of operationalizing the objectives of the GLS, exercises such as ‘Buying into Sustainability’ play an important role. While this exercise can be easily perceived as an assignment to objectively gauge product-related sustainability claims, it is clear that it engages students as people who hold certain values, adhere to certain political beliefs and have different cultural backgrounds and world views. Through designing this exercise as a form of experiential learning, students were not only challenged to bring these dimensions to the table, but also consciously and concretely experienced their role as consumers in achieving or compromising sustainability – from purchasing a product to disposing it. In addition, the exercise tests students not only through collecting relevant sustainability-related product and corporate information, but also through assessing this information, concluding to what extent they find the claims credible and reflecting on their findings. It is hoped that such an approach will help students develop a deeper sense of learning about sustainability dimensions than through merely analysing sustainability reports or through academic lectures. It is also hoped that students will integrate their experience into other learning processes during the GLS programme to strengthen learning (Hatcher and Bringle, 1997) and perhaps feel inclined to apply the experience into the decisions they make in daily 84

Experiencing Sustainability

life as consumers and citizens, within organizations they will be working for, or, for instance, enterprises they will start themselves. Experiencing possible tensions with the beliefs, values and ambitions students hold may lead to reflections on and implications for how they perceive their roles and responsibilities in society – and hence contribute to realizing the sustainability agenda.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT



1. Business Schools must move beyond piecemeal or superficial approaches to including sustainability into their curriculum and programmes and more fully integrate the recommendations of the Principles for Responsible Management Education. 2. The development of students’ global citizenry and leadership skills can be advanced through engagement with sustainability as a subject. 3. Relatively simple experiential learning assignments can help students reflect upon their value, beliefs and world views and how these intersect with progress in moving towards or away from sustainability.

References Alm, K., Melén, M., and Aggestam-Pontoppidan, C. (2021). ‘Advancing SDG Competencies in Higher Education: Exploring an Interdisciplinary Pedagogical Approach’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22 (6), pp. 1450–66. Antwerp Management School (AMS) (n.d. a). ‘Global Leadership Skills’. https://www.antw​erpm​anag​ emen​tsch​ool.be/en/overv​iew-ftm/glo​bal-lea​ders​hip-ski​lls. Accessed 1 December 2021. Antwerp Management School (AMS) (n.d. b). ‘Our Mission’. https://www. antwerpmanagementschool. be/en/about#our-mission. Accessed 30 November 2021. Beyne, J., Moratis, L., and Vos, A. D. (2022). ‘The Three Enablers of Sustainability Intelligence’. Journal of International Education in Business, 15 (1), pp. 74–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ JIEB-03-2021-0036. Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G., Harré, N., Jarchow, M., Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., and Zint, M. (2020). ‘Key Competencies in Sustainability in Higher Education – Toward an AgreedUpon Reference Framework’. Sustainability Science, 16, pp. 13–29. De Vos, A., Telen, S., Wood, M., Marynissen, T., Poppe, N., Rotthier, E., Poelmans, S., Visser, W., Wouters, K., Coessens, W., and Van Gool, B. (2019). GLS – Global Leadership Skills Workbook. Tielt: The Authors and Lanoo Publishers nv. Doh, J., and Tashman, P. (2014). ‘Half a World Away: The Integration and Assimilation of Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Sustainable Development in Business School Curricula’. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 21 (3), pp. 131–42. Garriga, E., and Melé, D. (2004). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Mapping the Territory’. Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (1/2), pp. 51–71. Greenberg, D., Deets, S., Erzurumlu, S., Hunt, J., Manwaring, M., Rodgers, V., and Swanson, E. (2017). ‘Signing to Living PRME: Learning from a Journey towards Responsible Management Education’. International Journal of Management Education, 15 (2), pp. 205–18. Hatcher, J., and Bringle, R. (1997). ‘Reflection’. College Teaching, 45 (4), pp. 153–8. Jack, A. (2019). ‘Social Purpose: How Business Schools around the World Measure Up’. Financial Times Special Report Responsible Business Education, 21 October. https://www.ft.com/cont​ent/b6bcf​ a02-ef37-11e9-ad1e-4367d​8281​195. Accessed 14 November 2021.

85

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Larran Jorge, M., Andrades Pena, F., and De Los Reyes, M. (2017). ‘Analysing the Inclusion of StandAlone Courses on Ethics and CSR: A Study of the MBA Curricula of the Financial Times Top-Ranked Business Schools’. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8 (2), pp. 114–37. Matten, D., and Moon, J. (2008). ‘ “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’. Academy of Management Review, 33 (2), pp. 404–24. Mihajlovic, B. (2020). ‘The Role of Consumers in the Achievement of Corporate Sustainability through the Reduction of Unfair Commercial Practices’. Sustainability, 12, p. 1009. Moratis, L. (2014). ‘The Perversity of Business Case Approaches to CSR: Nuancing and Extending the Critique of Nijhof & Jeurissen’. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 34 (9/10), pp. 654–69. Moratis, L. (2015). ‘The Credibility of Corporate CSR Claims: A Taxonomy Based on ISO 26000 and a Research Agenda’. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28 (1/2), pp. 147–58. Okoye, A. (2009). ‘Theorising Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary?’ Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (4), pp. 613–27. Parker, M. (2018). ‘Why We Should Bulldoze the Business School’. Guardian, 27 April. https://www.theg​ uard​ian.com/news/2018/apr/27/bulld​oze-the-busin​ess-sch​ool. Accessed 9 September 2021. Rimanoczy, I. (2014). ‘A Matter of Being: Developing Sustainability-Minded Leaders’. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2 (1), pp. 95–122. Seele, P., and Lock, I. (2015). ‘Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools’. Journal of Business Ethics, 131 (2), pp. 401–14. Sharma, S., and Hart, S. (2014). ‘Beyond “Saddle Bag” Sustainability for Business Education’. Organization & Environment, 27 (1), pp. 10–15. Thøgersen, J. (2004). ‘A Cognitive Dissonance Interpretation of Consistencies and Inconsistencies in Environmentally Responsible Behavior’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (1), pp. 93–103. United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN Resolution A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations. Van der Ven, H. (2019). Beyond Greenwash? Explaining Credibility in Transnational Eco-Labeling. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Visser, W. (2008). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries’, in A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 473–79. Visser, W. (2011). The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business. London: Wiley. Visser, W. (2018). Creating Integrated Value: From Systems Thinking to Sustainable Transformation in Business and Society. Antwerp: Antwerp Management School. Visser, W., and Kyma, C. (2015). ‘Integrated Value Creation (IVC): Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Creating Shared Value (CSV)’. Journal of International Business Ethics, 8 (1), p. 29. Wackernagel, M., Beyers, B., and Rout, K. (2019). Ecological Footprint: Managing our Biocapacity Budget. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

86

87

5

Transformative Learning, Community and Leadership for Sustainability Action SALLY RANDLES, HELEN WADHAM, KONSTANTINA SKRITSOVALI, CLARE HART, SAMIA HOQUE, HELENA KETTLEBOROUGH, RITA KLAPPER, ROZ MARRON, DAVID TAYLOR AND LIZ WALLEY

Introduction How can we actively imagine and work towards a more liveable ‘post-Covid’ future, even as we confront the scale of global challenges and navigate an increasingly accelerated and commodified higher education (HE) system? This chapter sets out how the ten co-authors and a group of twelve students/alumni explored this question together over a period of about twelve months at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School in the UK. Via a loosely structured, experimental, emergent and creative process of cooperative inquiry, we came together to develop a shared understanding of what matters to us and how, in turn, these matters of concern (Sayer, 2011) help guide our engagement with the natural and social worlds around us. The chapter focuses on two aspects of this shared experience. First, we sought to develop our own conceptual contribution, which – over time – became a call for a more experientially situated and integrated model of transformative learning, community and leadership. Second, we reflected on the practical steps that we might take as a result, and how we might encourage and work with others wishing to embark on similar journeys themselves. Context: Setting the Scene A focus on teaching and learning about sustainability seems more necessary than ever. Alongside existing and deepening concerns about climate change, the Covid-19 pandemic has brought other global challenges into sharp relief. Its deeply negative impact on health and wellbeing, employment levels and social inequality threatens the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations more broadly (United Nations, 2021). However, the pandemic also demonstrated the power of collaboration, as the drive to develop and roll out coronavirus vaccines led to unprecedented levels of local, national and international collaboration between government, industry and civil society actors (Guimon and Narula, 2020). Likewise, during extended lockdowns across the world, reported declines in pollution levels and viral social media posts of wild animals on deserted urban streets highlighted the speed

87

88

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

with which nature can ‘resurge’ when afforded the opportunity (Muhammad et al., 2020; Searle et al., 2021). The pandemic, climate change and other global challenges thus offer us an opportunity to redefine our future and develop a more meaningful understanding of sustainability (Tsing, 2017, p. 51). As teachers and learners, we seek to explore how we might balance economic well-being, social justice and environmental stewardship, and ask how we can weigh the needs of the present against the needs of the future. However, our understanding of sustainability is necessarily incomplete, fragmented and contradictory (Dymitrow and Halfacree, 2018). The sheer number of challenges – and potential points of intervention – make it hard to prioritize among them (Washington, 2015). More profoundly, by encompassing everything from protecting endangered species to reducing inequality and increasing participation, the very notion of sustainability risks exacerbating a paralysing sense of helplessness, which may prevent us from engaging with the concept altogether (Longo et al., 2016; Murphy, 2012). Within this challenging context, universities play a key role in advancing our thinking about how the world might be different and potentially better. Isabelle Stengers (2018) recalls the vision of Alfred North Whitehead more than eighty years ago: The task of a university is the creation of the future, so far as rational thought, and civilised models of appreciation, can affect the issue. The future is big with every possibility of achievement and of tragedy. (Whitehead, 1938, p. 171) Stengers finds it particularly compelling that Whitehead associates the future ‘neither with the advancement of knowledge nor with progress, but rather with radical uncertainty’ (2018, p. 110). However, they suggest that today this purpose is being compromised by ‘fast science’. That is, market values and market reasoning increasingly reach into our teaching and research, making them subject to the laws of the market (Sandel, 2012). Economic rationalism, massification and internationalization have radically reconstituted the sector in the UK and elsewhere, transforming universities into corporate enterprises (Lewis and Shore, 2019; Whelan et al., 2013). This shift has increased conformism, competitiveness and opportunism among institutions and the people who work and study there. From a sustainability perspective, this ongoing process has undermined the possibility of what Black et al. (2017) call ‘collective intelligence’. That is, it limits our understanding of complex issues and hampers attempts to identify solutions. As teaching and learning become increasingly subject to targets and measurement, opportunities to articulate and engage with complex challenges in the world around us in meaningful and thoughtful ways become constrained (Black, 2018). Our Approach to and Experience of Sustainability at Manchester Metropolitan Business School This chapter asks how we – as university staff and students – might engage in a critical yet hopeful process of understanding and responding to local, national and global sustainability challenges, despite the constraints to which we are subject as individual, collective and institutional actors. We do not deal significantly with what is happening to the planet and the urgent need for action on biodiversity loss, social justice and the climate emergency, as this is covered extensively by others (e.g. Ceballos et al., 2017; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021). Rather, we are concerned with how we – as academics, students and communities – can learn and

88

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

then act together to help make the world a better place. We believe teaching and learning can be effective. All ten authors are committed to teaching these issues to our students to the best of our ability, seeking at the same time to encourage them to reflect on their own behaviour and their professional lives. Our institutional home, Manchester Metropolitan University (Manchester Met), has a long history of engaging with sustainability issues. We are (or were) all based within the Faculty of Business and Law, specifically within the Department of Strategy, Enterprise and Sustainability (SES). There have been two main phases in the faculty’s own sustainability journey. From around 1992–2011, the roots of sustainability teaching and learning were established. Led by impassioned but lone champions (including two of the co-authors – see, e.g., Christian and Walley, 2015), a range of innovative sustainability-related units were developed. Then, starting in 2012, we and others began to form a critical mass, self-identifying as researchers, teachers and professionals who undertake work that is shaped by sustainability cares and concerns. We and many others have also supported the university-wide embedding of sustainability into the curricular and extracurricular experiences of students. Today, Manchester Met in general – and our faculty and department in particular – are widely recognized as being particularly active concerning the sustainability agenda. Since 2013, the university has ranked in the top three of the People and Planet University League for its environmental and ethical performance. It continues to commit and make strong interventions around its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy.1 The Faculty of Business and Law has been a signatory to the United Nations’ Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) since 2012. Consultations to shape the faculty’s Sustainability Strategy for 2021–30 revealed how teaching, learning and research link directly into the United Nations’ SDGs (United Nations, 2015), including gender equality and reducing inequalities. The Department of Strategy, Enterprise and Sustainability has been key to university and faculty efforts regarding sustainability teaching and strategy throughout that time, as outlined above. For example, in 2020 its Young Enterprise programme was recognized with a Green Gown Award by the UK and Ireland Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (EAUC). Our Aspirations for This Chapter Our focus is exploring how our understanding of sustainability and its possibilities are grounded in our everyday experiences. That is, we are interested in the way sustainability translates into practical action through a host of different, time/place-situated cares and concerns. We therefore lean on the ideas of others, including that of Taylor (2020) on ‘collective mattering’, Sayer (2011) on ‘why things matter to people’ and Nilsson (2015) on the ‘experiential nature of normative social purpose’. We also build on recent contributions from neo-institutionalist sociology, which uncover the significant role that both positive and negative emotions play in processes of institutional change (e.g. Gill and Donaghue, 2016; Greenwood et al., 2017; Friedland, 2018; Wijaya and Heugens, 2018; Zifetsma and Toubiana, 2018). We describe how we – the ten co-authors – worked together as co-participants in a loosely structured experimental, emergent and creative process of cooperative inquiry. Our data consists of recordings made during nine online meetings between members of the co-authoring team and a group that we constituted originally for the purpose of engaging in the inquiry. However, this

89

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

student sustainability group took on a life of its own beyond the immediate study (participants are named as supporting contributors). Throughout the chapter, we explore our shared experience and how this built trust, encouraged creativity and fostered a commitment to action among us all. In so doing, we draw on ideas about transformative learning (e.g. Southern, 2007; Wals, 2020), transformative community (e.g. Blay-Palmer et al., 2013; Souza et al., 2019) and transformative leadership (e.g. Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018; Astin and Astin, 2000). In sharing our experience, we in turn offer up a more integrated theoretical approach that brings these three aspects of transformation together in a way that we hope will inspire others to embark on their own such journeys. Our chapter proceeds as follows. In the next section, we summarize the conceptual anchors that ground the study and locate our cooperative inquiry. Following this, we provide a brief review of the academic literature on the separate concepts of transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership, highlighting the common principles that transcend and connect the three. We then summarize the philosophical and methodological foundations of participatory action research within which cooperative inquiry sits and outline our experience of putting these into practice via our student sustainability group. This is followed by a section that presents and discusses the findings of the study and then posits our reworked composite model of transformative learning, leadership and community, with implications for sustainability action. Finally, we offer up some tentative conclusions, along with concrete suggestions for action.

Theoretical Anchors Our chapter provides a story of joy, hope and optimism. We say this because, as the cooperative inquiry (which informed the chapter) entered its final cycle, the participants were asked to describe the process they had experienced over the preceding weeks and they spoke of it using adjectives such as ‘enjoyable’, ‘optimistic’, ‘energetic’ and ‘hopeful’. This resonates with Clarke (2015) who describes the work of hoping as a constitutive and essential element in imagining and navigating alternative futures. It includes a view of the future(s) as being in a continuous state of becoming (Hernes, 2017), shaped by narratives and ideas created in the present (Wedlin and Sahlin, 2017). In our case, there was an additional teleological (means–end) focus to the inquiry. That is, we wanted to understand the objects of our analysis – transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership – through an experiential lens focused on concepts of care, concern and collective mattering. We briefly outline these theoretical anchors and their relevance. Our starting point is provided by Sayer’s position that humans are sentient beings whose relation to the world is one of concern, which is experienced through practical everyday events, acts, and moments of care and caring (Sayer, 2011, 2015). Like Nilsson (2015) and Foucault (1999), Sayer insists that the social sciences should pay (greater) attention to the inherently specific and contextual nature of human experience. Lived-in experiences are practical and take place in specific times and places. Unlike the abstract thinking that is the privilege of academic practice, the concrete things about which people care are situated in the everyday: caring for a family member who is taken ill, a neighbour who is lonely, an animal found abandoned at the wayside, trees under threat of being felled to make way for a road or a group of students impacted by Covid-19. Humans are sentient beings who care. 90

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

Writ large, according to Sayer (2011, 2015), the relation of humans to the world is one of concern. Further, the variety of different things about which some people care becomes entwined with the things about which other people care. This leads to the formation of care-focused groups and organized collectives such as charities, social enterprises and residents’ associations. Taylor (2020) expands upon this idea, highlighting how such collective mattering amplifies these specific cares and concerns, enabling people to collaborate and work together in ways of caring that are at once embodied, relational, material and interactive. Nilsson (2015, p. 371) suggests that as academics, then, we need to ‘more fully engage with the experiential nature of normative social purpose’. That is, we should pay explicit attention to the responsive, evaluative and values-based nature of what he calls ‘positive institutional work’. Clark (2015) talks similarly – of what they call ‘hope work’. That is, teaching and learning can and should be explicitly grounded within social purposes like freedom, community, health and justice. These theoretical anchors helped inform our study, and were in turn developed, amplified, illustrated and articulated throughout the process of our cooperative inquiry.

Literature Review: Transformative Learning, Transformative Community, Transformative Leadership Notwithstanding some important exceptions, transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership appear as three discrete and separated concepts in the academic literature. We take a critical position on this separation, based on a combination of a brief review of the literature and the experience of our own cooperative inquiry. Taken together, this indicates that the three concepts are better understood as co-constitutive, with each element depending on, and mutually reinforcing, the other two. This is elaborated later in this chapter. However, for the purpose of this section we briefly review the concepts separately, highlighting some common connecting principles across the three elements. Transformative Learning In common with the experiential, normative and positive institutional tenets of this chapter, transformative learning assumes a world where change is continuous. Learning involves negotiating, excavating and acting upon our own purposes, values and feelings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from the people around us (Mezirow and Associates, 2000). At the same time, Taylor (2008) argues that transformative learning also acknowledges universal needs of subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity and freedom. However, it is also for something, such as education for community and sense of place; education for communities of practice; education for civic culture; and education for the biosphere and biocentric diversity. Southern (2007, p. 334) suggests we therefore need to consider who we are in relation to others. In highlighting its relational nature, they effectively create a conceptual bridge from transformative learning to co-creating learning communities of care. In offering this relational model, Southern (2007) thereby invites us to appreciate that the creation of learning communities involves combined strategies of language (sense-making) and practical action, and notes the need to cultivate relations of trust, truth, shared values and shared understanding. Via a series of iterative learning cycles, they propose the steps of invitation, 91

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

participation, engagement, commitment and collaboration as the constituent conditions for creating a learning community. In similar vein, Wals (2020) suggests we can turn our attention to caring about the future via a relational pedagogy of hope. The range of things and beings about whose futures we care include human and non-human species, and natural ecosystems. Bearing this in mind, Wals (2020, p. 825) urges educators to teach through an ethic of care, solidarity, sharing, mindfulness, and sensitivity to the ‘other’ far away and unknown … establishing a pedagogy that is critical, and emancipatory … [and urging learners to ask] … bold and disruptive questions about why things are the way they are, to learn how things can be changed, but also what keeps them from changing. Wals insists that it is important not to fall into hopelessness, pessimism or apathy. Rather, by creating and activating possibilities to act through on-site engagement and learning, democracies of energy, water, food, green spaces, mobility and equitable sharing can be mobilized and come to the fore. Souza et al. (2019) advocate a similarly purposeful and action-oriented approach. In contrast, to the more abstract reflection that may accompany learning environments in the classroom or online, they propose that educators should work with and within communities who are facing concrete in-situ sustainability problems. That is, we should address specific societal and sustainability problems or objectives that are located in direct experience. For example, we could ask how we might simultaneously help a self-organized group of citizens improve their livelihoods while achieving ecological outcomes of improved quality of local water. Comprising a series of technical and learning-oriented actions, such an approach can bring about collective learning and improved sustainability practices. Synthesizing these approaches to transformative learning into a set of common pedagogic and practical characteristics is not difficult since the sources are remarkably consistent. This is a point we return to later in the chapter when we develop an integrated composite model of transformative learning, community and leadership rooted in concrete sustainability action. Transformative Community We can see from the short synthesis offered that connections between transformative learning and transformative community are already developed in the educational literature. These connections emerge in pedagogies that bring about learning communities of care (Southern, 2007) and hope (Wals, 2020). However, Souza et al. (2019) advocate that we reach beyond the classroom to workplaces and with/within communities to address concrete problems of care. Specifically, they recommend that the focus of care should be that of achieving improvements for the people things, and situations. Transformative learning and the development of a learning community are thereby rendered a positive but indirect and secondary outcome associated with engaging communities directly in an organized systematic problem-centred teleological (means– end) process. The result – an improvement in people’s lives – remains the key outcome of such engagement. Blay-Palmer et al. (2013) extend the scope of analysis to the wider arena of social practices. That is, they focus on how communities – of place and of interest (or what we are calling ‘care’) – can in

92

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

turn evolve into democratic learning communities. They note that civic and economic interactions intrinsically link communities of place and communities of interest around a common concern. For example, communities of food are a spatially embedded nexus of social and material practices, involving faculty/activists, student/activists and communities of place/interest. These communities are effectively held together by a common critical position on the multiple harms caused by what Stirling (2019) calls the ‘socio-material incumbency’ of industrial food production. Communities of food are thus connected by a shared concern to move food systems in a more transformative direction through the building of extended social networks to create sustainable food hubs. Moreover, Blay-Palmer et al. (2013) suggest that this kind of transformative work also involves creating democratic learning communities of inquiry and practice. Actively involved in social discourse, communities of interest themselves generate new knowledge, while at the same time critically examining this knowledge in relation to existing social practices. Transformative Leadership As shown, the academic literature on transformative learning and transformative community shows evidence of cross-fertilization. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, a smaller literature sits at the intersection of transformative learning and transformative leadership. This focuses on what transformative leadership means in the HE context. A small number of authors are particularly active in this space (e.g. Astin and Astin, 2000; Shields, 2011, 2017, 2020; Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018). However, compared with the other two elements, the literature on transformative leadership – and its cognates such as responsible leadership, caring leadership and authentic leadership – is more wide-ranging. Reaching far beyond the immediate setting of education and HE, this literature is found within the fields of business ethics, organizational studies, organizational institutionalism and change, and organizational learning, among others. Caring leadership, as articulated by Tomkins and Simpson (2015), is based on Heidegger’s philosophy of care. Rejecting leadership based on the agency of heroic and charismatic individuals, caring leadership is collective. It encompasses a high tolerance of ambivalence and a rich sense of temporal trajectory. Authentic leadership is similarly values-based. Values, traits and virtues are personal, but also facilitate leaders in adopting an orientation to doing what is right for their constituency (Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Nilsson, 2015). That is, personal values can be mobilized into generative contributions to society (Roberts and Creary, 2012). This focus on relationality and relationships is yet more pronounced within the literature on responsible leadership. In this case, ethical principles drive the choice and nature of relationships, with attention attuned to the building of positive relationships with the full range of the organization’s stakeholders (internal and external). By including those stakeholders who represent the interests of social and natural environments, this approach effectively ‘weaves a web of inclusion’ (Maak and Pless, 2006, p. 6). It is through this relational interaction that changes and improvements occur. That is, both sides effectively raise each other to higher levels of motivation and commitment (Pless and Maak, 2011). Freeman and Auster (2011) understand this as a dynamic and creative process of ongoing inquiry, in which authenticity is effectively built through the range of relationships with communities. Within literature focused specifically on HE, transformative leadership is understood as fundamentally oriented to bringing about social change. This kind of leadership contrasts clearly

93

94

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

with ideas about management, which is about maintaining the status quo (Astin and Astin, 2000). Transformative leadership takes an intentionally critical and normative approach (Shields, 2011). That is, it begins with questions of justice and democracy, addresses both the private and public good, and critiques inequitable practices (Shields, 2020). Of particular interest here is Astin and Astin’s (2000) emphasis on how leadership can be distributed across students as well as staff. Likewise, they underline how groups represent a positive force that can nurture collaboration, capitalize on members’ diverse talents as well as support a shared purpose. Thus, Shields (2017, p. i) suggests that transformative leadership can create learning environments that are ‘academically excellent, equitable, inclusive and socially just even in the face of the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world of education’.

Methodology To explore how university teachers and learners can come together to engage in future-oriented ‘hope-work’, we decided to pursue an action research-inspired approach. This was a good philosophical fit with the responsive and values-based character of our inquiry into transformative learning, communities and leadership. First, we wanted to make both a theoretical and practical contribution. Action research enabled us to do this, through its focus on ‘developing practical knowing … and [pursuing] practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2001, p. 1). Second, as underlined throughout, we wanted to involve students actively within the research process. Action research is a participatory and democratic way of undertaking research (Bradbury, 2015). The specific form of action research we settled on was cooperative inquiry. This is concerned with both reframing our understanding of the world and transforming practice within it (Heron and Reason, 2001; Maughan and Reason, 2001; Riley and Reason, 2015). Cooperative inquiry brought us together as a group of learners of equal value and with an equal footing in this study. We drew on Heron’s ideas about extended ways of knowing. These include experiential (lived) knowing; presentational knowing; the knowing of art, story, music and expression; propositional knowing; the knowing of science, academia and policy; and finally practical knowing which is the sum of all the others and takes place out in the world (Heron, 1996, pp. 32–4; Heron and Reason, 2008). Our research journey began with the discussion of our stories and then centred on a series of meetings of our student sustainability group. ‘Our Stories’ At the outset, the ten co-authors all committed to produce, share and discuss short pieces of reflective writing or visuals that would help us get to know each other better by stepping out from behind the veil of our professional personas. Through the stories, we shared with each other how we have ended up with an academic and/or professional interest in sustainability issues, specifically by describing some of our formative life experiences and reflecting on the things about which we care. According to Nilsson (2015, p. 376), this surfacing and sharing of our inner experiences is a ‘key dimension of positive institutional work’. Our stories thus provided the foundations on which our cooperative inquiry was built, by bringing to light our lived experiences and helping us get to know each other better. As we reached out to our student

94

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

TABLE 5.1  The Student Sustainability Group Programme (nine online sessions March–

June 2021), Manchester Metropolitan University Socials

Research

Activities

Film Nights Occurred every six weeks as part of the SES film nights series

Online student group discussions towards our Bloomsbury book chapter on sustainability in HE

Co-crafting and building the idea of a faculty–student sustainability group/ society

Tuesday, 2 March

Thursday, 18 March Introducing the research and first online student group discussion

Thursday, 4 March Welcome and introductions: Initial programme and brainstorming future ideas

Tuesday, 27 April

Thursday, 1 April Second online student group discussion

Thursday, 24 March Sustainability Student Group: diversity, inclusion, voicing and building bridges

Tuesday, 8 June

Thursday, 7 May Third online student group discussion: Obtaining student feedback to our analysis/findings of the student group discussions and draft book chapter

Thursday, 13 May Circular economy: Learning and discussing some of Manchester Met’s current EU-funded projects with colleagues currently working (e.g. on the EU REDUCES and ECO-I projects)

Source: Authors

body and asked them to get involved with our research, we therefore asked them to share their own such stories as a starting point in the meetings discussed below. Student Sustainability Group Most of our data comes from nine online meetings, which took place under Covid-19 lockdown conditions in March–June 2021 (see Table 5.1). The co-authors convened the group to explore our shared ideas about transformative learning, communities and leadership. Three of the sessions were conceived as research meetings to directly facilitate this. Each lasted about two hours. In addition, there were three activity-based sessions with guest speakers and three socials where we watched films and chatted together. It was originally envisaged that the cooperative inquiry research sessions and the activities/social sessions would be fundamentally different in nature and focus. In the event, all nine meetings contributed to relationship building within the group, developing members’ ideas about learning, community and leadership. Of particular interest is the way the meetings became a reflective and social space, where traditional staff/student power relationships evaporated. For example, guest speakers for the activity-based sessions were students or former students themselves, sharing their experiences of working to challenge social inequality, or decolonize the curriculum, for example. More detail about the meetings – particularly the research meetings – emerges in the findings. In summary, they served to bring us together, with the students learning about action research alongside us as part of the study itself. Thus, rather than being passive respondents, they were engaged co-participants within the project, contributing on an equal footing.

95

96

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Findings The student sustainability group brought the co-author team together with a group of students interested in both understanding and undertaking transformative learning, community building and leadership. Our findings highlight some of the many things we learnt from our interactions with these witty, wise and inspiring young people. While we have structured our findings according to our three underpinning concepts, from the outset the distinctions between transformative learning, communities and leadership begin to break down. Transformative Learning Transformative learning assumes a world in which change is continuous and people are excavating and acting upon our own purposes, values and feelings rather than simply absorbing those of the people around us (Mezirow and Associates, 2000). This sense of critical thinking – sometimes even outrage – emerged clearly during meetings of the student sustainability group. This comes through in the reflections of one participant, who has been involved in Manchester Met’s Carbon Literacy initiative, which helps people understand and gain accreditation in understanding of the causes and impacts of our everyday carbon emissions. During a lively discussion towards the end of a later meeting, they recalled their frustration upon arriving at university: It was almost like a slap in the face. It was like come on, wake up! There is something going on and there’s stuff to do. Stop being so blind and look at all those statistics and facts and the situation the climate is at the minute … If things go wrong, it is not going to be good. This surprised the author team, as our sense was that over the years incoming undergraduates join Manchester Met with an ever deeper understanding of sustainability issues. However, another participant concurred, saying that they believed young people were not taught enough about issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss: As soon as you’re educated on it, then you can’t unsee it … I didn’t really ever learn about [sustainability] until university. I don’t think it was really mentioned in college or high school. Instead, it was family and community who played a primary role in developing the students’ ideas about the kinds of global challenges we have raised here. At various meetings, they shared stories of long car journeys with inspirational podcasts playing in the background, and memories of meeting up with friends and neighbours to pick up litter on their estate. However, even for those arriving with this early grounding, their time at university has been formative in shaping their thinking about sustainability. One participant noted that their combined experience of the Carbon Literacy programme, sustainability-focused units and the group meetings themselves was enabling them to connect ideas and issues in ways that they had not done previously: I think it’s really important to ensure we’ve got racial equity training at university. As the speaker mentioned last week, the effect of racial marginalization really ties in

96

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

with environmental sustainability. For example, the way that the West is so blind to the environmental problems it is causing in Africa. Transformative learning depends upon and reinforces our relations with others, as we invite and engage with those around us (Southern, 2007). Participants talked about their awareness of how they and the university are embedded within local and wider communities. For example, one participant noted the possibilities for amplifying institutional and individual efforts through specific collaborative initiatives like carbon literacy and community outreach centred on the SDGs: Then everyone is going to get that kind of inspiration and then they’ll sort it themselves. Finally, our meetings confirmed that rather than falling into hopelessness or apathy, students were creating possibilities to act upon specific problems with and within communities (Souza et al., 2019; Wals, 2020). One participant shared their experience of working with a food bank every week; another is active in their local ‘friends of the park’ group, while another has set up a mentoring organization that sends young motivational speakers into schools in deprived areas. In summary, over the course of nine meetings, the student sustainability group helped inform our understanding of transformative learning, while also enabling us to experience it for ourselves. While most members came to the group with a comparatively high level of awareness about sustainability, this was enhanced by coming together as a group. This shared experience enabled us to recognize how the world is constantly changing, explore and question our own experiences and values, and recognize our ties to others. Most powerfully, it reinforced our individual and collective commitment to taking concrete action for change, to which we return below. Transformative Community The literature suggests that we must reach beyond the classroom to address concrete problems that matter to people. By so doing, learning is rendered an important but secondary outcome of a care-based approach to achieving improvements for people in specific communities (Souza et al., 2019). This came out clearly in our discussions. For example, one participant explains how their commitment to tackling local challenges enabled them to overcome their reluctance to integrate into a new community upon arriving at Manchester Met: I didn’t have social media for a long time just because I didn’t like it but when I moved to Manchester I joined [local Facebook group] … and it was kind of like ‘is there anybody who wants to meet and plant some plants?!’ Most of the participating students had left home to attend university. This is usual in the UK context but more uncommon at Manchester Met, where about 50 per cent of business school students live at home.2 About half of the university’s undergraduates are the first in their family to go to university and many of them come from areas that are disadvantaged in terms of issues like pollution, health and employment prospects. This has contributed to the business school

97

98

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

developing a strategic focus on transforming communities. The location of the campus – which borders some comparatively poor neighbourhoods – has also shaped the students’ awareness of the need for community action, particularly among those who may come from more affluent areas themselves: I do a lot of work with a food bank … We collect surplus food from supermarkets in the local area … .and part-time, I’m on the community team at [large supermarket chain] and I find small charities … at the moment we’re focusing on young families, and we are going around these charities and kind of seeing what and how we can help them. As indicated by this example, the students all had their own interests and cares, many of which tied them into communities of place but also more spatially dispersed communities of interest that condense around a common concern (Blay-Palmer, 2013). For this student, their concern was sustainable food. At a later meeting, they talked passionately about how Manchester Met might support urban agriculture both on its own land and through outreach within local communities. However, they also talked about the need to transform global food systems more widely, drawing on other aspects of their lived experience to articulate the extent to which this represents a shared endeavour: We need to include the actual invisible cost of food. Everything from biodiversity, loss of freshwater, pollution and even chronic disease. So, I’m trying to have an impact at the moment. I’ve just had a couple of meetings with [large supermarket chain] and all this stuff that’s been sent to landfill is now going to be used by a nonprofit organization that I volunteer with, and other non-profits. As suggested in the literature, then, the students themselves recognize the overlap between transformative community and transformative learning. Another member of the group, at various meetings, returned to their belief in the power of education, and the link between education, action and interpersonal relations: Education is the most powerful tool to shape how people think. For me is all about two things. It is all about turning visual spectators into active participants and getting them to act. And it is also about turning values into actions. The problem is that most people now are visual spectators and a lot of them [are not turning their values into action] … It’s all about … bridging that reality. Transformative Leadership Our experience with the student sustainability group supported Astin and Astin’s (2000) view that transformative leadership within an HE context is fundamentally oriented to bringing about social change. The students suggested that this change was one of both attitude and behaviour, or perhaps values and actions. Our shared encounters provided plenty of evidence of the former. For example, at our wide-ranging and warm-hearted final meeting, one of the participants said simply, ‘We just need to be more compassionate and kinder.’ Likewise, at an earlier meeting, another student suggested, ‘We have an obligation and duty of care,

98

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

and we should do the right thing.’ However, our interactions also uncovered illustrations of how students helped encourage changes in behaviour too. Here, we note the influence of the placement experience, though which many business students spend the third year of their four-year course working in industry. While the institutional rhetoric emphasizes the value to the students of undertaking a placement in terms of academic attainment and career progression, what emerged in our conversations was the students’ excitement upon realizing that the impact went both ways: I went into placement year thinking about waste and our carbon impact and the role that I was in. And I just couldn’t stop thinking about it really and I put a business case together because I was quite appalled about … [what we were doing regarding] waste, transport, the lack of recycling at minor level. And it got accepted by the commercial manager. It was the first eye opener that I could persuade someone to take environmental impact in a multinational company. Another student undertook their placement in a multinational company with an established reputation for sustainability. They talked about how their day-to-day role actively contributed to efforts to embed the principles of circular economy across the business. Thus, some of the students reflected the process described by Pless and Maak (2011), in which responsible business leaders weave a web that includes multiple stakeholders: both sides potentially raise each other to higher levels of motivation and commitment. The interesting thing for us is that this kind of mutual influence exerts itself early on in a young person’s career; in this case, before they even graduate. Thus, while our findings support Astin and Astin’s (2000) contention that leadership can be distributed across students as well as staff, this happens not only within the university but outside too. The students themselves are clearly aware of the intergenerational possibilities of transformative leadership, exhibiting what Tomkins and Simpson (2015) describe as a rich sense of temporal trajectory. First, this led to a desire to advocate for change on behalf of future generations. For example, one participant talked eloquently about wanting ‘younger generations to be able to see what we see’ such as parks and nature all around us. In a later session, the student with a special interest in sustainable food put forward a similar view, suggesting that the key is to educate the young kids by bringing gardens back to schools and supporting initiatives to encourage more people to cook at home. Second, as a group, the students effectively model academic excellence, inclusivity and collaboration to people younger (and older!) than themselves. For example, one of the students shared their experience of volunteering with a social enterprise that supports children and disadvantaged young people. This process is sometimes conscious, as when a participant describes how we might bring about the combined approach to transformative learning and communities discussed above: Merging the gap that currently exists with communities and university students … can then create a visible mission on what students can do within the community. However, sometimes this process of influencing and inspiring others may be undertaken unconsciously, as when the students function as a vector for more sustainable habits as they go

99

10

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

back and forth between their homes and university halls of residence. Students also frequently spoke about their personal consumption levels and rejection of fast fashion, for example, without realizing just how much these changes in their own behaviour might be picked up and replicated by those around them (McNeill and Moore, 2015). In summary, the student sustainability group emerges as a shared safe space, in which relations of trust, openness and enjoyment emerged. This was conducive to both conducting transformative learning, community building and leadership, and to shaping our ideas about these same concepts. In both theory and practice, what comes through very clearly is their strongly interrelated character. The wide-ranging stories we tell here would suggest that what holds the three concepts together is a set of underlying and interconnected principles including a focus on values, relationships and action. These principles underpin the composite, integrated and mutually reinforcing theoretical model that we set out in the next section.

Discussion: Proposing a Composite Model of Transformational Learning, Community and Leadership The findings of our cooperative inquiry illuminate how transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership overlap in multiple and significant ways. We briefly explore three key reflections this opens about existing scholarship, before presenting and explaining our composite model. Our first reflection is that a focus on mattering reveals the wide diversity of cares and concerns among teachers and learners. By inviting participants to share what matters to them and why, we opened the discussion to a wider range of issues that we might normally discuss in the classroom. Care for young people, especially pursuing social justice for disadvantaged young people, was a common concern across the group. Concerns raised included everything from food banks to racism to biodiversity loss. On the one hand, this confirms the extent to which the notion of sustainability encompasses a dizzying range of challenges (Murphy, 2012; Longo et al., 2016). On the other, the organic and discursive approach adopted in our meetings enabled students themselves to identify and reflect on the linkages between these complex challenges. Most significantly, our emphasis on their own lived experiences meant they were constantly reflecting on how they and others were dealing with them, thereby encouraging an understanding that was galvanizing rather than fatalistic. In summary, while the actual situated cares differed among participants, the notion of cares and concerns sui generis held the group together. This in turn opens the possibility of scaling up this kind of hope work. That is, anyone can contribute to and benefit from a similar initiative, if they are open to it. Alternatively, to use language drawn from our business school setting, this kind of initiative has very low barriers to entry and is therefore scalable across different kinds of institutional settings and student populations. Our second reflection is that the process of cooperative inquiry, in and of itself, brought unanticipated benefits. By sharing our experiences and stories about the things that matter to us during regular meetings over the course of four months, as a group we came to know each other better and differently. We all stepped out from behind the veil of our professional/ student personas. For Nilsson (2015, p. 376), surfacing and sharing our inner experiences is

100

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

a key dimension of positive institutional work. That is, transformational change depends on the high-quality connections that emerge in large part from ‘routinised experiential surfacing … marked by a high emotional carrying capacity’ (Nilsson, 2015, p. 376). In our case, the positive emotional response that the inquiry engendered became a central finding, rather than a supplementary sideshow. That is, interrogating and sharing our lived experiences made it clear that our original objective needed to change. We were no longer aiming to develop our own theoretical stance on the concepts of transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership. Instead, we found ourselves developing a more integrated, composite, simultaneous and mutually reinforcing model of all three concepts, centred on a common set of connecting principles and rooted in subjective experiences of practical cares and concerns. This reminds us of Heidegger’s invocation that we should relinquish our habitual and purposeful approach in favour of a more thoughtful (but not passive) form of attunement to others, or what he calls a kind of ‘letting be’ (Heidegger, 1968; Trakakis, 2018). Particularly in the context of such a complex field as sustainability, the journey is as important as the destination. Our third reflection is that this slow, experientially focused experiment points to the possibility of embedding a more bottom–up approach to sustainability, even as we acknowledge the competitive regime that drives HE around the world. What Clarke (2015) calls ‘hope work’ emerged as a central feature of the study, arising in a multitude of small but significant ways. It was there in the unscheduled recounting of small everyday examples of care and caring, before, during and after our meetings and in the respectful and gentle way the co-participants of the group treated each other. Thus, a hopeful disposition became an encultured and symbolic feature of the group. Our study thus bears witness to patches and moments of positive institutional work experienced all the time across the university. These appeared to buck, repel, resist and exist within the often-problematic forces to which we are all subjected to as actors within both an increasingly competitive HE sector and the post-Covid world beyond. Large organizations such as universities are pluralistic and inherently political entities, where the often contradictory and shifting nature of institutional logics appears to close opportunities to address normative positive social purposes. In fact, on the contrary, these shifting sands open spaces for positive institutional work to operate within and across the gaps that open up (Greenwood et al., 2017; Hampel et al., 2017; Kratz and Block, 2017). We need to think about how we can effectively translate our shared and emergent cares and concerns into a language that the organizational hierarchy recognizes, in a way that is still fully compatible with the normative anchors of this chapter. In summary, these three reflections suggest that a focus on mattering, cares and concerns enables a bottom–up approach to sustainability teaching and strategy. This approach enables us to learn from each other, build community and trust, and share leadership across a potentially wide and diverse group. Together with our review of the literature and the process of cooperative inquiry itself, this leads us to offer a reworked model of the three concepts of transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership. That is, we see them not as three separate entities, but as a single composite, integrated and mutually reinforcing model. Figure 5.1 sets out our model, which presents three interlocking and mutually supportive concepts that are in turn based on eight common undergirding features.

101

102

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

FIGURE 5.1  A composite and integrated model of transformational learning, community and leadership, Manchester Metropolitan University. Source: Authors.

The eight principles that underlie transformative learning, transformative community and transformative leadership as follows: Normative: Oriented to addressing specific cares, concerns and mattering. Values-driven: Oriented to an ethical stance involving commitment freedom, community, health and justice. Experiential: Rooted in lived experiences that are located in particular times and places. Relational: Involves building and nurturing relationships of trust and compassion with both people and non-human species who are close to us and further away. Change/future-oriented: Imagines alternative futures where the things, beings and environments about which we care are faring better.

102

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

Teleological: Maps out alternative scenarios and means/ends for bringing about the imagined transformations including the institutional conditions holding systemic and structural incumbency in place. Action-oriented: Advocates for visible and practical action. Positive institutional work: Surfaces and names the institutional work needed to bring about the changes such as hope work, anticipation work, creative and collective leadership work.

Rooted in an experiential ontology, an important implication of our experience, as set out in the chapter so far, is that the model is not to be imposed as an objective tick-box exercise. Rather, we acknowledge that its outputs also will be a product of further experiential surfacing. The model thus represents a reflexive tool, and we present here with this in mind. That is, we hope it will help others in cultivating their own such experiences, in specific time/space care-focused situations, and with the participative and inclusive involvement of those who will be impacted by the changes situated at the heart of the model itself.

Conclusions We have made the case that transformative learning, communities and leadership are overlapping and mutually supportive concepts. Together, they play a key role in hope work. This makes possible the optimistic, agency-centred perspective – with its experiential ontology and emancipatory hopefulness – that has permeated this chapter. Recognizing the strategic and political nature of this kind of positive institutional work, we have hinted that the matters of concern arising within informal and participatory processes like those outlined here might be brought into conversation with – and potentially help shape – more formal, institutional objectives. Here, we set out some ideas for action and invite others to build on our experience in their own way, as together we seek to envision and enjoy a more liveable future for our shared planet. Our First Invitation: Embrace the Power of the Group We are painfully aware of the potential (in)compatibility between an experiential transformative pedagogy rooted in cares and mattering, and structural questions of scale that are unavoidable at large modern universities like Manchester Met. Considering the question of organizational scale, an important lesson and message of our experience has been an appreciation that staff and student experiences of cares and concerns take place at, and are facilitated through, multiple levels within and beyond the university. When done effectively, experiential opportunities do not occur in silos but emerge and unfold at multiple levels throughout the organization, arising both bottom–up and top– down. An important addition to this multilevel organizational perspective is the need to acknowledge the importance of the lower scale of the group, where meaningful and trusting relationships can be developed at a human scale, and experiential surfacing can be enabled in an authentic way. Suggested action points for institutions: Support, nurture and resource staff who are committed to student and community development. 103

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

For staff: Create opportunities for students to meet up in cooperative learning sessions, even if only once or twice a year. Better still, invite people from the local area and further afield to join in. For students: Reach out to fellow students and see if you can share ideas and act together. Tell your lecturers about what you are doing! Our Second Invitation: Embrace the Power of Slow We are also aware that in addition to the challenges of size, a second structural pressure is the potential conflict of temporal scales. Relational, reflective and experiential models rooted in care and caring celebrate ‘slow’. By contrast, the rapid spinning of the accelerated academy represents its antithesis (Honore, 2004; Stengers, 2018; Taylor, 2020). The integrated model of transformative learning, community and leadership proposed in this chapter takes time, as participants engage in and reflect on immersive experiences within specific contexts of care and caring. To borrow from Burbules (2020), how can we foster an approach to sustainability teaching and strategy that is similarly careful, deliberate and perspicacious? Suggested action points for institutions: Foster the understanding and use of more participative methodologies so that the focus of our research is more closely aligned to what really matters to people. For staff: Continue to keep on over the years, even if the gains seem small – over decades they will add up. For students: See if you can link into the communities you live in and help them – invite your lecturers to come with you! This will also help your curriculum vitae/resume and employability. We recognize that these ideas require a change in perspective. We would no longer be asking ‘How quickly can we get this done?’ but rather ‘How deeply does the change resonate and how enduring will it be?’ We think the time is ripe for such a shift. The accelerated everexpanding model of academia risks overloading its staff, depleting the student experience and undermining public confidence in the whole enterprise of HE. The students and staff involved in this chapter have been committed together to bringing about such a change in perspective in our own institution. We invite you to join us. And, as we do so, we wish to acknowledge the memory of our colleague and dear friend Dr Jack Christian, a pioneer in sustainability teaching and practice at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, to whom we dedicate our collective efforts in creating this chapter.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

104

1. Embrace the power of participatory learning and co-creation within heterogenous groups, in terms of in-depth understanding and learning of self and others, and look at it not as a distraction or threat to institutional direction and strategy but as a mechanism for gaining authentic commitment.

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action





2. Do not rush change – take time to understand the needs and possible solutions and work to secure authentic buy-in from staff and students. This can lead to greater levels of commitment from those involved in the co-creation of the initiative and sustain efforts over time. 3. Staff–student participatory methods for sustainability can enable a deep commitment to change for sustainability and can also aid learning and teaching development more generally.

Notes 1 For further information, see https://www.mmu.ac.uk/media/mmua​cuk/cont​ent/docume​nts/equal​ity-anddivers​ity/Equal​ity-and-Divers​ity-Ann​ual-Rep​ort-2019-20.pdf. 2 This compares to a figure of 20 per cent among the UK student population as a whole (Whyte 2019).

References Astin, A. W., and Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging Higher Education in Social Change. Michigan: Kellogg Foundation. Black, A. L. (2018). ‘Responding to Longings for Slow Scholarship: Writing Ourselves into Being’, in A. Black and S. Garvis (eds), Women Activating Agency in Academia: Metaphors, Manifestos and Memoir. London: Routledge, pp. 23–34. Black, A. L., Crimmins, G., and Jones, J. K. (2017). ‘Reducing the Drag: Creating V Formations through Slow Scholarship and Story’. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/finalversionforpublicationReducingthed ragProducingPleasureintheAcademyAliBlacketal.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2021. Blay-Palmer, A., Landman, K., Knezevic, I., and Hayhurst, R. (2013). ‘Constructing Resilient Transformative Communities through Sustainable Food Hubs’. Local Environment, 18 (5), pp. 521–8. Bradbury, H. (2015). ‘How to Situate and Define Action Research’, in H. Bradbury (ed.), Sage Handbook of Action Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage, pp. 1–14. Burbules, N. (2020). ‘Slowness as a Virtue’. Journal of Philosophy and Education, 54 (5), pp. 1443–52. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P., and Dirzo, R. (2017). ‘Population Losses and the Sixth Mass Extinction’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (30), pp. E6089–E6096. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1704949114. Christian, J., and Walley, L. (2015). ‘Termite Tales: Organizational Change – A Personal View of Sustainable Development in a University – As Seen from the “Tunnels”’, in W. Leal Filho, L. Brandli, O. Kuznetsova and A. Paco (eds), Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level. New York: Springer, pp. 525–38. Clarke, A. E. (2015). ‘Anticipation Work: Abduction, Simplification, Hope’, in G. C. Bowker, S. Timmermans, A. C. Clarke and E. Balka (eds), Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, ­chapter 4. Dymitrow, M., and Halfacree, K. (2018). ‘Sustainability – Differently’. Bulletin of Geography. SocioEconomic Series, 40, pp. 7–16. Foucault, M. (1999). ‘Space, Power and Knowledge’, in S. During (ed.) and R. E. Quinn (trans.), The Cultural Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 134–41. Freeman, R., and Auster, E. (2011). ‘Values, Authenticity and Responsible Leadership’. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, pp. 15–23. Friedland, R. (2018). ‘Moving Institutional Logics Forward: Emotion and Meaningful Material Practice’. Organization Studies, 39 (4), pp. 515–42.

105

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Gill, R., and Donaghue, N. (2016). ‘Resilience, Apps and Reluctant Individualism: Technologies of Self in the Neoliberal Academy’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 54, pp. 91–9. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Meyer, R. E. (2017). ‘Introduction: into the Fourth Decade’, in R. G. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence and R. E. Meyer (eds), The Sage Book of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1–23. Guimón, J., and Rajneesh, N. (2020). ‘A Happy Exception: The Pandemic Is Driving Global Scientific Collaboration’. Issues in Science and Technology. 22 April. https://www.resea​rchg​ate.net/prof​ile/Rajne​ esh-Nar​ula/publ​icat​ion/340874988_A_Happy_Exception_The_Pandemic_Is_Driving_Glob​al_S​cien​tifi​ c_Co​llab​orat​ion/links/5ea96​c8ba​6fdc​c705​097d​01a/A-Happy-Except​ion-The-Pande​mic-Is-Driv​ing-Glo​ bal-Sci​enti​fic-Collab​orat​ion.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2021. Haddock-Fraser, J., and Scoffham, S. P. (2018). Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury. Hampel C., Lawrence, T., and Tracey, P. (2017). ‘Institutional Work: Taking Stock and Making It Matter’, in R. G. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence and R. E. Meyer (eds), The Sage Book of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 558–90. Heidegger, M. (1968). What Is Called Thinking? F. D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray (trans.). London: Harper. Hernes, T. (2017). ‘Process as the Becoming of Temporary Trajectory’, in A. Langley and H. Tsoukas (eds), The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 601–7. Heron, J. (1996). Cooperative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition. London: Sage. Heron, J., and Reason, P. (2001). ‘The Practice of Co-Operative Inquiry: Research with Rather Than on People’, in P. Reason and H. Bredbury (eds), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 179–89. Heron, J., and Reason, P. (2008). ‘Extending Epistemology with Co-Operative Inquiry’, in P. Reason and H. Bredbury (eds), Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London: Sage, pp. 366–80. Honore, C. (2004). In Praise of Slow. London: Orion. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). ‘Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis’. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kratz, M., and Block, E. (2017). ‘Institutional Pluralism Revisited’, in R. G. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence and R. E. Meyer (eds), The Sage Book of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 533–7. Lewis, N., and Shore, C. (2019). ‘From Unbundling to Market Making: Reimagining, Reassembling and Reinventing the Public University’. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17 (1), pp. 11–27. Longo, S., Clark, B., Shriver, T., and Clausen, R. (2016). ‘Sustainability and Environmental Sociology: Putting the Economy in Its Place and Moving toward an Integrative Socio-Ecology’. Sustainability, 8 (5), pp. 437–54. Luthans, F., and Avolio, B. (2003). ‘Authentic Leadership Development’, in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn (eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 241–58. Maak, T., and Pless, N. (2006). ‘Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society: A Relational Perspective’. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, pp. 99–115. Maughan, E., and Reason, P. (2001). ‘A Co-Operative Inquiry into Deep Ecology’. ReVision, 23 (4), pp. 18–24. McNeill, L., and Moore, R. (2015). ‘Sustainable Fashion Consumption and the Fast Fashion Conundrum: Fashionable Consumers and Attitudes to Sustainability in Clothing Choice’. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39 (3), pp. 212–22.

106

Transformative Learning for Sustainability Action

Mezirow, J., and Associates (2000). Learning as Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Muhammad, S., Long, X., and Salman, M. (2020). ‘COVID-19 Pandemic and Environmental Pollution: A Blessing in Disguise?’ Science of the Total Environment, 728 (1 August). Murphy, R. (2012). ‘Sustainability: A Wicked Problem’. Sociology, 2, pp. 1–23. Nilsson, W. (2015). ‘Positive Institutional Work: Exploring Institutional Work through the Lens of Positive Organizational Scholarship’. Academy of Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 370–98. Pless, N., and Maak, T. (2011). ‘Values, Authenticity and Responsible Leadership’. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, pp. 15–23. Reason, P., and Bradbury, H. (2006). ‘Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of World Worthy of Human Aspiration’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds), Handbook of Action Research. Concise paperback ed. London: Sage, pp. 1–14. Riley, S., and Reason, P. (2015). ‘Cooperative Inquiry: An Action Research Practice’, in J. Smith (ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. 3rd edition. ed: Sage, pp. 168–98. Roberts, L. M., and Creary, S. J. (2012). ‘Positive Identity Construction: Insights from Classical and Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives’, in K. S. Cameron and G. M. Spreitzer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 953–64. Sandel, M. (2012). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. London: Allen Lane. Sayer, A. (2011.) Why Things Matter to People: Social Sciences, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sayer, A. (2015). ‘Care and Our Relation to the World of Concern’, 1 September. https://epri​nts.lancs. ac.uk/id/epr​int/83007/2/Hanbo​okEt​hico​fCar​epie​ce3.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2021. Searle, A. Turnbull, J., and Lorimer, J. (2021). ‘After the Anthropause: Lockdown Lessons for MoreThan-Human Geographies’. Geography Journal, 187, pp. 69–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ geoj.12373. Shields, C. M. (2011). ‘Transformative Leadership: An Introduction’, in C. M. Shields (ed.), Transformative Leadership: A Reader. New York: Peter Lang. Shields, C. M. (2017). Transformative Leadership in Education: Equitable and Socially Just Change in an Uncertain and Complex World. New York: Routledge. Shields, C. M. (2020). ‘Transformative Leadership’. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, 29 May. https://oxfor​dre.com/educat​ion/view/10.1093/acref​ore/978019​0264​093.001.0001/acref​ore978019​0264​093-e-632. Accessed 26 September 2021. Southern, N. (2007). ‘Mentoring for Transformative Learning: The Importance of Relationship in Creating Learning Communities of Care’. Journal of Transformative Education, 5 (4), pp. 329–38. Souza, D. T., Wal, A. E. J., and Jacobi, P. R. (2019). ‘Learning Based Transformations towards sustainability: A Relational Approach Based on Humberto Maturna and Paula Freire’. Environmental Education Research, 25 (11), pp. 1605–19. Stengers, I. (2018). Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science. Cambridge: Polity. Stirling, A. (2019). ‘How Deep Is Incumbency? A “Configuring Fields” Approach to Re-Distributing and Re-Orienting Power in Socio-Material Change’. Energy Research and Social Science, 58. Taylor, C. (2020). ‘Slow Singularities for Collective Mattering: New Material Feminist Praxis in the Accelerated Academy’. Irish Educational Studies, 39 (2), pp. 255–72. Taylor, E. W. (2008). ‘Transformative Learning Theory’. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 5–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301. Tomkins, L., and Simpson, P. (2015). ‘Caring Leadership: A Heideggerian Perspective’. Organization Studies, 36 (8), pp. 1013–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/01708​4061​5580​008. Trakakis, N. (2018). ‘Slow Philosophy’. Heythrop Journal, 59, pp. 221–39. Tsing, A. (2017). ‘A Threat to Holocene Resurgence Is a Threat to Liveability’, in M. Brightman and J. Lewis (eds), The Anthropology of Sustainability. London: Palgrave, pp. 51–65. United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 30 December 2021.

107

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

United Nations (2021). ‘ “Deeply Negative Impact” of COVID Pandemic, Reverses SDG Progress’. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/07/1095​942. Accessed 25 September 2021. Wals, A. E. J. (2020). ‘Transgressing the Hidden Curriculum of Unsustainability: Towards a Relational Pedagogy of Hope’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52 (8), pp. 825–6. Washington, H. (2015). Demystifying Sustainability: Towards Real Solutions. London: Routledge. Wedlin, L., and Sahlin, K. (2017). ‘The Imitation and Translation of Management Ideas’, in R. G. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence and R. E. Meyer (eds), The Sage Book of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 102–27. Whelan, A. Walker, R., and Moore, C. (2013). Zombies in the Academy: Living Death in Higher Education. Bristol: Intellect Books. Whitehead, A. N. (1938/1968). Modes of Thought. New York: Free Press. Whyte, W. (2019). Somewhere to Live: Why British Students Study Away from Home and Why It Matters. London: HEPI. Downloaded from https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2019/11/HEP​I_So​mewh​ ere-to-live​_Rep​ort-121-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2021. Wijaya, H., and Heugens, P. (2018). ‘Give Me a Hallelujah! Amen! Institutional Reproduction in the Presence of Moral Perturbation and the Dynamics of Emotional Investment’. Organization Studies, 39 (4), pp. 491–514. Zietsma, C., and Toubiana, M. (2018). ‘The Valuable, the Constitutive, and the Energetic: Exploring the Impact and Importance of Studying Emotions and Institutions’. Organization Studies, 39 (4), pp. 427–3.

108

109

6

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs in Fragile Contexts ARAM YERETZIAN

Introduction Humans are consuming natural resources and producing material waste, wastewater and greenhouse gas emissions at an unsustainable rate, contributing to environmental degradation as well as negative social and economic impacts. Within an overall perception of advancement, many are being left behind with rising differences in both wealth and health. These disparities become even more apparent in moments of crisis, whether the disruptions are due to natural disasters, societal conflict (e.g. civil strife) and/or unstable governance structures (e.g. corruption). Climate change, an outcome of human actions, can exacerbate these inequities. As such, crises are both a cause of imbalance and an outcome of imbalance. Consequently, societies need to develop the capacity and capability to address the ensuing complex problems through education and practice. This is particularly important to achieving the 2030 targets for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015), with higher education particularly important to realization of the goals in developing societies. In Lebanon and its capital city Beirut, various crises have created episodes of extreme imbalance and fragility, such as the 2006 war, Covid-19 pandemic, the 4 August 2020 explosion and apparent government corruption, alongside climate change and human-induced environmental disasters, economic collapse, social inequalities and relatively poor infrastructure services (energy, water, municipal waste management, etc.) (Abdul-Reda Abourjeili and Harb, 2020; World Bank, n.d. a). These all contribute to a condition of imbalance, with people focused on meeting their basic or ‘survival’ needs of food, shelter and so on. In such a context, where short-term needs prevail, attention to longer-term needs such as education and sustainability issues is necessarily limited. However, it is argued here that sustainability is the means by which imbalances and fragilities are addressed and an equilibrium achieved among the three key pillars of the biosphere, society and economy (Clark and Munn, 1986). Education in general and universities in particular are essential to this rebalancing agenda. A brief look at the background and evolution of the university in Lebanon is important to provide the context and support an understanding of the current initiatives that relate to sustainability in higher education.

109

10

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

1990s until Today In the post-civil war years in Lebanon, a sense of ‘financial ease’ reigned in the country. The World Bank indicators show the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita between 1997 and 2006 averaged around US$4,500 (in current US$), and it increased to an average of around US$7,800 between 2010 and 2019 (World Bank, n.d. b). According to the same source, the GDP per capita growth (annual percentage) averaged around 5 per cent from 1993 to 2010. Then, due to national and regional events, it dropped to subzero values (World Bank, n.d. c). At that point, following a fifteen-year civil war that ended abruptly in 1990, without a clear and thorough resolution of the issues, budgets available from regional and international sources created many job opportunities and standards of life improved in some ways. Societal issues were resolved in a reactive way. Sustainability was not an aim because people did not feel that they needed it; they did not understand the value and the advantage of pursuing sustainability. Higher education institutions were not able to convince people of the importance of sustainable development despite the interest of university personnel, including faculty, to pursue sustainability given its popularity in the Western world, that is, wanting emulate the developed world. Today Although the GDP per capita indicator of the World Bank provides the latest value of approximately US$4,800 (in current US$) for the year 2020, some studies have shown that the value is significantly less (World Bank, n.d. a). The GDP per capita growth (annual percentage) in 2020 was at about -20 per cent (World Bank, n.d. c). Today, people in Lebanese society are reacting to and dealing with a new situation. Using resources as in previous decades is no longer an option, given the lack of energy, a shortage of potable water, absence of public transport, shortage of fuel and non-existent waste management systems. Together with an economic meltdown, demonstrated by the devaluation of the Lebanese pound by around 90 per cent (Deutsche Welle, 2021), the price of all commodities is rising significantly. Consequently, people are being more careful in using resources and are paying closer attention to energy use, fuel consumption in cars, purchasing food and so on. In a certain way, a weaker economy is resulting in more sustainable behaviours. In Lebanon, while individual actions towards more sustainable actions are apparent, they remain largely reactive and focused on addressing problems that are more acute, such as the solid waste problem or the 4 August 2020 explosion that destroyed a substantial portion of central Beirut. At this time, faculty members, students, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people in the community are coming together to help alleviate the pain suffered by citizens. Although plans are set up to resolve these issues, sustainability at a societal scale is not addressed in a strategic manner in Lebanon. In this chapter, the approach and framework are outlined, before focusing on the role of the American University of Beirut (AUB), in a developing economy within a fragile context. From this, key issues are drawn out in the context of advancing delivery of the SDGs through pedagogical approaches. Overall, the transformative role of higher education is analysed, with AUB as the case study.

110

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

Self actualization

Self-fulfillment needs

achieving one’s full potential including creative activities

Esteem needs

Prestige, feeling of accomplishment

Psychological needs

Belonging and love needs intimate relationships, friends

Safety needs

safety and security

Basic needs

Physiological needs

food, water, warmth, rest

FIGURE 6.1  Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (adapted from Simplypsychology, 2007).

Human Needs Certain basic human needs have to be met to ensure a balanced condition in a society. As shown in Figure 6.1, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, peoples’ most basic requirements are physiological and safety needs. It would be particularly challenging for a person to develop cultural, artistic and/or literary sensibilities if that person is constantly striving to secure food, potable water and so on. Education supports the psychological and self-actualization needs in this model. In their book Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices, Lawrence and Nohria (2001) propose that all human beings share four basic drives that guide human behaviour and influence the choices people make: to acquire (immaterial things and material goods), to bond (interactions and relationships with others), to learn (acquire new skills investigate new ideas) and to defend (protect belongings and repel potential threats). Securing these drives would provide people with physical and psychological security, allowing them to enhance their capabilities and develop their competences. This fits well with meeting the psychological and self-actualization needs of Maslow’s hierarchy, in particular the role of education in these domains. Another model relevant to conceptualizing sustainability and education is that of Rockström and Sukhdev at the Stockholm Resilience Center (2014), who are clear that societies and economies are connected with the biosphere rather than separate dimensions. Inherent in this model is balance among people, planet and prosperity in a way that builds on the interdependencies of the processes associated with these dimensions and promotes a co-evolutionary perspective to their development whereby prosperity and the economy supports the growth of human well-being rather than the growth of GDP. Furthermore, since the economy is an outcome of, and is influenced by, society, any inequities in a society can hinder economic growth (Crepin

111

12

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and Folke, 2015; Cvitanovic et al., 2018) . If society is disrupted, it is likely to negatively influence the biosphere and, since the biosphere is supporting life systems, it could literally destroy the planetary resources we rely on (fresh air, clean water, etc.). Whatever the existing conditions of ecology and social context are, they need to be considered as starting points whose co-evolutionary development would support a dynamic relationship between society, economy and the biosphere resulting in contexts characterized by resilience and well-being (Haider et al., 2021). Societies that do not adhere to such approaches will not thrive, as can be seen within particular contexts where large-scale fishing, soil deterioration, logging and so on have adverse effects on the environment (Seider, 2017). As such, higher education could support the cognitive development and practical implementation along the multiple dimensions of sustainability (Simplypsychology, 2007). It can help establish a framework that reflects the core drive to learn, and enhance the aptitude and competence to address complex issues related to sustainability (Lawrence and Nohria, 2001). Finally, higher education could support and build on an understanding of the nested nature of the economy and society with the planet (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2014). In this way, the dynamic interdependency of the planet’s natural systems with society and the economy are harnessed to create a world where no one is left behind (Gurău and Dana, 2018). In developing countries such as Lebanon, levels of environmental degradation surpass global and regional levels whereby air pollution, poor water quality, cropland and forest degradation, lack of waste treatment and degraded marine ecosystems and so on characterize a context in dire need of remediation (Doumani, 2019). It is useful to reflect on the particular environmental, economic and social aspects in Lebanon’s capital Beirut in order to understand the state of each. Table 6.1 illustrates the results of an analysis conducted by the author (AY) within the context of this city. The issues at the lowest level of the scale are termed ‘Survival’ and relate to the situation where basic needs are not being met. Under ‘Maintaining Quality of Life’, some needs are met while others are still not achieved in the context. Finally, ‘Improving the Quality of Life’ refers to the needs that are met/secured and have the potential to achieve further improvements. TABLE 6.1  Criteria for Different Levels of Sustainable Development in Beirut

Ecological

Social

Economic

Survival

- Improve air quality - Reduce domestic waste - Save water - Save energy - Increase wildlife - Create open spaces - Reduce traffic

- Reduce poverty - Increase local democracy - Encourage sports

- Create more jobs - Provide more capital for business

Maintaining quality of life

- Create safer streets

- Maintain heritage

- Improve pool of skilled people - Develop tourism

Improving the quality of life

- Improve and maintain decent environmental quality

- Improve social quality (develop, promote and sponsor arts)

- Improve standards of living (create jobs and identify industries that generate jobs)

Source: Authors

112

13

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

Higher Education In developing nation contexts, the role of higher education takes on a crucial dimension because of the imbalance in various aspects of society. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, n.d.), ‘higher education is expected to play a pivotal role in sustainable development, economic growth, decent work, gender equality and responsible global citizenship in all regions’. An increase in collaboration efforts regarding sustainable development through networks has helped bring the SDGs into university curriculum, research tracks, campus management and other dimensions. However, there remains a lot more to be done (International Association of University–Higher Education for Sustainable Development (IAU–HESD), n.d.). Integrating the numerous dimensions of sustainability into higher education can contribute to building and expanding this capacity by enhancing the criticalthinking capabilities of students (Howlett et al., 2016). A university can therefore be a catalyst for change, a platform that encourages students to look at problems from different perspectives in a sustainable way as well as to generate and comply with related indicators. This can strengthen students’ overall capabilities so that they can better face current and future challenges related to sustainable development. The University as a Catalyst for Change Universities need to identify and develop methodologies to address sustainability based on transformative approaches that consolidate links within the institution and with the community it serves at national and international levels. This would inform transformation within and outside the university in order to work towards establishing sustainable platforms in the future (Purcell et al., 2019). In developing human capacity, skills and performance, universities drive economic growth especially within a local context. However, this growth is often subjected to local challenges and circumstances (Beer and Cooper, 2007). A healthy and sustainable relationship between a university and the community needs to address the: 1. internal dimension (e.g. dynamics, policies and culture inside the university); 2. external dimension (e.g. interactions with the community); 3. existing imbalance of resource and respect of the local community identity; 4. personal dimension (e.g. all social, personal and professional issues relating to faculty and professional staff members). A sustainable university community engagement strategy is one that will work across these dimensions to build the necessary and required community capacities (Ashcraft et al., 2012). The University as a Platform to Encourage Sustainable Perspectives: A Living Lab The availability of resources influences the pivotal role that a university can play in promoting sustainable development. Having significant research capacities and intellectual resources, these institutions can experiment, define and develop innovative approaches that induce social change through community engagement. The platform for these experiments, called ‘living laboratories’ (Purcell et al., 2019), can be the city and the university campus. Living labs work towards generating knowledge to support solutions for real-life problems by allowing and encouraging

113

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

different stakeholders to identify issues and challenges. This collaborative approach aims to develop new knowledge that will be the basis of action targeting particular subjects. In such contexts, pedagogical approaches allow the guided investigation of numerous approaches and possibilities. Such a guided approaches would strengthen and deepen the understanding of problems with local social impact. Furthermore, the university can create and adopt learning approaches that de-risk projects by piloting creative methodologies that address problems. As a result, the knowledge generated would be shared with other public and private agencies or stakeholders in the community (municipality, business, NGOs, etc.) who then tailor and scale the output and integrate it in future development scenarios. Based on careful contextual observation, living labs can contribute to large-scale societal shift to sustainability (König and Evans, 2013). Indicators for Sustainability There is no consensus on the best way to measure initiatives addressing sustainability in institutions of higher education, albeit there are a range of rankings and ratings across the sector, such as the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (Times Higher Education, 2021), the AASHE Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (STARS, n.d.) and so on. Moreover, these assessment methods that attempt to quantify what campuses are doing and how the initiatives are being addressed often fail to describe the motivation and reasons behind the particular approaches, as well as the context in which the university is operating. Those efforts that do attempt to quantify sustainability provide some important insights, including benchmarks, best practices and experiences. Available assessment methods have converged on several common assessment criteria, one of which focuses on the educational aspect of sustainability. This stipulates that other than the courses that need to be incorporated into the academic curricula, the student experience should also include active learning, research and service related to environmental and social issues at the larger societal scale (Shriberg, 2002).

University Initiatives The American University of Beirut Established in 1866 as the Syrian Protestant College, the institution was renamed the American University of Beirut (AUB) in 1920. The AUB graduated its first cohort of five students in 1871. In 2020, there were 9,495 enrolled students. In 1867, there were just two academic options available, whereas today the university offers 141 undergraduate and graduate programmes across six faculties. Ever since its inception, the university has played a key role in Lebanon and in the wider region. Educational, political, religious and personal issues are interwoven within AUB, allowing the institution to evolve into having a unique role and perspective over the past 155 years. The earliest event that illustrates this would be the turmoil created when Professor Edwin Lewis stated his support of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The students’ reaction to these unfolding events at that time reflected the activism and freedom of expression that still characterizes AUB today. Other examples include, the 1909 protests regarding freedom of religious studies, protests on behalf of Arab causes (particularly after Second World War), those against the establishment of the State of Israel, or in support of Algerian independence, the union 114

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

of Egypt and Syria, the 1967 war, as well as the voicing of different opinions during the civil war in Lebanon (El-Cheikh et al., 2016). In parallel with the institution’s development, Beirut city transitioned from a coastal town during the middle of the nineteenth century to a major city and commercial centre in the 1960s. The pedagogic transition of AUB has accompanied the evolving profile of the institution. In the early 1900s, professors no longer required students to memorize lectures and present material from recall. A new direction in liberal education encouraged students to actively participate in producing knowledge, conducting research and engaging in scientific experimentation. In the 1950s, the Civilization Sequence programme (El-Cheikh et al., 2016) began to infiltrate into classrooms. As the years and decades passed, students’ freedom of expression was increasingly supported by the administration as a core value of liberal education. In 1955, the editorial in AUB’s bulletin ‘Outlook’ stated thus: ‘Students should have the right to voice their own opinions in matters that concern them. They should be able to give the administration their own side of all their problems, for the way the faculty members and the way the students see these same affairs could differ greatly’ (Outlook, 1955, p. 2). An important dimension of AUB is the fact that it has survived two world wars, the dissolution of an empire, colonization, decolonization, a civil war, an occupation and numerous other events in between. Since the inception of the university, people at AUB did not just passively witness the events; they were actors contributing to and engaging with unfolding events. AUB is a platform where progressive thought, knowledge and ideas are generated and propagated; it is an institution where knowledge-based involvement has dynamically changed as required by the issues, the scales and the events of our times. As stated by AUB President Dr Fadlo Khuri: The time has come for higher education to ride that wave of change: to anticipate it, and to adapt and even find opportunity within it. To continue with their mission, higher education institutions must remain relevant – to people, their lives, their struggles, their perceptions, and their hopes and fears for the present and the future. (Khuri, 2020) This mirrors AUB’s mission statement of an institution of higher learning founded to provide excellence in education, to participate in the advancement of knowledge through research, and to serve the peoples of the Middle East and beyond. Chartered in New York State in 1863, the university bases its educational philosophy, standards and practices on the American liberal arts model of higher education. The university community believes deeply in, and encourages, freedom of thought and expression and seeks to foster tolerance and respect for diversity and dialogue. Graduates have been and will continue to be individuals committed to creative and critical thinking, life-long learning, personal integrity, civic responsibility and leadership (Mission and Vision, n.d.). Consequently, AUB offers students numerous opportunities to engage with social, economic and environmental initiatives while they interact with each other, with faculty and with people in the community, by addressing sustainable issues at the academic level (course delivery), the campus level (environmental strategies) and the national level (community outreach and environmental support for diverse government agencies). The particular challenges are associated with the fact that this is taking place within the context of a developing society/economy while trying to embrace the concepts of sustainability. AUB is a place to promote such initiatives and 115

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

interdisciplinary work as manifested by the numerous collaborations between the university and Lebanese society aimed at the continuous development of such initiatives. Within AUB, the Maroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture (MSFEA) plays a key role in training students to face, understand and resolve challenges at different scales in in different contexts. MSFEA was established as a School of Engineering in 1951 (About MSFEA, n.d.). Recently, consistent with current planetary conditions and interests, the pedagogical approach at the MSFEA has strengthened its human-centred design approach. MSFEA is a hub promoting sustainability at the university level and beyond, and it works towards achieving a more viable, liveable and equitable world. Its objectives include strengthening its position as a faculty driven by a core value of furthering human well-being and ‘to graduate students who are skilled in their disciplines, communicate effectively, and have been trained to think critically, creatively, and entrepreneurially and to aspire to be engaged citizen-leaders of high integrity’. MSFEA acts as an institutional catalyst, whereby faculty attitudes, performance and behaviours serve as ‘ripples in the pond’ (About MSFEA, n.d.). This is having a positive impact on the lives of students and, to a certain extent, the institutions within which they exist. The fact that student engagement in this academic setting has been impactful can be seen in students’ thoughtful consideration of societal problems, their choice of career paths as well as their various levels of involvement in regional, national and international contexts. To further support innovative approaches, the Dean of MSFEA Professor Alan Shihadeh and colleagues introduced catalysts for transformative change that embrace innovation, pedagogy and knowledge production to promote human well-being. This new direction is reflected in the way faculty design/redesign academic courses, conduct and pursue research, and shift their academic priorities. For example, MSFEA faculty members can attend workshops at the Stanford Hasso Plattner d. school, where they interact with professionals from different countries and diverse disciplines (arts, humanities, sciences, etc.) and backgrounds. This experience exposed MSFEA faculty members to a design process that encourages out-of-the-box thinking and incorporates human-centric dimensions in technical topics. This thinking approach and methodology is now integrated into the teaching process within the courses that faculty members deliver. The aim is to encourage students and faculty to discuss the region’s complicated and challenging problems and propose creative solutions that focus on human values. Moreover, this involvement of MSFEA faculty continues after their return from Stanford through periodic meetings, the exchange of ideas and the sharing of experiences. MSFEA has created a milieu where students can engage with environmental problems and issues that are brought from the external environment into the institution so that students’ intellectual resources are marshalled and channelled towards sustainability. Although there are numerous barriers manifest by the academic structure within AUB (e.g. administration, rules, policies, accreditation, etc.), as well as professional bodies that do not accommodate disciplines outside AUB, faculty members and students are engaged in future thinking and finding creative ways to work and innovate within the system. Pedagogic initiatives championed by MSFEA fall within three categories: research, education and external leadership. Teaching Student-centred, teacher-led or a combined approach occupy a large part of the discussion about pedagogical methodologies. These methods support efforts in education for sustainable

116

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

development. Although a teacher’s experience could be relevant in defining a problem and supporting particular enquiry methods, students’ hands-on research related to empathy, ideation, investigation and prototyping are crucial to ensure an engaging learning experience. In a developing economy context that lacks a strategic vision regarding infrastructure, energy, waste management and so on at a national level, supporting the active learning process arms the students with enhanced knowledge of problems and their interdependency. These pedagogic processes range from faculty-led initiatives to full programmes. A faculty member has agency and can introduce innovation in the classroom. Transforming course content and assignments can maintain the course learning outcomes while guiding and encouraging students to analyse and reflect on issues that relate to different sustainability-related topics. At another scale, the university is displaying signs of an institutional leap due to the establishment of programmes that allow students to complete concentrations in particular subjects that fall within the broader dimensions of sustainability. Some of the main examples illustrating the focus on developing innovative mechanisms/approaches to support education for the SDGs are explored here. Two Courses and Final Year Projects In the MSFEA, numerous courses address subjects within the scope of sustainability. Two courses – Environmentally Responsive Buildings and Scales of Sustainability – offer students the opportunity to analyse, research and develop knowledge relating to sustainable aspects in the built environment. In the Environmentally Responsive Buildings course (Undergraduate Catalogue 2021– 2022, n.d.), students in different departments (architecture, civil engineering, urban planning and mechanical engineering) work in groups to address the quality of the built environment. The course addresses topics such as the relationship of built form to the environment, explores building concepts related to solar radiation, wind flow and daylight, as well as the sustainable dimensions and performance of construction methods and materials. Other topics that inform student work include structures and materials in nature, water in the environment, structural systems in nature and the critical assessment of building performance. The course encourages students to consider and apply environment-friendly building strategies in their career. This is an interactive course because it encourages students from different departments to discuss and share perspectives regarding subjects that require interdisciplinary work to be resolved. The coursework is supported by the Climate Design Laboratory (Climate Design Lab, n.d.), a resource that provides for hands-on investigations and real-life simulations of issues pertaining to climate and buildings. During the course, two external professors meet with the students and talk to them about water, landscape and other integral components of a project that is harmonious within its context. The main aim of the course is to encourage a discussion between the different professional backgrounds by providing a platform for dialogue across their disciplines. This approach encourages students to interact with people that share similar interests in different private or public sectors, such as the building industry, the municipalities, the ministries and so on. Field visits to key buildings in the city help students understand and experience the degree of performance and environmental impact a building has within its environment. The Scales of Sustainability course (Undergraduate Catalogue 2021–2022, n.d.) is a special topics course that adopts a seminar format where students present and critically discuss issues

117

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

relevant to the SDGs at global, national and/or regional scales. The subjects include economic development, the diffusion of economy, waves of technological change, poverty and health, growth dynamics, energy, population, social inclusion, health, planetary boundaries, climate change and urban resilience. Research and discussions focus on understanding how the contemporary requirements and strategies of water, energy, transportation, materials, urbanization and so on can affect the human race at different scales – global and local. Students’ capacity to critically understand, analyse and address these issues develops throughout the course. The two courses differ in approach, delivery and general aims. The Environmentally Responsive Buildings course equips students with knowledge about relationships between building performance and its connection with the larger built environment. Training students to build on their diverse background knowledge is done by working in groups and nurturing team dynamics. The Scales of Sustainability course supports a thorough understanding of social, economic and environmental issues on the planet: how the human race got to where it is and options for the future. The course focuses more on strengthening the students’ capacity to perform fundamental research, to develop a critical knowledge base and to enhance different types of presentation skills. Both courses aim to develop students’ critical-thinking capabilities, paving the way for them to develop their knowledge base throughout their careers. The students complete a course evaluation online, towards the end of the semester. Environmentally Responsive Buildings scored 4.4 out of 5, while Scales of Sustainability got a score of 4.8 out of 5. The scores on individual criteria were similar to the average score for the courses. To assess the usefulness of these courses, the author (AY) conducted an online survey with 129 former students who took the courses over the past three years. Among the twentyone former students who responded, more than half found the design-related components of the course relevant and nine students would have liked further practical applications. Students would have liked to discuss further implementation to existing houses, laboratory work, case studies and site visits. Only four former students pursued further studies in sustainability, and eleven students have worked or are currently working in mostly private organizations that promote different dimensions of sustainability in the built environment. Fourteen students acknowledged that these courses helped them in their career by providing them with an awareness and understanding of buildings, their performance, their relationship to climate, mechanical systems as well as the importance of interdisciplinary perspectives and collaboration. Fifteen students intend to pursue this subject further, and seven have participated in projects that have a sustainable component, such as the design of a district cooling plant, managing the life cycle of plastic, certifying buildings in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and contributing to the design of a residential and commercial project Passive House (an energy efficient building that reduces its ecological footprint). Finally, in terms of general feedback, eighteen were satisfied with the courses and found their content relevant and beneficial. During the final year of studies, each architecture and engineering student must complete a final year project (FYP). Although the themes of these projects vary depending on their interests, more students are addressing subjects that lie within the sustainability field. Examples of architecture students’ FYPs include topics such as communal domestic waste treatment centres, sustainable housing projects and energy-efficient and socially sensitive building renovation. Engineering students’ FYPs include themes on sustainable construction recycled materials, optimized solar photovoltaic system applications and city specific public transport systems. It 118

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

would be interesting for students from different departments to work on common FYPs, but to date, this type of work is still confined to the academic department where a student is registered. Flex Curriculum If a student at MSFEA wants to acquire deeper knowledge about a particular subject, they may choose to pursue the Flexible Curriculum (FLEX 24) in order to develop their competence in a subject other than their main discipline. Successfully completing twenty-four credits (eight courses) allows for a comprehensive study necessary for a meaningful exploration of topics that are of interest to the student. A Bachelor’s degree in Engineering consists of 143 credits distributed over four years of study. The credits are gained by allocating all the electives to the subject of interest during the third and fourth years of study. For example, an undergraduate mechanical engineering student can choose to register for several existing courses and complete a module in bio-inspired design. The four available options for FLEX 24 are robotics, engineering for sustainability, finance/economics/entrepreneurship as well as bio-inspired design. Other modules may be added in the future, and include humanitarian/crisis engineering, food–water–health nexus and product design. Although the system is set up, it was delayed due to the prevailing Covid-19 situation and was relaunched in fall of 2021. Interfaculty Graduate Environmental Sciences Programme This programme was launched in 1997 and aims to address important and timely issues concerning the environment in Lebanon and the Arab World. The programme adopts an interdisciplinary, student-centred learning approach aimed to develop critical and systems-thinking skills. This academic engagement could help produce agents of change in the country and the region. The curriculum focuses on local relevance and competence-based learning as a model for the Arab World. An important dimension of this initiative is that it can, if the context proves to be suitable, serve as a model that can be transferred to other institutions of higher education in Lebanon or in the Arab World (Zurayk et al., 2010). Interfaculty Humanitarian Engineering Initiative In 2017, MSFEA partnered with the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) to create the Interfaculty Humanitarian Engineering Initiative (n.d.) as a response to the humanitarian and public health challenges affecting vulnerable and underprivileged population groups at the local, regional and global scales. The initiative focuses on generating innovative and multidisciplinary solutions that help improve the health and well-being of people in the region. This responds to the emerging public health problems in the region and the urgency of meeting the SDGs. What started as a three-credit elective course has developed into a minor and a diploma, offered to undergraduate students and graduates, respectively. Students from FHS and MSFEA, from other AUB faculties as well as from outside AUB can participate in the initiative by engaging with a group of around twenty faculty members to address and deliver knowledge relating to various issues. An integral component of this initiative is service learning that encourages multidisciplinary solutions in the domain of public health. In addition, student entrepreneurial capabilities are developed so that they are able to engage with the community and ensure that projects are picked up and continued by members of the society in a sustainable manner. 119

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

When the students graduate, their prior involvement in the projects allows them to pursue their work either on a voluntary basis or as employment. Projects initiated, developed and implemented due to this initiative include ‘Ma3an – Together Against Corona’, the official contact-tracing application for Lebanon, ‘Portable Lab: Exposing High School Students of Public Schools to Robotics’, and developing a platform to deliver health awareness messages and guidance to women Syrian refugees living in urban settings (Service & Research Projects, n.d.). The evolution of this initiative in the academic context (i.e. increasing number of students pursuing minor degree and diploma, growing involvement of faculty members) testifies to the sustainable academic dimension of this initiative. However, sustainability within the society has not yet been achieved, largely due to the relocation or immigration of students who are seeking more favourable working and living opportunities abroad. Research on SDGs in Developing Economies In an attempt to support the development of the knowledge-based economy of Lebanon and the region, new research centres powered by interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches were created by the MSFEA at AUB. These centres encourage and develop fundamental and applied research that addresses and seeks to solve real problems in Lebanon and the region by collaboration with diverse disciplines (Research, n.d.). The first research centre addresses Resilient Infrastructure (n.d.) and develops innovative materials, cutting-edge designs, new sensor technologies and advanced numerical models that promote smart ‘Structural Health Monitoring’ of mechanical and civil infrastructure. The overarching goal is to produce more resilient, efficient infrastructure that is capable of withstanding increased exposure to natural and human-made hazards such as earthquakes, fires, changing climate or war. These allow the creation and development of contemporary solutions to sustainability with innovative construction technologies and geo-materials – solutions that also work around challenges posed by limited funds. The second centre focuses on Urban Challenges (n.d.), which considers the Greater Beirut Area an urban laboratory. Faculty, students and professionals in the domains of planning, engineering and architecture ‘research ways to address cross-sectoral and trans-disciplinary problems related to the urban growth in the Global South’. The knowledge produced and developed aims to improve liveability, sustainability and resilience in cities by focusing on sustainable transportation systems, affordable housing and property rights, post-war recovery, sound governance and urban pollution modelling. The third centre addresses Environment and Energy (n.d.). Here, work involves developing novel, sustainable, low footprint solutions to address the challenges of urbanization, population growth and accelerated economic development in the global south. Its interdisciplinary research interests encompass a wide range of fields, including renewable energy, energy systems analysis, energy efficient buildings, environmental systems modelling, water resources engineering, solid waste management, air pollution control, bioremediation as well as water and wastewater treatment and management. Research output is complemented by capacity building and supports public policy (Saliba and Chaaban, 2015). Each of these research centres has several sub-tracks that address specific issues within the broader theme. The work within the centres is based on interactive modes of communication and 120

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

collaboration whereby faculty and students from diverse backgrounds and disciplines share their knowledge and expertise in an attempt to formulate the right questions regarding a problem. This process is particularly useful because it can identify and help formulate answers that need to be addressed urgently. This methodology is generating a significant amount of faculty-published research that tackle the SDGs. The nature of these papers varies from technical subjects to crossdisciplinary work involving professors and students from different academic departments within MSFEA and across other faculties.

External Leadership and Involvement to Achieve a Situation of Balance In addition to the courses and programmes offered by AUB, faculty members have created and developed initiatives that cater for challenges in the local context. One of these is the Pro-Green Diploma, which serves to develop the capabilities of professionals engaged in industry (design offices, contracting offices, governmental agencies, NGOs, real estate development offices, etc.). This Joint Professional Diploma in Green Technologies (Pro-Green Diploma) is offered entirely online and was established in 2012, being the first of its kind in the Middle East. It was developed by three universities: AUB, the American University in Cairo and the Lebanese American University. Professionals interested in expanding their knowledge can focus on one of three offered specializations: water, energy or buildings. The Pro-Green Diploma helps working professionals in fields related to natural science, mathematics, engineering and architecture further develop their skills and compete in the emerging and rapidly expanding green energy market. A survey shows that 70 per cent of the graduates who obtained the Pro-Green Diploma work in private companies and 30 per cent work in governmental or other public institutions as project managers, executive directors, landscape designers, senior urban planners and so on. This reflects the diversity of the impact that these people have on sustainability transitions in the public and private sectors. The second initiative is the Center for Civic Engagement and Community Service (CCECS, n.d.), officially established in 2008. This centre is an example of how individual professors at MSFEA have reached out to the community to build relationships between AUB and the community, humanitarian agencies, policymakers and the like, with a mission to deal with challenges and promote sustainable planning. Over recent years, the work has reacted to crises and empowered marginalized communities. This started after the 2006 armed conflict when the AUB relief efforts were created. Based on the support provided then by AUB President Dr Waterbury, several faculty members came together to create a task force that prepared and distributed food boxes. Then, given the existing funding, some faculty members were instrumental in reporting on and assessing an oil spill that resulted from the conflict. As the challenges grew and work increased, there was a need to institutionalize these efforts and make things happen in a sustainable way – opening up AUB more to society. This was aligned with the accreditation the university achieved in 2004, making AUB the first academic institution in Lebanon to be granted accreditation by the US Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Moreover, in 2008, the AUB Medical Center received full accreditation by the Joint Commission International (JCI) (John Waterbury, n.d.). The objectives of the CCECS are to promote the integration of service to society, with academic instruction and research in different disciplines, to encourage responsibility and leadership 121

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

through volunteer outreach services as well as to create close links with the community. One of the main aims of the centre is to make the education more relevant to the community. Based on this, successful projects completed to date include the rehabilitation of a communal pond in a small village and the improvement of walkability in a neighbourhood next to the AUB campus. The rehabilitation project entitled ‘Reclaiming the Traditional Water Conservation Practices in Rural South Lebanon: The Case of Marwaheen Village’ was completed successfully in accordance with the ‘Every Drop Counts’ concept mandated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, n.d.). Close coordination with the Marwaheen municipality resulted in a significant water storage capacity due to increased catchment and reduction of water loss due to infiltration. Improved access to water allowed farmers to increase cultivated areas. Moreover, agriculture experts trained local farmers on more efficient irrigation methods. Following this project, the CCECS conducted research projects and pursued implementation in several adjacent villages (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, n.d.). Improving walkability in a Beirut neighbourhood, the Jeanne D’Arc Street case study, involved the transformation of broken, dangerous and unpleasant sidewalks to proper pedestrian zones. This initiative also responded to local legislation (Act 220/2000 and Decree 7194/2011) to improve accessibility for disabled people. The result included completing missing sections of sidewalks, widening others, introducing paving systems that cater for the visually impaired and installing rainwater drainage and ramps to allow access for the physically disabled. Urban furniture, such as light poles, benches, signage and bicycle racks, and tree planting further enhanced the functionality and visual aspect of the street (Inclusive Neighborhood Jeanne d’Arc Street, n.d.). In addition to international collaborators, municipal partners and neighbourhood residents, these projects were completed with the involvement of AUB faculty members from different departments and students. This work encouraged students’ civic engagement by including community service as an integral component of the curriculum defined by a professor. This type of engagement supported service learning and trained students to engage in community contexts and address the challenges at hand. Students’ involvement in the CCECS can be through a course such as the Karm El-Zeitoun Animated Trail Project (n.d.), through scholarships such as the MEPI – Tomorrow’s Leaders Scholarship Program (n.d.) or by volunteering to work on particular projects (Scholarship Programs, n.d.). When a student’s contribution is within an academic programme, the time and deliverables would be as per the course requirements. For example, on one project titled the Landscape Design and Ecosystem Management, students had to do site visits and surveys; conceive and design the masterplan; and, during the end of term juries, present concept diagrams, plans, sections, elevations and perspectives of their work. When students are accepted into the volunteer programme, they are assigned tasks within projects and are supported by faculty and/or project managers in order to guide the work process. Although there is a minimum timeframe that students should allocate for the work, more often than not the time spent working on the project is significantly more. This reflects the enthusiasm and commitment that the students have when working on projects that improve diverse social, economic and environmental aspects in the community. This is achieved not simply through an assignment; rather, the theme of community-based learning needs to be fully integrated into the course. In such a course, students are enabled to learn particular skills – such as assessment methods, reflections, community communication and leadership – and to deliver tangible outcomes. 122

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

As a reaction to the war in Syria and to the influx of displaced people into Lebanon, the CCECS has, in collaboration with NGOs and other humanitarian organizations, undertaken Syria Relief Response Projects (Ghata: Bringing Education to Informal Tented Settlements, n.d.). In recognition of the CCECS’s efficient adopted methodology, its positive impact on the community as well as its extensive involvement with the community, it has received several regional and international awards (CCECS, n.d.) for its work. As a centre within AUB, it was ranked by Ma’an Alliance for Arab Universities in 2015 as the Most Civically Engaged University Campus in the MENA region (Safa, 2015). For the centre’s Syria Relief Project, the Talloires Network awarded AUB first place in the 2016 MacJannet Prize for Global Citizenship (Kachar, 2016). In 2017, the centre’s Digital Skills Training Program (Increasing Employability for the Online Market) was awarded the MIT Enterprise Forum’s Innovate for Refugees Award (Innovate for Refugees, n.d.). One of the centre’s key projects ‘GHATA’ was the honorary winner of the SXSW EDU 2018 Learn by Design Award, was shortlisted for the WISE Awards for high-impact projects providing solutions to twenty-first-century education challenges, and was also awarded the Fritz Redlich Human Rights Award from Harvard University in 2018 (‘AUB’s GHATA Project Receives International Human Rights Award’, n.d.). A third approach, is the AUB Neighborhood Initiative (n.d.). This instrumental entity listens to the needs of people, identifies overlaps between those needs and offers expertise through creative thinking, research, funding and implementation. The initiative is an enabler that institutes processes by creating multidisciplinary teams and facilitates project application by offering support, coordination and management services. It works towards the enhancement of neighbourhood contexts by including municipal decision-makers, policy specialists and the AUB community in discussions that serve the neighbourhood. Some notable projects that the Neighborhood Initiative has created, developed and implemented are the post-2020 Beirut port explosion ‘Disaster Response’ that provides monthly support to families in need and referrals for vulnerable elderly to the AUB Gold Clinic for free consultations, medications and tests. In collaboration with NGOs, the Municipality of Beirut as well as other entities that work to improve peoples’ social and economic situations, the Rubble to Mountains Initiative aims to collect rubble and glass debris so they can be sorted and reused/recycled to rehabilitate abandoned quarries. Within this initiative, other aims include supporting Karantina families (highly affected by the explosion) with electrical appliances, food boxes and hygiene kits as well as reopening the Karantina Municipal Garden to support and treat children suffering from post-traumatic conditions (in collaboration with Catalytic Action and an AUB clinical psychology team). Another exemplary project addresses the preservation of heritage buildings in Mar Mikhael (an area severely affected by the 2020 explosion), whereby the Neighborhood Initiative, in collaboration with NGOs worked to rehabilitate two buildings that are a beautiful example of the 1870 and 1930 architecture in Beirut. Five families have moved back into their homes, bringing back hope and life into the area that was almost destroyed by the explosion. In addition to university-related initiatives, some faculty members support the construction industry by teaching young professionals (recent graduates) within the premises of the Order of Engineers and Architects (OEA, n.d.). The OEA’s Education Center provides newly registered members with subsidized introductory courses. This option attracts young professionals so that they can be introduced to, or enhance their knowledge of, particular subjects addressing different dimensions of sustainability in the regional context. 123

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Conclusions Overall, the various courses and initiatives presented here show that incremental steps can be taken in order to change and improve current imbalanced conditions. Change does not have to come from major curricular modifications or programme initiations requiring lengthy approvals. People inside AUB are the transformation; this is where change is born. Faculty and students have agency to make a powerful contribution to advancing sustainability and the transformation it delivers. MSFEA as a whole as well as the professors, students, staff and research assistants can provide insights in order to positively affect academic work and provide the fuel of transformation for sustainability. People in Beirut’s society and wider Lebanon are starting to act on sustainability because they are becoming aware of the danger of remaining passive. It is hoped that individuals in this society will see the urgency and value of strategic sustainability thinking and action, going beyond reactive behaviour with citizens and inhabitants moving to be proactive. The task for higher education institutions is to help create the sense of urgency, without creating a sense of terror or panic – where a person can feel powerless or overwhelmed – and contribute to the solutions. Universities need to support students to make them feel energized, captivated and enabled so that they can tackle the problems and realize their agency to do something about the problems. Universities help educate and support students, who with faculty and staff are supporting the transition from an imbalanced to a more balanced situation – a more sustainable one. This is particularly important in crises conditions. Focusing on pedagogic approaches can help advance sustainability as part of the transformation. As illustrated by the initiatives led by the MSFEA, instruction should identify and underline diverse levels and scales of sustainability. To strengthen the approach and develop student capabilities, four main aspects are relevant: 1. Course delivery methods need to offer content that is engaging and relevant to contemporary issues of sustainable development. Blended delivery methods provide methodologies where students can acquire theoretical information at a time that suits them best, and then benefit from face-to-face class time to present, discuss and argue their respective viewpoints. Such methods enable students to include practical and experience-related aspects into theoryrelated discussions, thus deepening their understanding of the subjects. Class discussions can be based on a theoretical concept, a current event or a topic chosen by a student. In all cases, the work (discussions, applications, case studies, homework) is associated with the problems in the immediate context. 2. Approaches to teaching and research should further develop and encourage interdisciplinarity among students, faculty members and other people in society. The courses and initiatives mentioned in this chapter show that there is a strong interest in this approach. 3. In the context of crises, problems are numerous and changing fast, and hence focused and efficient research, decision-making and implementation are necessary. In such conditions, the challenge remains in resolving short-term problems while paying all due attention to longterm sustainable dimensions and practices within confined and broader scales of a context. 4. Maintaining continuity is key in the definition and implementation of sustainability. Due to the relocation of people in contexts of crisis, ensuring continuous and methodological implementation of ideas and actions becomes incredibly challenging. Therefore, this subject

124

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

should be addressed thoroughly to identify alternative methods and mechanisms that relate to the short-term and long-term dimensions of sustainability. In conclusion, MSFEA, as a faculty and as a community of professors, is providing rich and creative initiatives that have the potential to support transition to more balanced social, environmental and economic dimensions. There is no blueprint for sustainability in higher education, given the importance of institutional context, its history and heritage, governance, faculty members’ discipline and interests as well as student composition. Therefore, approaches should be customized to the local situation to enable transformation from a condition of imbalance to a more balanced sustainable situation.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT





1. Imbalance and fragility in a particular context, irrespective of cause, can result in people focusing on basic survival needs rather than the pursuit of sustainability despite the fact the latter is on the anti-fragility agenda. Higher education institutions in general and universities in particular are essential to this rebalancing agenda. 2. Especially in unstable contexts, the university can be a place for progressive thought and actions in support of knowledge-based solutions to tackle the challenges of our times. 3. A focus on pedagogic innovation can help harness both a student’s interest and wider faculty engagement in place-making activities enacted by a university in community settings seeking to achieve equilibrium.

References Abdul-Reda Abourjeili, S., and Harb, S. (2020). ‘The Deteriorated Educational Reality in Lebanon: Towards “Another” Critical Approach’. Arab Reform Initiative [Preprint]. https://www.arabref​orm.net/publ​icat​ion/the-deter​iora​ted-educ​atio​nal-real​ity-in-leba​non-towa​rds-anot​her-criti​cal-appro​ ach/. Accessed 1 December 2021. About MSFEA (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/msfea/Pages/overv​iew.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Ashcraft, R., Stone, M., Clifford, D., and Petrescu, C. (2012). ‘The Keys to University–Community Engagement Sustainability’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23. doi: 10.1002/nml.21051. ‘AUB’s GHATA Project Receives International Human Rights Award’ (n.d.). https://www.aub.edu.lb/artic​ les/Pages/Fritz-Redl​ich-Human-Rig​hts-Award-CCECS-Ghata.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Beer, A., and Cooper, J. (2007). ‘University–Regional Partnership in a Period of Structural Adjustment: Lessons from Southern Adelaide’s Response to an Automobile Plant Closure’. European Planning Studies, 15 (8), pp. 1063–84. doi: 10.1080/09654310701448238. Center for Civic Engagement and Community Service (CCECS) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub. edu.lb/ccecs/Pages/defa​ult.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Clark, W. C., and Munn, R. E. (eds) (1986). Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Climate Design Lab (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/msfea/resea​rch/Pages/clim​ate-des​ign. aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021.

125

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Crepin, A.-S., and Folke, C. (2015). ‘The Economy, the Biosphere, and Planetary Boundaries: Towards Biosphere Economics’. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, pp. 57–100. Cvitanovic, C., Lof, M. F., Norstrom, A. V., and Reed, M. S. (2018), ‘Building University-Based Boundary Organizations That Facilitate Impacts on Environmental Policy and Practice’. PLOS ONE, 13 (9), p. e0203752. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203752. Deutsche Welle (DW) (n.d.). ‘Lebanon: Dollars Shield Some from Hyperinflation Crisis’. Lebanon: Middle East News. https://www.dw.com/en/leba​non-doll​ars-shi​eld-some-from-hyp​erin​flat​ ion-cri​sis/a-58843​383. Accessed 5 December 2021. Doumani, F. (2019), Rapid Cost of Environmental Degradation, 2018. Lebanon: Ministry of Environment. Accessed 5 December 2021. El-Cheikh, N., Choueiri, L., and Orfali, B. (eds) (2016). One Hundred and Fifty. Lebanon: AUB. https:// www.aub.edu.lb/aubpr​ess/Pages/One​Hund​redA​ndFi​fty.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Environment and Energy (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/msfea/resea​rch/Pages/Envir​onme​ ntan​dEne​rgy.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Ghata: Bringing Education to Informal Tented Settlements (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu. lb/ccecs/srrp/Pages/Ghata-Bring​ing-Educat​ion-to-Infor​mal-Ten​ted-Sett​leme​nts.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Gurău, C., and Dana, L.-P. (2018). ‘Environmentally-Driven Community Entrepreneurship: Mapping the Link between Natural Environment, Local Community and Entrepreneurship’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, pp. 221–31. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.023. Haider, L. J., Schluter, M., Folke, C., and Reyers, B. (2021). ‘Rethinking Resilience and Development: A Coevolutionary Perspective’. Ambio, 50 (7), pp. 1304–12. doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01485-8. Howlett, C., Ferreira, J.-A., and Blomfield, J. (2016). ‘Teaching Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Building Critical, Reflective Thinkers through an Interdisciplinary Approach’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17 (3), pp. 305–21. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102. Humanitarian Engineering Initiative (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/HEI/Pages/defa​ult.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Inclusive Neighborhood Jeanne d’Arc Street (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/ccecs/cdp/ Pages/Inclus​ive-Neigh​borh​ood-Jea​nne-d’Arc-Str​eet.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Innovate for Refugees (n.d.). ‘Tech For Food’. https://inno​vate​forr​efug​ees.mitefa​rab.org/en/win​ner/ tech-for-food. Accessed 5 December 2021. International Association of University–Higher Education for Sustainable Development (IAU–HESD) (n.d.). ‘Vision & Action’. https://www.iau-hesd.net/cont​enu/139-iau-hesd-vis​ion-act​ion.html. Accessed 5 December 2021. John Waterbury (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/doc​tora​tes/rec​ipie​nts/Pages/waterb​ury-prof​ ile.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Kachar, S. (2016). ‘MacJannet Prize for Global Citizenship’. Press Release, 14 June. AUB Office of Communications, American University of Beirut, Lebanon, p. 2. Karm El-Zeitoun Animated Trail (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/ccecs/cdp/Pages/Karm-ElZeit​oun-Anima​ted-Trail.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Khuri, F. (2020). ‘Beyond the Pandemic – Renewed Visions for Higher Education: A Global Perspective’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/Presid​ent/Docume​nts/speec​hes/2020/Bey​ond-Pande​mic-IE-Fou​ndat​ion.pdf. König, A., and Evans, J. (2013). ‘Introduction: Experimenting for Sustainable Development? Living Laboratories, Social Learning, and the Role of the University’, in A. König (ed.), Regenerative Sustainable Development of Universities and Cities: The Role of Living Laboratories. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–24. https://www.elga​ronl​ine.com/view/edc​oll/978178​1003​ 633/978178​1003​633.00007.xml. Accessed 27 June 2021. Lawrence, P. R., and Nohria, N. (2001). Driven: How Human Nature Shapes our Choices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

126

Pedagogical Approaches to the SDGs

MEPI – Tomorrow’s Leaders (TL) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/ccecs/tess/Pages/MEPI--Tomor​row’s-Lead​ers.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Mission and Vision (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/abou​tus/Pages/miss​ion.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Neighborhood Initiative (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/neigh​borh​ood/Pages/defa​ult.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (n.d.). ‘AUB Fact Book 2012–2013’. https://www.aub. edu.lb/oira/Docume​nts/Fact%20B​ook/FB201​213.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2021. Order of Engineers and Architects, Engineering Training Center (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://oea.org.lb/ Ara​bic/SubW​ide.aspx?pag​eid=127. Accessed 5 December 2021. Outlook (1955). ‘We Want to Learn’. Outlook, 12 (4), p. 2. American University of Beirut/Library Archives. Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., and Spengler, J. D. (2019). ‘Universities as the Engine of Transformational Sustainability toward Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals: “Living labs” for Sustainability’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (8), pp. 1343–57. doi: 10.1108/ IJSHE-02-2019-0103. Research (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/msfea/resea​rch/Pages/defa​ult.aspx. Accessed 2 July 2021. Resilient Infrastructure (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/msfea/resea​rch/Pages/Resi​lien​tInf​rast​ ruct​ure.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Safa, S. J. (2015). ‘What Made AUB the Region’s “Most Civically Engaged Campus?” ’. https://www.aub. edu.lb/ccecs/Docume​nts/Most%20ci​vica​lly%20enga​ged%20cam​pus.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2022. Saliba, N., and Chaaban, J. (2015). ‘AUB Task Force on Solid Waste Management’. https://www.aub.edu. lb/com​muni​cati​ons/media/Docume​nts/sep-15/task-force-waste-EN.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2021. Scholarship Programs (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/ccecs/tess/Pages/defa​ult.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Seider, S. (2017). ‘Economy and Environment’. Umweltbundesamt.de. https://www.umwe​ltbu​ndes​amt.de/ en/econ​omy-envi​ronm​ent. Accessed 1 December 2021. Service & Research Projects (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/HEI/Pages/Proje​cts.aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021. Shriberg, M. (2002). ‘Institutional Assessment Tools for Sustainability in Higher Education: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Implications for Practice and Theory’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3 (3), pp. 254–70. doi: 10.1108/14676370210434714. Simplypsychology (2007). ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’. https://www.simpl​ypsy​chol​ogy.org/mas​low. html. Accessed 1 December 2021. Stockholm Resilience Centre (2014). ‘How Food Connects All the SDGs’. https://www.stoc​khol​mres​ ilie​nce.org/resea​rch/resea​rch-news/2016-06-14-how-food-conne​cts-all-the-sdgs.html. Accessed 1 December 2021. Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (STARS) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://stars.aashe. org/. Accessed 5 December 2021. Times Higher Education (2021). ‘Impact Rankings 2022’. https://www.times​high​ered​ucat​ion.com/imp​actr​ anki​ngs. Accessed 5 December 2021. United Nations (2015). ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. https://sdgs.un.org/203​0age​nda. Accessed 1 August 2019. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.). ‘How Does Higher Education Contribute to Achieving the SDGs?’ https://en.une​sco.org/news/how-does-hig​her-educat​ ion-con​trib​ute-achiev​ing-sdgs. Accessed 27 June 2021. University Catalogue 2021-2022 (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/regist​rar/Docume​nts/catalo​ gue/unde​rgra​duat​e21-22/archi​tect​ure-des​ign.pdf. Urban Challenges (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.aub.edu.lb/msfea/resea​rch/Pages/Urba​nCha​llen​ges. aspx. Accessed 5 December 2021.

127

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

World Bank (n.d. a). ‘Lebanon Overview’. https://www.worldb​ank.org/en/coun​try/leba​non/overv​iew#1. Accessed 1 December 2021. World Bank (n.d. b). ‘GDP Per Capita (Current US$) – Lebanon | Data’. https://data.worldb​ank.org/indica​ tor/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?view=chart&locati​ons=LB. Accessed 3 July 2021. World Bank (n.d. c). ‘GDP Per Capita Growth (Annual %) – Lebanon | Data’. https://data.worldb​ank.org/ indica​tor/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?view=chart&locati​ons=LB. Accessed 3 July 2021. Zurayk, R., El-Fadel, M., and Nuwayhid, I. (2010). ‘The Interfaculty Graduate Environmental Sciences Program of the American University of Beirut: An ESD Initiative in the Arab World’. International Review of Education, 56 (2/3), pp. 299–314. doi: 10.1007/s11159-010-9161-0.

128

129

7

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs DAVID C. NWOGBO AND KAYODE KADIRI

Introduction Higher education for sustainable development plays a critical role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN) (Singh et al., 2007). Traditionally, universities are known for their roles in teaching and research, as purveyors of knowledge and innovation, as providers of expertise and as agents of societal transformation. They provide widereaching education through open and distance learning, conduct research and provide leadership relevant to both the government and society. According to Adekanmbi (2007) and Barnet (1990), universities emerged out of a need for junior and older scholars to search for knowledge and identify a forum for testing out their theories and ideas. Overall, universities help to tackle disease, support economic growth, promote social development, advance peace and security in addition to being germane to the realization of the SDG targets (Singh et al., 2007). Ajayi (2003) noted that university education is geared towards serving as power houses and think-tanks for the continuous advancement of knowledge, the generation of innovative ideas, the development of the minds of the young and the old (through engagement in challenging intellectual work) and continuous engagement in issues concerning the survival of humanity. Given the overarching importance of sustainable development, Nigeria is a signatory to many of the international conventions and treaties, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Education for All (EFA), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and the SDGs. The MDGs consisted of eight different goals to be achieved by 2015 (Durokifa, 2016). Despite spending N3 trillion (approximately US$7.3 billion) on the MDGs, Nigeria did not record appreciable progress in their implementation, especially in areas of halving poverty and hunger, reducing child mortality, among other key goals (Durokifa, 2016). The SDGs provide a framework to promote social, economic and environmental development. In this regard, therefore, Nigeria, in 2015, went ahead to document its transition strategy for the implementation of the SDGs (Adefulire, 2021). The Nigerian Government established the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on the SDGs, with the responsibility to develop action plans for attainment of the goals, coordinate projects and facilitate collaborative partnerships with international and indigenous stakeholders. Transiting from the MDGs to the SDGs can be compared to building a new house on an old foundation. Can the old foundation

129

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

sustain the building? That is, can the actions to achieve the MDGs serve as a foundation for achieving the SDGs? Since the adoption of the SDGs, Nigeria has committed to implementing Agenda 2030, including the establishment of institutional frameworks. Since 2016, Nigeria has been working with the UN Development System1 and development partners, in order to strengthen implementation capacity at all levels of governance. According to Adefulire (2021), the federal government is supporting the state governments to prioritize and mainstream the SDGs into their medium- and long-term development policies and plans. All these efforts bring up challenges, demand an increase in budgetary provisions and create new demands that necessitate policy reforms, planning and implementation. Meanwhile, university education remains underfunded, dwarfing the possibility of achieving SDG 4. This is because federal government allocation to education is only a paltry 5–7 per cent of the total budget, as against the UN recommendation that 27 per cent of the total annual budget should be committed (Azenabor, 2021). With a depressed economy and revenue shortfalls coupled with rising insecurity, Nigeria must institutionalize respect for human rights, transparency, rule of law and accountability in order to receive assistance from donors and the international community willing to partner with the country in the implementation of the SDGs. While Nigeria failed to implement the MDGs and neglected the critical role of universities as catalysts of change and agents of development at that time, it is hoped that Nigeria has learnt its lessons and will partner with strategic institutions in the implementation of the SDGs. The key questions are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

How prepared are Nigerian universities to support the achievement of the SDGs? In what ways have they shown measurable commitment to the achievement of the SDGs? Are there constraints facing Nigerian universities that will hinder achievement of the SDGs? What plan of action do Nigerian universities have to implement the SDGs?

For development to be sustainable, people must develop adequate capacity to acquire new knowledge, learn new skills, discard old and obsolete habits and practices that have hitherto hindered development as well as embrace best global practices that will catalyse development and preserve future generations (Weiss, 2004). What is development after all if it is not the transformation of humans and their social, economic and environmental challenges to achieve qualitative improvements in living standards, self-reliance, higher income levels and unhindered access to the basic necessities of life?

Higher Education in Nigeria A major challenge in the past that had bedevilled higher education in developing countries was the World Bank and international donor agencies’ unilateral conviction that they should pay less attention to higher education and more to basic education. This relates to a belief that higher education is elitist and has lower social returns when compared with basic education (Singh et al., 2007). However, this view is changing, and African national governments are beginning to realize the need for universities to play a role in the development process of community and national transformation. This change in perception of the role of higher education in catalysing development is ostensibly responsible for the growth in the number of universities in Nigeria. Nigeria, in September 2021, with a population estimated to be 200 million, has 170 universities 130

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

and 152 colleges of education; of the 170 federal government-approved universities, 43 are federal government-owned, while the state governments and private individuals and organizations own 48 and 79, respectively. Nigeria has ten specialist universities of technology; thirty-seven arts and science-based universities; three universities of agriculture; and one military university. However, looking at enrolment, only 20 per cent of qualified student candidates are granted admission because of lack of offers, that is, one out of five applicants for admission are admitted. The number of students seeking admission is increasing disproportionately to the carrying capacity of Nigerian universities. In terms of the number of universities relative to the population, Nigeria’s university capacity is small, and needs urgent critical action to expand access.

Assessing University Engagement with SDGs A survey was conducted to ascertain the state of preparedness of Nigerian universities to achieve the SDGs. The objective of this exercise was to find out if they have developed an action plan for achieving SDGs. The results were critically analysed, and the findings are discussed thematically hereunder. Six Nigerian universities were selected for the study, one in each of the six geopolitical zones. The universities and the zones represented are as follows: Federal University, Wukari-Northeast; Nasarawa State University, Keffi-North-Central; Redeemer’s University, Ede-South-West; University of Benin, Benin-South-South; Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria-North-West; and University of Nigeria, Nsukka-Southeast. A representative sample of 500 respondents was selected, using stratified random sampling technique, the aim being to elicit responses from academic staff in the selected universities. A questionnaire survey (Appendix 7.1) was sent out via email and included seven thematic areas of inquiry concerning the SDGs, namely: institutional awareness; research activity; strategic plan; integration of SDGs into the curriculum: responsibility for implementing the SDGs; raising future leaders; and linkages and partnerships. The results of the survey and charts are presented and discussed. Out of the 500, 300 respondents completed and returned the questionnaire, a response rate of 60 per cent. About 150 academics did not return the questionnaire because of lack of time to complete the activity. The respondents’ profile includes the following: fifty academics (from Lecturer 1 to Professors) from each of the six universities, cutting across various disciplines, reflecting the cross-cutting nature of SDGs. Institutional Awareness of the SDGs The survey showed that 84.6 per cent of respondents ‘agree’ or ‘strongly’ agree that they have knowledge and awareness of the SDGs (see Figure 7.1). Similarly, Figure 7.2 shows that 77 per cent had good awareness of ESD. Despite the awareness by academics, universities have done little or nothing to create awareness and sensitize communities around them. Academics regard the delivery of the goals as the responsibility of the government to implement. Consequently, they are yet to integrate the SDGs into the curriculum or adopt a strategic plan of action for their achievement. The study revealed the internal structural contradictions (the disconnect between theory and practice) of the Nigerian university system that depicts universities as ‘ivory towers’ with lofty ideals, but standing alone, without impacting their environment and without fulfilling their statutory and functional role of creatively impacting the lives of the people and communities 131

132

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Universities are aware of SDGs

FIGURE 7.1  Awareness of SDGs at Nigerian universities. Source: Author.

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Universities are aware of Education for Sustainable Development

FIGURE 7.2  Awareness of education for sustainable development at Nigerian universities. Source: Author.

132

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

around them. In summary, findings showed that Nigerian universities are ill prepared to deliver against the SDGs and the problems of development occasioned by poverty, environmental challenges and food insecurity because they lack innovative capacity. The institutional awareness of the existence of the SDGs has not created the necessary catalytic basis for stimulating positive action towards realizing the goals. Many universities are not willing to integrate the SDGs to help solve societal problems. Creation of awareness is vital in the successful implementation of the goals and Agenda 2030. Besides, awareness is very important in galvanizing groups, organizations, the community and individuals. If the SDGs are to achieve the required transformation, then the university must focus on mobilization and the institutionalization of the concept of SDGs to bring about the necessary transformation in the lives of the people. The twenty-first century has globalized developments such as human and socio-economic change as plausible issues in modern times, whose neglect have dire consequences for not only nations but also the world. It is argued that universities in developing nations lack a robust culture of information gathering and dissemination as vital vehicles to break the shackles of ignorance that constitute a barrier to the mass mobilization of individuals and groups, necessary for creativity and innovation considered central to the realization of the SDGs. The fact that the Nigerian universities curricula have not adopted the SDGs as global plan of action shows that the philosophical basis for implementing SDGs in these institutions is lacking in both theoretical and empirical conceptualizations that border on inactivity and refusal to engage with the global agenda. The fact that the universities are not engaging in advocacy about the SDGs or publicizing the SDGs reduces the prospects of attaining the goals through sensitization using newsletters, flyers, bulletins and handbills. This presupposes that there is no community education, promotion of exchange of information among universities, experience or ideas. Building a knowledge and information infrastructure is critical to institutionalizing the implementation of the SDGs. Research Activity on the SDGs Figure 7.3 shows that 61.5 per cent of academics strongly disagree that Nigerian universities have adopted a policy on SDG-related research. Universities perform the core functions of research, learning, teaching and community service (Sukati, 2007). According to Fourie (2003), although stronger emphasis on one or more of these functions has characterized the development of the university at different times, individual institutions have seldom succeeded in maintaining an acceptable balance between the three functions. Higher education needs to be at the centre of attaining education for all and the SDGs by producing the trained human resources needed to carry out the research and development activities relevant to these goals, providing services and monitoring programme activities (Sikwibele, 2007). Concerns have been expressed as to why the universities have failed to pursue the core function of research on SDGs, despite the expertise among their staff. Within the current social, economic, cultural and political context, universities and their academic staff are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their usefulness and relevance to the development needs of their societies through their teaching and learning, research, as well as community service. Figure 7.4 shows the inclination of research in Nigerian universities. The results show that 69.2 per cent of academics in universities in Nigeria are carrying out research, but this is not tailored to overcoming the

133

134

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Universities have adopted policy on research activities on SDGs

FIGURE 7.3  Policy adoption of research activities on SDGs at Nigerian universities. Source: Author.

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Non-SDG-related researches are ongoing in the university

FIGURE 7.4  Involvement of Nigerian universities in non-SDG-related research that neglect SDGs. Source: Author.

134

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Universities are motivating lecturers to research on SDGs

FIGURE 7.5  Motivation for lecturers to research on SDGs at Nigerian universities. Source: Author.

social, economic and environmental challenges depicted by the SDGs, while 30.8 per cent are undecided and yet to commence research activity for the year. The results in Figure 7.5 shows that 57.7 per cent of academics disagree that lecturers are motivated to research on SDGs. As shown in the result, there are no research incentives provided by Nigerian universities to motivate or reward academics (e.g. by way of promotion) who carry out research on the SDGs. Figure 7.6 also shows that 57.7 per cent of academics are of the view that academic departments are not involved in any SDG-related research. Besides, there is no inter-university collaboration designed to exploit the mechanisms of research as a platform for innovation and creativity. The relatively low level of research in Nigerian universities and the apparent lack of application of research findings has become a matter of concern to stakeholders – government, industry and research experts. A stable and rigorous culture of scientific research is yet to evolve and become embedded into the academic culture of Nigerian universities. Apart from the dearth of policy on research activity, funding is a constraint. Nigerian universities are bedevilled by low financial capacity. In many cases, there are institutional intervention funds set aside by government, but the stringent conditions attached to accessing these research funds make it difficult if not impossible to obtain them. Many times, there are gaps in timeline between application for the fund and when the fund is finally released. This situation discourages academics who want to conduct research. Thus, Nigerian universities do not serve as centres for knowledge nor a provider of much-needed professional and technical services. Strategic Plan for the SDGs The results of the survey in Figure 7.7 show that Nigerian universities are undecided on the issue of strategic planning for the implementation of the SDGs. This presupposes that the universities 135

136

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Academic departments are involved in SDG research

FIGURE 7.6  Involvement of academic departments at Nigerian universities in SDG-related research. Source: Author.

80

Per cent

60

40

20

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

The university has a separate strategic plan on SDGs

FIGURE 7.7  Strategic plans of Nigerian universities for implementing SDGs. Source: Author.

136

Agree

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

have not developed a strategic plan for the implementation of the SDGs. Strategic planning is an organization’s process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy (Bryson et al., 2018). It may also extend to control the mechanisms that guide implementation of the strategy. Universities, with their wide range of highly educated staff with expertise in different disciplines, have the capability to devise strategies on how to deal with societal problems but this has not been the case in practice. The resources that government allocated to them towards helping them achieve their statutory obligation have not been efficiently utilized to address the problems of society. Goal setting for the realization of the SDGs is not a primary concern for the universities. Innovation and capacity building with respect to the implementation of the SDGs is also lacking. Also missing is community service because of the disconnect between the universities and local communities. For instance, the first MDG focused on poverty reduction. The number one goal of poverty reduction was transposed into the SDGs. However, poverty remains endemic in Nigeria and is growing due to large-scale unemployment. This may reflect in part the inability of universities to come up with twenty-first-century skills to deal with the challenges of unemployment and poverty reduction. Nigerian universities appear to be lacking in strategic leadership. A common mistake made by universities engaged in strategic planning, for example, is to define their stakeholders solely as the groups located in the academic community: academic staff, non-academic staff and students. What our universities consistently fail to include – except perhaps in a token and ineffective way – are the ‘end users’ of their products: the employers of their graduates; the contractors of their academic staff; those who provide resources to the higher education sector; and those who set the policies that govern it (Nwankwo et al., 2015). SDGbased strategic plans are lacking and there are no attempts to train the people and raise leaders who will champion SDGs activities. Integration of the SDGs into the Curriculum Figure 7.8 refers to the result of the survey on the integration of SDGs into curriculum. A total of 69.2 per cent of academics who responded to the survey have no immediate plan to integrate the SDGs into curriculum, while 30.8 per cent have plans to review the curriculum to keep abreast with the dynamics of a changing national and international environment. Also, 84.6 per cent believe that it is the responsibility of the federal, state and local governments to implement SDGs. There are in fact no short- or medium-term plans to integrate the SDGs into the curriculum, research, governance, linkages and collaboration, community development and skill training. University education has become a tool for inculcating into the people the requisite skills and competencies for overcoming the challenges of socio-economic development – that is, for harnessing the resources of the society and by raising a generation of leaders who are concerned about the realization of a paradigmatic change of national development, with emphasis on human capital development. This was in line with the realization of the fact that university education has become an essential potential tool for social and economic emancipation from the shackles of ignorance, poverty and disease that the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN, 2004) declared succinctly in the ‘National Policy on Education’ as provided in Figure 7.9. As lofty as these ideals are, Nigerian universities are yet to incorporate the SDGs into the curriculum with a view to meeting the goals (see Figure 7.8). What is therefore fundamentally

137

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Plan is underway to integrate SDGs into curriculum

FIGURE 7.8  Plans of Nigerian universities for integrating SDGs into curriculum. Source: Author.

missing is the lack of the development of a transformative curriculum, redesigned from its theoretical (utopian) state to a practical orientation, while also serving as a mechanism for advancing the frontiers of knowledge, attitudinal change and the promotion of societal norms and values. It is argued that university curriculum in Nigeria is deficient and is not tailored to providing practical solutions to societal problems; thus it has not been able to equip the youth and the public with the capacity for critical thinking, problem-solving approaches, mental capacity and creativity for dealing with the challenges of national development. Goal 4 of the SDGs seeks to ensure ‘inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2018). Within the framework, a life course approach is followed, reinforcing the need for lifelong learning and for all citizens to participate in achieving the SDGs. Many sustainability issues, such as social justice, equality of access to resources and people’s impact on the environment and natural habitats, can be controversial and may best be considered through discussion and debate. This allows students to explore their feelings about issues and think through their values, thereby developing their active citizenship. According to Catling and Willy (2009), it therefore follows that for the SDGs to be achieved, education must be tailored towards the following goals: 1. Education is critical in shaping individual and collective knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to enable people to move along pathways towards sustainable development, and it acts a catalyst for development itself. 2. It is a key determinant of social and economic transformation, and an essential precursor to peace, tolerance and sustainability. 3. It equips learners of all ages with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes needed to be responsible global citizens, such as respect for human rights, gender equality and environmental sustainability. 138

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

The goals of tertiary education (university inclusive) shall be to: - Contribute to national development through high-level relevant manpower training; - Develop and inculcate proper values for the survival of the individual and society; - Develop the intellectual capability of individuals to understand and appreciate their local and external environments; - Acquire both physical and intellectual skills which will enable individuals to be self-reliant and useful members of the society; - Promote and encourage scholarship and community service; - Forge and cement national unity; and - Promote national and international understanding and interaction (Section 8: 59). Specifically, Section 641a – c, specifies that university education shall make optimum contribution to national development by: - Intensifying and diversifying its programmes for the development of high level manpower within the context of the needs of the nation; - Making professional course contents to reflect our national requirements; and - Making all students, as part of a general programme of all-round improvement in university education to offer general study courses such as history of ideas, philosophy of knowledge and nationalism. It is expected that these goals shall be pursued through teaching, research and development, generation and dissemination of knowledge and maintenance of minimum educational standards through appropriate agencies (Nwankwo et al., 2015).

FIGURE 7.9  Federal government’s National Policy on Education, 2004. Source: Author.

Taking Responsibility for the Implementation of the SDGs The results of the survey shown in Figure 7.10 reveal that 73.1 per cent of Nigerian academics who responded strongly believe that Nigerian governments, at the federal, state and local levels, should take full responsibility for achieving the SDGs. The much-needed partnership between the government and the university system is lacking. Academics are yet to develop a strategic roadmap in collaboration with the government on how the SDGs can work in Nigeria, as a tool for the liberation of the people from the shackles of endemic poverty and illiteracy. There is no happenstance in achieving sustainable development. It is a product of creativity and strategic planning. Theory is different from tangible results and manifestation. The federal government has recognized the critical role of other stakeholders. This includes, in particular, development partners, private sector, civil society organizations and other categories of 139

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Governments, at federal, state and local governement, should take full responsibility for implementing SDGs

FIGURE 7.10  Governments at federal, state and local levels: Responsibility for implementing SDGs. Source: Author.

non-state actors. What is fundamentally lacking is the availability of visionary, result-oriented, leadership-based engagement, championed by the universities as a matter of urgency and critical importance. The universities are lacking in generating the much-needed momentum to bridge the gap between theory and practice (tangible results). This is against the background that development that can transform Nigerian-type societies must be sustainable, proactive, innovative and self-reliant, by focusing on how to change the decadent and tragic trajectory of development failure since political independence in 1960, by turning the people from debilitating liabilities into agents of human capital formation. Barring the problem of insecurity, the role of the government is to ensure a conducive environment for development while it is the responsibility of the universities to creatively turn the environment into a productive one, capable of finding solutions to economic, social and environmental challenges encapsulated by the SDGs. The results in Figure 7.11 show that 57.6 per cent academics are of the opinion that universities are not playing any major role in raising future leaders as a way of achieving the SDGs. A total of 42 per cent of Nigerian academics are undecided on this subject. The SDGs are all about sustainability. Development must be sustainable for it to have long-term effect. While development must aim at meeting the needs of the present generation, it must also ensure the needs of future generations are not in any way jeopardized. This is the reason why the quest to achieve sustainable development must incorporate programmes and policies to preserve future generations from going into extinction. In this regard, Nigerian universities are lacking. They suffer from theoretical exclusion and inactivity as well as the casualization of the concept of development.

140

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Raising future leaders is a major way of implementing SDGs

FIGURE 7.11  Role played by Nigerian universities in raising future leaders for implementing SDGs. Source: Author.

Linkage with Communities, Foreign Universities and International Organizations As shown in Figure 7.12, 80.8 per cent of the universities believe that linkages with communities, foreign universities and international organizations are fundamental to the achievement of the SDGs. While universities are busy fostering exchange programmes and linkages with their foreign counterparts, collaboration for the sole purpose of implementing the SDGs has been lacking, based on the survey undertaken in this study. Financial resources, knowledge and critical expertise are required for the implementation of the SDGs. Nigerian universities are bedevilled with the problem of paucity of financial resources. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that of the available financial resources, no budgetary provision is made for linkages and collaboration on SDG implementation. Traditionally, universities are charged with the responsibility of learning and research, but with the dynamics of national and global challenges, they are expected to go beyond their traditional role of learning and research and make significant contribution to community development. What is required is exchange of knowledge, learning, adoption and adaptation of methods and procedures to galvanize a critical mass of experts and researchers. These experts and researchers would be dedicated to solving societal problems and charting the way forward through the enunciation of policy measures and implementation, with the government providing the financial wherewithal as well as the social and political will. Universities are engaging with renowned international institutions, governments and community members. However, with few exceptions, these interactions are often ad-hoc, short-lived (e.g. for a project) or unsustainable (e.g. based on memoranda of understanding). They are not publicized as clearly, broadly and directly as needed, with unclear portals of access for governments and communities into universities. The situation is exacerbated in low- and middle-income countries, where universities are grappling with the challenges of expanding research and academic

141

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

60

50

Per cent

40

30

20

10

0

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Linkages and partnerships are necessary for the implementation of SDGs

FIGURE 7.12  Need for Nigerian universities to establish linkages and partnerships for implementing SDGs. Source: Author.

capacity and fostering quality, while maintaining equitable access and relevance to economy and policymaking (Schendel and McCowan, 2016). In many instances, governments are not aware of the large and relevant knowledge base and expertise residing within universities, and academics do not perceive governments as partners in or users of their knowledge. Consequently, the potential of each partner is not being harnessed to the fullest (El-Jardali et al., 2011). Achieving the SDGs through partnership and linkages requires institutionalizing structures, developing strategies and establishing sustainable frameworks of action that would require universities, governments and communities to pull their resources together, develop capacity, impart skills and support data gathering for the purpose of meeting the challenges posed by the SDGs. The SDGs provide a unique opportunity for universities and the scientific community in general to reinterpret institutional strategies and determine the structures and mechanisms needed to strengthen engagement with governments and communities. Nigerian universities are bedevilled by the problem of infrastructure, governance, access, accountability, leadership and institutional viability. A collaborative governance structure would enhance opportunities for exchange and integration across both portfolios – advances needed to address the SDGs.

The Way Forward for Nigerian Universities: Making a Case for Sustainable Partnership with Government, Community and Industry Ekeh (2003) saw the role of universities as a necessity that helps countries to tackle poverty, ignorance and disease. Universities achieve this through the inculcation in young people with the 142

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

requisite knowledge and skills in science, technology, arts and humanities. By so doing, university education ensures that qualified people are developed for proper management and development of different sectors of nation’s economy, including education, health, transportation and industry. However, this study reveals that Nigerian universities are not yet prepared to play a critical role in the implementation of the SDGs. Thus, it is pertinent that Nigerian universities should develop long-term plans for achieving SDGs. Developing partnerships with governments, communities and industry should be explored by them as a matter of priority. It has been realized that the traditional role of universities is shifting from education and research to a third responsibility, which is partnership with government, communities and industry. Thus, Nigerian universities must ‘take the bull by the horns’ and contribute in the following ways: 1. Help reduce poverty to address the debilitating effect of hunger and disease. 2. Enhance access to education for all by removing barriers to access. 3. Embark on the mobilization of students for the SDGs. 4. Undertake case studies of SDG-related activities, publicizing them and taking action to concretize their materialization. 5. Apply research findings to promote industrialization and technological know-how. 6. Create awareness and disseminate information to industry, communities, students and the public about SDG-related activities and the need for implementing the SDGs. 7. Promote linkages with local research institutes and companies as well as foreign universities and international development agencies on the need to achieve the SDGs. 8. Initiate legislation and policies to foster sustainable development. 9. Provide access to data to guide the initiation and formulation of policies. 10. Develop new curricula on the SDGs and qualifications to address new concepts emanating from the goals. 11. Close the gap between new concepts on the SDGs and skills acquisition and development. 12. Hold strategic meetings with communities, industry and government as a matter of strategic function. Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 provide additional details on what universities can do to engage with the SDGs. For its part, the government can partner with universities in the following areas: 1. Increase funding for research in general and SDG-related inquiry in particular. 2. Promote good governance to guarantee the rule of law, and physical and environmental security. 3. Promote accountability, policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. 4. Provide infrastructure both for conducive learning in universities and for the economy. 5. Promote a reward system that recognizes innovation and critical thinking rather than patronages and primordialism. As part of its role in implementing the SDGs, communities should: 1. Embark on community-based activities to facilitate the implementation of the SDGs. 2. Initiate programmes and projects to address SDG targets. 143

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

3. Customize SDG programmes and initiatives by taking active part in their implementation. 4. Take active part in decision-making related to Agenda 2030. 5. Provide feedback to government and universities for monitoring and evaluation of SDG programmes and projects in their communities. 6. Hold government officials accountable through access to information, reports and data gathering. 7. Create awareness, sensitization and publicity to drive the implementation of the SDGs. For its role, industry can embark on the following activities: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Fund research in universities Work on applying the research findings by universities. Embark on infrastructural provision and policy dialogue to promote economic growth. Promote the adoption of cutting-edge technologies and the development of appropriate skills to close the skills gap.

It is clear then that the extent to which university–government–community–industry relationships can go in facilitating the implementation of the SDGs is yet to be fully exploited. The SDGs provide opportunities for the government and the universities to re-examine existing policies and paradigms and work towards the adoption of research and evidence-based strategies for achieving the SDGs. What the SDGs require is the political will on the part of government as well as leadership on the part of universities to provide pragmatic and resourceful programmes that will facilitate the realization of the SDGs. Being part of the UN Global Action Plan (United Nations, 2006), the Nigerian Government needs to show its commitment to the global agenda and respect for international conventions by recognizing the strategic role of universities and by creating a more stable and conducive environment for the achievement of the SDGs.

Conclusions The prospect of achieving the SDGs is bright only if the universities can collectively mobilize and show commitment to the betterment of society through adequate social responsibility to the lives of the citizens around them. This chapter recommends a paradigm shift, in terms of curriculum development and strategic thinking as well as planning and action to revolutionize and reconstruct the university system. For it to escape from its inherited heavily biased theoretical disposition and isolationist tendencies, and in order to close the yawning gap between form and reality, universities must tailor their curricula towards finding practical solutions, conduct research activities and build synergies towards implementing the SDGs. Universities should take strategic action in collaboration with critical stakeholders with the aim of initiating the paradigm shift and consolidate it by reviewing university curricula so that the majority of Nigerians, especially the youth, can cope with the challenges of achieving sustainable development. What may stop this paradigm shift is lack of a credible roadmap by universities for achieving the SDGs and the absence of home-grown policy recommendations towards realizing the SDGs. Universities must take the lead if the SDGs are to be achieved. The lesson for others to learn from the Nigerian predicament is the necessity of closing the gap between transformational leadership and strategic vision created by an ineptitude of Nigerian academics. This gap must

144

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

be bridged by what it termed here a ‘third force’, that is, a constellation of independent policy analysts, development experts, researchers and civil society organizations synergizing with foreign development partners and working towards achieving the SDGs, before it is too late to meet Agenda 2030. The federal government should come up with policy measures to make it mandatory for universities to play a critical role in implementing the SDGs. It is recommended that funding, especially for research purposes and infrastructure building, should be a top priority for the government, corporate bodies and multinational corporations. SDG linkages with communities, foreign universities and international bodies are recommended. Therefore, the university system in Nigeria needs the following: innovative practices, critical thinking, innovation and capacity building to precipitate the achievement of the SDGs. Accelerating the implementation of the SDGs requires a transformative and strategic action on the part of the universities as well as a sustainability plan agenda with local and international dimensions. Will Nigerian universities rise to the occasion?

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. A paradigm shift is urgently required in Nigerian universities to catalyse prioritization of and work towards delivering the SDGs. 2. Academics currently do not have the toolkits or contacts outside of the academy to ignite innovation required for change. 3. Transformative opportunities to deliver social responsibility and societal betterment through increased education in Nigeria can be focused on practical subjects and the development of curricula needed to deliver against the SDGs.

Appendix 7.1 Questionnaire on SDG Implementation Dr David C. Nwogbo Quality Assurance Unit National Open University of Nigeria Abuja, Nigeria. Email:[email protected]; Phone no:+2348033204889 We are conducting research survey on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the universities. The survey is purely for academic purpose and would be used only for the stated purpose. We solicit your cooperation in completing the questionnaire. The need to find out what the universities are doing about the SDGs cannot be overemphasized. Universities are very important agents of research and development. As centres of knowledge, and in redefining the role of Nigerian Universities to be more relevant in meeting governmental, local and global expectation and development, it is expected that the universities should partner with the government to play an active role in the implementation of SDGs. Thank you. Name of University: ------------------------------------ (Optional)

145

146

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Question 1: Institutional Awareness of SDGs

S/N Question Items 1 2 3 4 5

6

7 8 9 10

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

The university is aware of SDGs The university is aware of ESD The university has given SDGs formal recognition or adoption The university has created a philosophical basis for SDGs The university has taken steps to create awareness by engaging the university community, that is, academic staff The university has taken steps to create awareness by engaging the local community around the university The university is carrying out advocacy for SDGs via newsletters, bulletins, ICT, etc. The university has taken steps to educate students on SDGs The university has taken steps to create awareness by engaging the administrative staff The university has created a mantra for SDGs

Question 2: Research Activity on SDGs

S/N 1 2 3 4 5

146

Question Items The university has adopted a policy on research activities on SDGs The university is motivating lecturers to research on SDGs Academic departments are involved in the research Lecturers’ involvement in SDG research is compulsory not optional University funding is available for research on SDGs

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

S/N 6

7

8 9 10

Question Items

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

The university is collaborating with external bodies to source funding for SDG-related research University lecturers are collaborating with colleagues in other universities on SDG research Research activities on SDGs will form part of evidence for promotion of academic staff Non-SDG-related research is ongoing in the university The university will collate SDGrelated research and publish

Question 3: Strategic Plan for SDG Implementation

S/N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

Question Items

Strongly Disagree

The university leadership has a strategic plan on all activities of the university The university has a separate strategic plan on SDGs Based on the strategic plan, university plans to implement SDGs Academic departments have strategic plans on SDGs It is mandatory for academic departments to implement strategic plans on SDGs Academic departments have strategic plans that are not SDG based Academic departments are collaborating with their colleagues in other universities to implement SDGs The university has other plans to implement SDGs that are not necessarily contained in the strategic plan

147

148

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

S/N 9

10

Question Items

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strategic plan is considered an important document but not given attention by the university leadership Other observations (Please specify). Write freely outside the table

Question 4: Integration of SDGs into Curriculum

S/N Question Items 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10

148

The university reviews curriculum from time to time Plan is underway to integrate SDGs into curriculum Curriculum review is not necessary to achieve SDGs SDGs can be taught via the net, CD, etc. Compulsory teaching of SDGs is a condition for the achievement of SDGs Governments, at federal, state and local government, should take full responsibility for implementing SDGs Raising future leaders is a major way of implementing SDGs It is not the responsibility of universities to play active role in the implementation of SDGs The university will play a major role in raising future leaders by implementing SDGs The university has plan to collaborate with other universities to achieve SDGs

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

149

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

S/N Question Items 11

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Were SDGs to be taught, the university will need additional lecturers to do so

Question 5: Linkage with Foreign Universities and International Organizations

S/N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question Items

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Linkages and partnerships are necessary for the implementation of SDGs Foreign funding will help in implementing SDGs The university has initiated foreign linkage for implementing SDGs The university will seek foreign (international bodies) funding to implement SDGs The university will collaborate with local non-governmental organizations to implement SDGs The university will collaborate with foreign non-governmental organizations to implement SDGs Sustainability plan is necessary for SDG implementation The university may develop a sustainability plan for SDG implementation The university leadership believes that SDGs are panacea for societal development The university will play a unique role and champion the implementation of SDGs if it receives adequate funding

149

150

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Appendix 7.2 Universities and SDG-Based Activities (SDG Variables): The Way Forward Universities and SDG-Related Activities

Expected Outcome

Embark on fact-finding advocacy and awareness visits to universities

Number of conferences, seminars and workshops held Number of catchment communities aware of SDGs Number of staff and students aware of SDGs Number of bulletins, newsletters, flyers, etc. published to disseminate information on SDGs Conduct of research activity on SDGs Number of universities with research policy on SDGs Teaching and mentoring of students to buy-in Number of students with new skills and employment into SDGs opportunities as a result of training on aspects of SDGs Academic staff involvement in SDG research Number of lecturers involved in SDG research Number of new programmes introduced to Number of courses on SDGs to boost skill acquisition and teach concepts and theories underpinning knowledge SDGs University-based funding for SDG research Number of universities that have set aside funds for interuniversity SDG research The spending thus far Inter-university collaboration on SDGs Number of universities collaborating on SDG research Incentives to stimulate research on SDGs Number of universities that have incentivized research on SDGs Strategic plan on SDG implementation

Documentary evidence of SDG implementation

Note

1 The UN Development System built process on data given by Adefulire, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on SDGs.

References Adefulire, A. (2021). ‘What the Federal Government Is Doing Concerning SDGs’. Office of the President, Federal Government of Nigeria, Nigeria. Adekanmbi, G. (2007). ‘Tertiary Distance Education in Africa: A Response to Trends in World Higher Education’. Lead Paper Presented at Second HERPNET Conference at IITA, Ibadan, 13–16 August. Ajayi, K. (2003). ‘Minimum Standards and Accountability in University Education’, in B. A. Eheazu and U. M. O. Ivowi (eds), Minimum Standards and Accountability in the Nigerian Educational System. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Congress of the Academy of Education Held at the University of PortHarcourt, 10–15 November 2003. Port-Harcourt: Nigerian Academy of Education, pp. 25–30. Azenabor, E. (2021). ‘Inadequate Funding of Higher Education in Nigeria’. Guardian, 8 November. Bryson, J., Edward L., and Slyke, D. (2018). ‘Getting Strategic about Strategic Planning Research’. Public Management Review, 20 (3), pp. 317–19. Catling, S., and Willy, T. (2009). Teaching Primary Geography (Achieving Qts). Exeter: Learning Matters. Durokifa, A. (2016). ‘Evaluating Nigeria’s Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: Determinants, Deliverables, and Shortfalls’. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, 4 (4), pp. 656–83.

150

Nigerian Universities and Achievement of the SDGs

Ekeh, P. U. (2003). ‘Accountability in University Education in Nigeria: The Case of Students’ Indiscipline’, in B. A. Eheazu et al. (eds), Minimum Standards and Accountability in the Nigerian Educational System. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Congress of the Academy of Education Held at the University of Port-Harcourt, 10–15 November 2003. Port-Harcourt: Nigerian Academy of Education, pp. 10–12. El-Jardali, F., Jamal, D., Ataya, N., Jaafar, M., Raouf, S., Matta, C., Michael, S., and Smith, C. (2011). ‘Health Policy and Systems Research in Twelve Eastern Mediterranean Countries: A Stocktaking of Production and Gaps (2000–8)’. Health Research Policy and Systema, 9 (39), pp. 30–1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-9-39. Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) (2004). Federal Government of Nigeria Policy Document on Education. Abuja: Federal Government Printing Press. Fourie, M. (2003). ‘Beyond the Ivory Tower: Service Learning for Sustainable Community Development: Perspectives in Higher Education’. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17, pp. 31–8. Iyang, H. I. (2008). ‘Aligning Universities for Excellence in Sustainable Development, Research and Education’. Distinguished Guest Lecture Delivered at Julius Berger Auditorium, University of Lagos, Nigeria, 24 July. Nwankwo, I. N., Omebe, C. A., and Nwogbo, V. N. (2015). ‘Towards Revitalizing Nigerian University System through Strategic Thinking and Planning’. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development, 4 (2), pp. 10–20. Schendel, R., and McCowan, T. (2016). ‘Expanding Higher Education Systems in Low- and MiddleIncome Countries: The Challenges of Equity and Quality’. Higher Education, 72, pp. 407–11. Sikwibele, A. (2007). ‘The Contribution of Higher Education to National Education Systems: The Case of Namibia’. UNESCO Forum and Association of African Universities, Ghana, 22–24 March. Singh, M., and Manuh, T. (2007). ‘The Contribution of Higher Education to National Education Systems: Current Challenges in Africa’. Proceedings of UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge, Accra, 22–24 March. Sukati, W. (2007). ‘Promoting Non-Formal Education in Swaziland: Any Role for the University of Swaziland’. UNESCO Forum and Association of African Universities, Ghana, 22–24 March. United Nations (2006). ‘United Nations Global Action Plan to Achieve Development Goals by 2015’. High level Preliminary Meetings of the General Assembly, 20–22 September 2010, New York. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2018). Global Education Monitoring Report, 2019. Paris: United Nations. Weiss, E. (2004). ‘Conference on Human Rights, Public Finance, and the Development Process’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17 (1), pp. 3–22.

151

152

152

153

8

Universities and Green Innovations: Entrepreneurship in Uganda FREDERICK KAKEMBO

Introduction Growing population and urbanization are increasing the demand for food, energy, water and other necessities of life in Low Income African Countries (LIAC). For instance, as soil nutrients continue to be depleted, the cost of commercial fertilizers remains prohibitive (European Commission (EC), 2016). This is partly attributable to declining reserves of phosphorus, copper and zinc (Holmgren et al., 2015). In Uganda, over 80,000 hectares of private and protected forests are cleared annually for firewood and charcoal (Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), 2012). These challenges can be addressed via resource recovery and reuse (RRR) whereby materials and products that reach the end-of-life stage are regenerated for reuse. Recovery of all organic waste globally could triple the nutrients currently contained in chemical fertilizers. In this case, recycling is expected to translate the urban waste challenge into opportunities, particularly in LIAC where 50 per cent of municipal budgets are committed to waste management (Le Cortois, 2012). In the context of this chapter, recycling entrepreneurship refers to converting of waste into tradable commodities such as biofuels, ornamental crafts, soil nutrients and building materials. Conceptually, higher educational institutions (HEIs) are positioned to play a central role in the transition to sustainability through championing innovation, creativity and adaptation. Social and technological innovations from HEIs may not only build resilience among communities, but could also create opportunities for delivering economic, social and environmental benefits. Sustainability calls for efficiency in the use of natural resources to ensure that products and materials circulate at the highest level of utility to reduce wastage. Circularity involves reusing secondary and renewable materials to address scarcity (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018). Recycling entrepreneurship is a component of the circular economy that potentially makes the world ecologically clean and liveable. Among other things, circularity addresses bottlenecks of resource scarcity and waste disposal (Homrich et al., 2018). Within the circular value chain, HEIs ought to develop models that enable communities and organizations to retain and regenerate value to waste products, making them secondary raw materials through reverse logistics. The role of HEIs in promoting sustainability initiatives starts with the youth. In Uganda, youths constitute over 75 per cent of the population and are therefore key stakeholders positioned

153

154

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to play a leading role in RRR. According to United Nations (2014), urban youth will constitute 32.1 per cent of the population of Uganda, estimated to be 104 million, by 2050. As such, they ought to participate meaningfully in initiatives that guarantee that the current generation meet the present-day needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987). In 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted, ‘We hold the future in our hands. Together, we must ensure that our grandchildren will not have to ask why we failed to do the right thing and let them suffer the consequence’ (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2012, p. 5). Other stakeholders that HEIs must engage include communities, public- and private-sector agencies. Working with urban authorities, HEIs could introduce technical and business models for recycling biowaste to reduce open waste burning and dumping as well as to create jobs for urban communities. Given that the use of firewood, charcoal, dung and agricultural residues for cooking and heating is very high in LIAC (Sehgal et al., 2018), recycling biowaste into biofuels provides affordable and cleaner cooking and heating solutions. It also reduces incidences of pollution of water, air and land by waste. Whereas recycling technologies have existed for decades in Uganda, RRR has not been upscaled significantly. The low level of RRR is attributed to fiscal, technical, human and social factors. The value of recycling organic waste is not widely known by the informal sector that dominates recycling practices in many cities of LIAC. Instead, most of the urban groups focus on collecting metallics and plastic materials to sell to recycling companies. This is mainly due to the absence of streamlined recycling schemes. Ideally, the business component embedded within RRR is expected to attract entrepreneurs to invest in upscaling waste recycling. These existing gaps in RRR prompted Ndejje University (NDU) to venture into recycling entrepreneurship. This chapter describes the origin and development of recycling entrepreneurship as a component of the sustainability initiatives at the university.

Formats of Engagement of NDU Students in Recycling Entrepreneurship The focus on recycling entrepreneurship is based on the premise that the business considerations are likely to attract the attention of communities towards sustainability issues. In this regard, the commercial products of RRR include biofuels, ornamental crafts, soil nutrients, pavers and other building materials. The other attraction is the cost-saving and cost-recovery component entailed in RRR, for example, saving costs on cooking fuel by using briquettes instead of firewood. While the economic and social benefits of RRR were highlighted first to attract the attention of communities, the ultimate focus of the initiatives was to promote sustainability. The formats used to engage students and communities in RRR initiatives are explored here. Experiential Learning Imparting of knowledge, attitudes and practices related to RRR in NDU was done through experiential learning (ExL). This is a learner-driven approach, applied to help students to make use of their experiences and reflections on sustainability initiatives. The approach aims to enable students to value their environment and to optimize opportunities to improve the quality of life in communities. The five stages of ExL, as proposed by Kolb (1984) are: acquisition of experiences

154

Universities and Green Innovations

(concrete learning); reflective observation (reflecting on the experiences); processing (abstract conceptualization); active experimentation; and application. Recycling entrepreneurship enabled youths (in schools and community) to think critically and take innovative actions. ExL initiatives have been used by NDU to empower youths to set objectives, to implement as well as to assess and monitor the progress of their projects. The ExL programmes for RRR comprise on-campus events – which take place within the boundaries of NDU – and off campus (fieldbased) activities – which take place outside the university. NDU students formed environmental clubs and collaborated with community groups to operate off-campus projects. In promoting recycling entrepreneurship, the five stages of ExL (Kolb, 1984) are used to map development of the initiative: 1. Acquisition of concrete experiences: Structures were developed for students to acquire sustainability knowledge, information and experiences through exploring the environment within their institution and the environment of the neighbouring villages. Led by the staff of NDU, students made field trips to farm areas, waste dumping sites, forests, wetlands, water bodies, mountain slopes and other key features within their environs. Additional insights were obtained by reading-related content in newspapers, magazines, books, online materials and environment-related programming on radio, television, video and internet. Students also participated in community waste-management projects where they had opportunities to listen to narratives, stories and reports on disasters such as floods, droughts, landslides and so on. 2. Reflective observation: After these experiences, students reviewed and reflected on the insights that they had acquired. These reflections were undertaken through debates and other interactive exchanges, and they focused on any discrepancies between the reality and the ideal situation. Some of the realities noted by students include droughts/famine, deforestation, energy poverty, poor sanitation, waste piles, floods, landslides, wetlands encroachment and pollution. Their reflections touched on the possible causes of the unfortunate events and the extent to which human activities can lead to the unfortunate events and the effects of such events on humans. Reflective activities also involved sharing insights through production and use of picture books, drawings, comic art, photography, videography, social media messaging and blogging. 3. Abstract conceptualization: Participants generated ideas that offer solutions to mitigate, reduce or prevent the events they had identified. Their ideas were also aimed at reducing the impact of such events on humans. The solutions were offered through debates, quizzes, essay writing, ‘edutainment’ (i.e. comedy, rap music, poetry, dance, drama, skits), social media (web blogging), drawing, comic art, printing, photography, videography, book picture production, seminars, workshops, conferences and exhibitions. 4. Active experimentation: Participants initiated, developed and tried out innovative activities and projects to implement the ideas they generated. Some of these were piloted – for example, recycling waste into products such as briquettes, ornamental crafts, pavers, animal feeds and so on. Other activities included water harvesting, water treatment, water pumping and irrigated farming (powered by renewable energy). Some of the student groups participated in off-ground gardening, ornamental gardening and tree planting. 5. Application: Based on the piloted activities, students linked up with community groups, public- and some private-sector agencies to roll out several RRR projects. These projects

155

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

included production of briquettes, soil nutrients from waste and of ornamental crafts; soil nutrients were used for off-ground gardening. Other initiatives related to keeping livestock that depended on food waste, water harvesting and water treatment. While some of these projects remained at a small-scale level, briquette production was scaled up to a commercial level by two start-up youth companies: WEYE and Summit Green company. 6. Assessing effectiveness of the programme: Baseline surveys were conducted to establish pre-project knowledge, attitudes, practices and skills (KAPS) related to RRR among the students and youths. Quantitative and quantitative tools were developed at NDU to conduct formative (ongoing) and summative (end project) assessments on KAPS related to RRR. The tools used for assessments included questionnaires, inventories, checklists, focus group discussions, interviews, content analysis and personal observations. Educational Entertainment (Edutainment) One of the approaches used by NDU to create awareness about sustainability issues was ‘edutainment’. This is a hybrid mix of education and entertainment that relies heavily on visual material, on narrative or game-like formats, and on more informal, less didactic styles (Putral and Setyaningrum, 2018). The purpose of edutainment is to attract and hold the attention of the learners by engaging their emotions. Edutainment involves multimedia software, internet sites, music, films, video and computer games, radio and television programmes. Learning and amusement are woven seamlessly in such a way that there is no dividing line between the two. Artistic performers are used to draw the attention of audiences towards behavioural change messages. Edutainment was integrated into informal learning activities at the university to allow learning in enjoyable environments. Alongside the traditional music, dance and drama, the contemporary forms of entertainment popular among youth were used to convey sustainability concepts. Rap songs, skits, comedies and comic art (cartoons) were used by students to discourage littering, prevent open-waste dumping wastage (of water, food, energy) and put a stop to wetland encroachment. In addition to edutainment, other interactive forms of sharing of sustainability concepts included quizzes, debates, essay writing, photography, videography and picture books, green expos and so on. Edutainment and other interactive forms of information sharing were structured to create awareness about environmental degradation challenges and to describe practices that are routinely carried out in ways that are not sustainable. Edutainment also creates awareness and ignites debate about causes of the environmental degradation and the effects of human activities on the environment. In addition, it illustrates the effects of environmental degradation on humans and the ways in which the non-sustainable activities/practices could be reduced or prevented. Students also make use of electronic media for interactive communication; radios, television, videos, websites and social media were all used to receive and convey environmental information. Students’ Clubs and the Growth of Sustainability Initiatives Sustainability practices have been promoted through popular student organizations, including Rotaract clubs (in universities, colleges and communities) and Technology Without Borders 156

Universities and Green Innovations

(TWB). NDU students have supported the nurturing of clubs in high schools that include ecology, gardening, ornamental crafts, waste recycling, livestock (for chicken, rabbits and fish rearing); landscaping (producers of pavers, leisure parks); catering (baking using briquette ovens); and drama/comedy/comic-art clubs. The recycling entrepreneurship initiated by students at NDU is expected to cascade to other youths in high schools and in the community through these clubs. The clubs have contributed significantly to the promotion of sustainable consumption and production practices (SCPP) at the nexus of food, energy, water and eco-systems (FEWE). Some of the practices that were emphasized include those aimed at reducing wastage (of food, water, fuel, energy, paper, others) and the reuse of food waste for livestock feeds. In the area of waste management, emphasis was put on zero littering, waste sorting, prevention of open waste burning and recycling waste into secondary products such as soil nutrients, biofuels and ornamental crafts. Waste recycling was aimed at controlling pollution (of water, air and land). Activities of each of the clubs has an environmental and economic value. While the student population in the fifty Ugandan universities is smaller (130,000) relative to the national population (45 million), students could have a big impact on other youth and in communities. For instance, with an average student population of 8,000, NDU has developed networked linkages with other student communities (in universities and high schools) to popularize recycling entrepreneurship. University–Community Linkages NDU started the ‘Block-Placement Initiative’ to promote the interaction of NDU students and staff with communities. Groups of students, supervised by staff, are placed in different homesteads in rural and urban areas during recess. They live with the communities and learn from them. In the process, the students and communities jointly identify needs that call for interventions within the FEWE nexus. In this way, NDU is enabled to propose social and technological innovations to the communities, in areas of agriculture, water safety, renewable energy and enterprise development. This approach was adopted to reduce the perception of an ‘ivory tower’, whereby university communities are occasionally seen as exclusive clubs disconnected from the practical realities of neighbouring communities. The community engagement projects at NDU aim to ensure that teaching and research are relevant to the needs of communities. As such, students and staff work with grassroots communities (urban and rural) on a various RRR projects, and the students can earn academic credit from the projects they conduct jointly with communities. Green Expos and Annual Festivals Every year, NDU and its partners host exhibitions where innovations in RRR are open to the community; visitors get an opportunity to experience some of the products of RRR and pick up some of the skills of making some of the items. One of the events that combines learning with amusement is the fish festival where students from different schools harvest fish from their school’s fishpond, use it to prepare different meals and then feast on it. Such events include games and sports, entertainment from stars, mimes, dances and performances from different students.1 Broadcasted by NBS television, the fish festival is open to all schools around Kampala. It is a meet and greet moment for the students as they reflect back on the academic year. During the event, other projects apart from fish farming are also exhibited. These include chicken and rabbit rearing, bakery and cookery, mushroom growing, briquette production and brick making. 157

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Development of Structures for Promoting Resource Recovery and Reuse at Ndejje University Initiatives to promote RRR in NDU started taking shape in 2014 when seminars and workshops were conducted to seamlessly integrate teaching, research/innovation and community outreach. The aim of these activities was to develop frameworks to diffuse social and scientific innovations related to RRR throughout the university. Workshops and seminars were used to communicate with students and staff about entrepreneurial research, projects and consultancy related to RRR. Themes to link students and staff across the diverse disciplines in NDU were developed, centring on the FEWE nexus. The streamlining of research, projects and community outreach activities culminated in the creation of six Research and Development Centres (RDCs) in areas of renewable energy,2 water,3 agriculture/environment, technology incubation, business incubation, and partnerships and civic engagement. The establishment of the RDCs enabled development of joint research and projects across boundaries that were traditionally separated by faculties. The various disciplines are in areas of Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Communications, Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Education and Business/Management. The initiatives arose out of ideation sessions involving staff and students from various faculties. The innovations emerged out of multidisciplinary research and projects facilitated by the community outreach activities. Multidisciplinary Integration within the University Efforts have been made at NDU to overcome compartmentalization of knowledge that hinders successful operation of recycling schemes. Strong disciplinary boundaries occasionally limit integration of expertise and skills across diverse professionals. Consequently, staff and students seldom undertake cross-disciplinary projects. NDU acknowledged that RRR has aspects of natural sciences (physical, biological, chemical, mathematical); humanities/social sciences (for community engagement); geographical/ecological sciences (for sustainability); economics/ business (for entrepreneurship development), education/communication (for creating awareness, sensitization, training and skilling). The integration of expertise from various faculties ensures that the innovations have a positive impact on the community. One of the outcomes of this integration is the business of briquette production that NDU introduced in the rural area in Nakaseke.4 Engineering expertise was integrated with business skills to promote the project. The expertise from the Faculties of Social Sciences and Education enabled the diffusion of the innovation among user communities. Enhancing Inter-Sector Linkages One of the outcomes of the orientation workshops at NDU was enhancement of Academic, Public and Private Partnerships (APPP). Subsequent programming enabled interactions between the university on the one hand and public- and private-sector agencies on the other. In September 2016, NDU convened the first international scientific conference on biowaste recycling in Uganda. It aimed at identifying and bridging gaps in research and projects and promoting APPP linkages. Over sixty-six oral and poster presentations and exhibitions were made by fifty different organizations. The diverse disciplines covered in the conference included municipal waste management (MWM), water resource management, ecosystems, renewable energy, poverty alleviation and enterprise 158

Universities and Green Innovations

development. Participating agencies identified the need for joint ventures to promote research and projects in waste recycling initiatives.5 To consolidate gains achieved from the scientific conference, NDU invited companies, public and private agencies for a discussion over a dinner on 17 February 2017. During the event, prospective partners were invited to share insights and to develop roadmaps for joint ventures in key areas of mutual interest. Challenges that necessitated joint efforts were also identified, and opportunities that could be optimized through partnerships highlighted. This was the beginning of partnership deeds, memoranda of understanding (MOU) and joint projects undertaken by NDU in subsequent periods. Some of the outcomes of the partnerships include joint projects between NDU and KCCA (Kampala Capital City Authority; on waste management) and UNREEEA (Uganda National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Alliance; on renewable energy developments). UNREEEA established a solar energy unit and a wind energy demonstration unit at NDU. The Uganda National Biogas Association set up a biogas plant in the Ndejje trading centre and another within the university. NDU and the Uganda Manufacturing Association (UMA) undertook a project to conduct a needs assessment among manufacturers to update training programmes for the various courses at NDU. Joint ventures have also been carried out between NDU and the state-owned National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). The latter technically and financially supported an outreach project of NDU in St Kizito High School Namugongo (SKHSN). The project is focused on briquette production, composting, mushroom growing and off-ground gardening. On the side of companies, the private waste collectors (PWC) were engaged to distribute sorted biowaste to the sites operated by NDU and SKHSN that make carbonized briquettes. NDU has supported youths to initiate and operate two start-up recycling companies. These companies, WEYE6 and Summit Green Company,7 have invested in waste management, biofuels production as well as production of organic soil nutrients. Summit Green Company created an interactive digital platform known as Climate Action Training and Creativity Hub (CATCH) in 2019 to create awareness, facilitate debate/advocacy, promote partnerships, support training and arrange exhibitions.8 Working with public- and private-sector agencies has helped NDU customize RRR innovations to suit the needs of end users. It has also helped NDU access the technical and financial support needed for technological and social innovations. NDU created a Grants and Partnership Office in 2017 to coordinate activities and operations of the university with various partners, and to manage research and project grants the university planned to secure. The office now coordinates joint ventures with communities, public- and private-sector agencies. A university-based consultancy firm was also initiated in 2017 to create avenues through which communities, private- and public-sector agencies would benefit from the diverse expertise within the university.

Transiting from the Laboratory to the Marketplace University-based research and innovations on recycling entrepreneurship have focused on harmonizing sustainable development with business interests and meeting the needs of consumers and businesses. The innovative journey by NDU to upscale and commercialize RRR has been gradual and steady, consisting of several development stages. These include: 159

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

1. Ideation – balancing basic and applied research: One of the outcomes of multidisciplinary integration at NDU was the harmonization of basic and applied research. Multidisciplinary research has kept the community outreach department abreast of the needs of local communities. This has enabled the university to identify social and environmental challenges that required interventions. In turn, the challenges presented opportunities for developing products (such as RRR) that offer sustainable solutions. The innovations enabled creative integration of new and existing waste recycling technologies. 2. Project Selection – developing RRR processes and products: Several prototypes on RRR have been developed and tested in collaboration with communities and relevant agencies that use RRR products/services. At this stage of innovation, the two approaches that have been central include incremental advances in the prototypes aimed at delivering products of the highest possible value and design thinking, which considered the interactions between practitioners of RRR and the potential users/clients. The success in implementation of some of the RRR projects is attributed to joint ventures with the public- and private-sector agencies. The partnerships create opportunities for technical and financial support for RRR development. 3. Product/service development: Specific RRR products/services (such as carbonized briquettes) were scaled beyond the prototype into mass production, meeting specific needs of the industry. Aspects of production (securing of feedstock, suppliers, connecting parts, inputs, storage and transportation) were streamlined and the best ways of delivering the product/ service created. 4. Commercialization/marketing/promotion: Before bringing the product/service to market and adapting it to customer demands, concept tests were carried out to determine whether any adjustments were still required, to assess product acceptability and to determine the distribution networks. Market research and testing were undertaken rigorously to ensure that some of the products/services could be released to the market. At this stage of the innovation process, agile marketing was done to launch the products and services and to achieve results as soon as possible. Green expos and media (television, radio, newspapers and social media9) were used to exhibit and publicize various RRR projects. Technological innovations on RRR were integrated with business interests after identifying consumer needs. Surveys were conducted by students and staff to assess the supply and demand of existing cooking fuels (firewood, charcoal, kerosene, electricity) among neighbouring communities. The surveys also determined the attitudes of communities towards using biofuels that are recycled from biowaste. The baseline surveys also investigated fertilizer usage, availability, distribution and costs. Other information collected during the surveys related to approaches used to collect materials used in RRR and the prospective demand/market for products of RRR. Based on the survey findings, it was possible to design the production and distribution patterns for briquettes and other RRR products. Upscaling Resource Recovery and Reuse: Commercializing Production of Briquettes Production of carbonized briquettes from biowaste has so far been the most successful aspect of RRR at NDU. The technical and business models for its production and upscaling were an outcome of the integrated knowledge and expertise from the different faculties at NDU. To begin with, NDU partnered with private waste collecting companies to secure sustainable volumes 160

Universities and Green Innovations

of organic waste (or biochar) within the urban areas. In the rural areas, farmers were trained to carbonize their organic waste. The biochar was bought by NDU for use as a feedstock to make briquettes. The Faculty of Engineering designed and developed two types of kilns for carbonizing waste into biochar, namely the small-scale and the large-scale kilns – the former was used by individuals and small groups, while the latter (the first of its kind in Uganda) was used by large-scale producers of briquettes. Key insights from this example include: 1. Community training: NDU teams (students and staff) conducted training among communities and among start-up companies to streamline the collection and processing of the biowaste. The training enabled farmers in rural communities to collect, sort and carbonize agri-waste at source. The same training was availed to compound cleaners and other urban communities to collect, sort and carbonize biowaste into biochar. All these groups were also skilled at making briquettes for their domestic use (for cooking). NDU created structures that enabled collection of big volumes of biochar from the communities. Within urban centres, teams from NDU initiated partnerships with CAD (a private waste collecting company). CAD personnel were trained to sort and process the waste that they collect into biochar and sell it to briquette producers. In so doing, CAD not only earned extra income, but also saved costs of transporting waste to the landfills. They also saved on the dumping fees payable at the landfill. The innovations developed at NDU enabled the development of two start-up youth companies. The companies are Waste-to-Energy Youths Enterprise (WEYE) and Summit Green Company. These two companies were assisted by NDU to initiate and scale-up briquette production capacity up to three tons per day. This compares with the average of 8,500 kg of briquettes produced by other dealers in the country. However, the briquettes produced currently constitute less than 0.5 per cent of the cooking and heating fuels used in the country. 2. Promoting the uptake of carbonized briquettes: To widen the uptake of carbonized briquettes, compatible institutional cooking stoves were designed and piloted successfully by the Faculty of Engineering. The first institutional stoves that use carbonized briquettes (instead of firewood) for cooking were produced. Currently, briquettes are used exclusively for cooking in over fifteen educational institutions and piloted successfully in confectioneries, hotels/restaurants, saunas and poultry farms (for brooding). 3. Industrial use of briquettes: The use of briquettes has been experimented in Mwenge tea factory in Butiti Kyenjojo by NDU and Summit Green Company. The preliminary findings reveal that briquettes could be used as a substitute for firewood as the principal source of heat for curing tea. Feasibility and viability studies are ongoing. 4. Feasibility of the briquette enterprise: The preliminary operations of the briquette enterprise so far suggests that recycling entrepreneurship promises to be lucrative for the students and other youths who are operating it. Table 8.1 shows the potential commercial value of municipal waste as a feedstock in the production of carbonized briquettes. Table 8.1 reveals that the waste generated in Kampala city alone could generate enough briquettes for 6,171 schools. If 20 per cent of the income from sale of briquettes was dedicated to wages, it could provide jobs to 4,752 people (with monthly earning of US$100 each). Currently, most of the briquettes produced by NDU are being used to prepare meals at the NDU kitchen and in the neighbouring institutions. NDU produces two tons of briquettes 161

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

TABLE 8.1  Waste Generation in Kampala City and Its Potential Commercial Value (in US$)

Waste Aspect

Volume/Value (in tons)

Waste generated in Kampala city monthly

90,000

Fraction collected by the city

27,000

30% of waste generated

Fraction dumped in non-authorized places

63,000

70 % of waste generated

City expenditure on waste collection

40% of budgets

Organic waste generated monthly

72,000

80% of generated

Weight lost during drying and carbonization

61,200

85%

Biochar got from 72,000 tons of biowaste

10,800

15% of biowaste

Monetary value of briquettes from the biowaste

10,800

US$0.22 per kg; US$2,376,000

Schools to be served by 10,800 tons (in a term of four months, 43,200 tons could be produced) Firewood saved per term if 6,171 schools used briquettes Jobs created by the briquette production

6,171 215,985 4,752

A school of 1,000 students uses 7 tons in 4 months 35 tons per school x 6,171 20% of income spent on wages at US$100 per month.

Source: Kakembo (2018).

daily and uses 300 kg for the preparation of meals. Most of the briquettes produced by WEYE and Summit Green Company are sold to schools, poultry farms (for brooding chicken) and supermarkets. However, given that the uptake of briquettes is not yet big nationwide, this form of fuel constitutes less than 0.5 per cent of the total cooking fuel consumption. More widespread sensitization and awareness about these initiatives are needed to popularize briquette production and consumption. Challenges Faced by Ndejje University in Promoting Resource Recovery and Reuse Promoting RRR at NDU has not been a smooth path, one of the constraints being the inadequate funding to support research and innovations. Like many other private universities in Uganda, NDU does not have access to national designated funds for research and innovations. The resources used in research and innovation are secured from an already tight budget. One of the measures taken by NDU to address these challenges was to initiate partnerships with diverse agencies that could support research and projects technically and financially. However, this support is not regular and may not be appropriately programmed for routine operations. During the early stages, there was lack of compatibility between university teams and communities on the one hand, and university teams and agencies on the other. NDU teams took a long time to understand the informality of communities and the work ethic and schedules of private-sector agencies. In turn, communities and agencies were not accustomed to academic jargon and the relative formalities of university teams. These challenges were progressively addressed through interactive forums as the projects unfolded. The efforts undertaken by NDU to streamline the synergies and to promote meaningful partnerships began with stakeholder mapping. This involved analysing partners’ core values, interests and challenges, and also enlisting their commitment within the RRR production/supply chains. 162

Universities and Green Innovations

Another constraint was the cultural and psychosocial sensitivities associated with recycling and reuse of waste materials. In many communities in Uganda, waste is considered dirty, and the associated products are not considered ideal for use. The sensitivity is detected even among educated people who might be expected to understand the recycling processes. Over time, this complication is being addressed through multimedia awareness campaigns coupled with green expos and exhibitions. The slow uptake of RRR products, especially in the briquette production industry has also been compounded by the availability of cheap fuels (firewood and charcoal) on the market. Most of the dealers in charcoal firewood cut down trees from natural forests that they access very cheaply. The processes of producing charcoal and firewood also involve modest costs. This means that production costs are very low, and therefore the pricing of the products is correspondingly low. To mitigate this constraint, NDU has endeavoured to propose policy and institutional frameworks that would moderate market prices. Other proposed interventions include tax incentives on briquette production equipment. Over time, many of the constraints are being addressed. It expected that RRR would grow in strength when communities and different agencies increasingly get aboard through multimedia awareness campaigns.

Higher Educational Institutions and the Promotion of Sustainability Initiatives The growing need to address sustainability issues is amplified by the fact that demand for food, energy and safe water is predicted to outstrip supply levels. Many households already lack access to clean cooking fuels (World Bank, 2017) and therefore rely on traditional biomass for cooking (Sehgal et al., 2018). The problem is aggravated by use of inefficient traditional stoves and open fires for cooking (World Bank, 2016). NDU explored the prospects of enabling society to transition to a more sustainable future via innovations, knowledge creation and dissemination. One of the steps taken was to develop appropriate human resources for supporting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015) and boosting resilience against climate change impacts. Being a component of bio-based circular economy, recycling entrepreneurship at NDU makes use of renewable biological resources (e.g. crops, forests and animals). Bio-based circularity is a closed loop system that maintains the value of biological products (Medkova et al., 2017). Materials and products are wholly or partly derived from materials of biological origin (EC, 2017). In the process of engaging diverse stakeholders, NDU highlights ethics, transparency and accountability as cornerstones of sustainability. This is particularly vital in managing resources related to food, energy, water and ecosystems. As Biggs et al. (2015) point out, the nexus approach addresses the complexity and interrelationship in the usage of natural resources. Recycling entrepreneurship promotes sustainable business, job creation and livelihoods for companies and communities. Not only does RRR reduce dependency on non-renewable raw materials for production, but it also prevents depletion of natural resources (Ghosh and Agamuthu, 2018). In the production of renewable energy, holistic sustainability is achieved through recycling biowaste for increasing energy output. Gregorio et al. (2018) note that circularity promotes green economy, industrial ecology, social equity and human welfare. Based on the projections made by NDU, streamlining RRR promises to improve the livelihoods of many Ugandans. According to Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI, 2018), over 3,000 people in Uganda are 163

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

directly employed in informal solid waste-related activities. RRR innovations at NDU are likely to facilitate the operations of more than 100 formal private waste collecting companies that are registered in addition to over forty non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and communicationbased organizations (CBOs) that actively support waste management operations in Uganda. RRR is also positioned to reduce the huge expenditure of US$2,400,000 spent by Kampala city on waste management – constituting 40 per cent of the city’s total annual budget. The role of RRR in minimizing the costs of waste management by transforming waste into raw materials for production is described by Salguero-Puerta et al. (2019). Besides eliminating wastage, the value of by-products is retained for the longest time possible. Sustainability initiatives that capture business interests are likely to attract public attention. It is for this reason that NDU strives to develop economic and social incentives to attract multiple actors to engage in RRR. Many of the RRR projects at NDU promote bio-based circularity that involves converting biowaste into value-added products of biological origin. Gregorio and Terceno (2018) conceptualize the ‘bioeconomy’ as the production, use and marketing of renewable biological resources. Profitability is heightened when products that are approaching their end-of-life stage are regenerated and reused as raw materials (Kyriakopoulos et al., 2019). For instance, a lot of domestic and agricultural waste that ends up in the landfill in Kitezi near Kampala are potential raw materials for bioenergy, soil nutrients and biocides. Recycling the waste not only minimizes environmental risks and ecological scarcities, but also ensures that the value of natural resources is maintained if possible. One of the central tenets of sustainability that is stressed by NDU is Sustainable Consumption and Production Practices (SCPP). This refers to the production and use of products/services in ways that are socially beneficial, economically viable and environmentally harmonious. Sustainability practices inculcated among students (and the community youth) included zero littering, waste collection and waste sorting. Using green expos and other exhibitions, NDU has demonstrated to communities and other agencies (public and private) that RRR is viable and feasible. NDU has also used its own facilities and the facilities of its partnering schools to demonstrate the practical aspects of RRR. For instance, meals are prepared using briquettes instead of firewood. The water used at the institutions is harvested and treated for use. At the same institutions, wastage of food, water energy and office stationery is minimized. One of the student projects involved use of leftover food as a raw material for producing animal feeds (pigs, chicken, rabbits and fish) and for vermiculture (artificial cultivation of earthworms). This is a component of the circular economy that helps to regenerate food waste, making it a secondary raw material for agricultural activities (Kakembo and Galabuzi, 2020). By promoting RRR projects among students and communities, the tripartite mandate of HEIs of teaching, research/ innovations and community outreach is realized. Working with public- and private-sector agencies was a viable approach taken by NDU to upscale and commercialize RRR. As proposed by Andersson et al. (2016), partnerships between entrepreneurs, private- and the public-sector agencies make RRR projects viable. According to Borrello et al. (2017), inter-sector linkages are positioned to facilitate closed-loop production within natural ecosystems. Conceptually, the monetized products from RRR incentivize communities and entrepreneurs to engage in robust operations of sanitation systems (Murray and Ray, 2010; Murray and Buckley, 2010 and Huibers et al., 2010). Job creation for youths, women and other urban communities also attracts stakeholders towards RRR initiatives. This is because livelihoods can be supported by ‘waste-to-wealth’ enterprises. 164

Universities and Green Innovations

The processes used by NDU to introduce recycling entrepreneurship among students, communities and other stakeholders followed the Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) Model proposed by Rogers (2003). DOI stipulates five stages through which innovations are presented: knowledge dissemination, persuasion, decision-making, implementation and confirmation of new practices. The NDU teams that undertook the RRR initiatives made sure that there were adequate social and economic incentives to enable the targeted communities to adopt the innovations. On the side of the social incentives, awareness drives were conducted, mainly through edutainment. In promoting sustainability initiatives, edutainment not only highlights the consequences of failure to take appropriate action, but it also demonstrates costs and benefits of responding appropriately. In the initial phases, sustainability initiatives at NDU were integrated in co-curricular activities, with the expectation that, over time, they would become part of the mainstream learning programmes at the university. Student clubs are at the forefront of stimulating innovative, holistic and systemic thinking and actions for sustainable futures. Another approach taken by NDU to ensure positive changes in behaviour and practices for RRR was role modelling. Teachers, institutional administrators, renowned artists and other influential persons were seen practicing some of the recommended activities. These included picking up litter and dropping it in appropriate waste bins. This approach aligns with Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2002), which proposes that desirable behaviours and practices are learnt through observing and imitating role models. Student leaders encouraged their followers to switch off unnecessary lights, especially during the day. They also encouraged fellow students to report water leakages to relevant authorities. The business benefits of RRR were clearly demonstrated in the pilot projects undertaken jointly with targeted communities. Practical activities provided opportunities for immersive, hands-on learning and problem-solving. The transition towards sustainability at NDU started with multidisciplinary integration that brought about the convergence of knowledge and expertise from different faculties at the university. Multidisciplinary research and projects at the university enhanced cognitive, affective and participatory knowledge of the students moulding their behaviour and practices for sustainability. Workshops, seminars, conferences and green expos were used to generate debates and share insights among academics and practitioners in the public- and private-sector agencies. The necessity to create platforms for communication and collaboration among educational institutions and practitioner agencies is supported by Berchin et al. (2018). The engagement of the business communities enables integration of environmental awareness with conscious consumer values (Zsóka et al., 2013). To make the reuse-based value proposition attractive to the end-user communities, technical and business models of RRR were developed, and the social and economic benefits of recycling were demonstrated. To the benefit of urban authorities, waste recycling not only reduces open waste dumping and pollution, but it also enhances cost-saving and cost-recovery operations.

Conclusions Overall, the promotion of recycling entrepreneurship by NDU was a central pillar in the nurturing of sustainability cultures among students, staff and neighbouring communities. One of the key catalysts of the transformations was the demonstration of economic, social and environmental benefits of RRR. Students, communities and entrepreneurs were attracted by 165

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

the business prospects highlighted in the projects. The public-sector agencies were enticed by the cost-saving and cost-recovery components of RRR positioned to transform the collectionfor-disposal model of waste management into one of waste processing. The multidisciplinary integration and joint ventures between NDU, public- and the private-sector agencies also played significant roles in the transformation for sustainability. The partnerships bridged gaps related to financial and technical resources needed for starting-up, scaling-up and commercializing RRR. Student-centred clubs/associations and the block-placement initiatives were very important in the transformation towards sustainability. Working with their community-youth counterparts, they managed to identify gaps within communities that called for interventions. These initiatives were slowed down by incompatibility between academic communities and prospective partners. However, the challenges that existed between the parties were eventually resolved. The successes so far attained in RRR by NDU highlight the prospects that HEIs in Uganda and in LIAC could play a central role in the transit towards sustainability. It is recommended that more technical and financial support be extended to HEIs to develop structures for promoting sustainability initiatives. Besides, HEIs should streamline the interactions among themselves and between the HEIs and other key stakeholders in RRR development.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT



1. In multi-stakeholder projects, there may be multiple and differing benefits and incentives for those involved. If these benefits are additive or synergistic, these differing perspectives bring strength to a project. 2. Change can be affected through demonstrating success at a small-scale, which can then be scaled up. Not all transformational change needs to start with big strategic ideas. 3. Multi-stakeholder working for sustainability enables participants to identify and fill gaps in others’ understanding, enabling a more fulsome collective and diverse range of skills to be available for critical thinking and action.



Notes 1 2 3 4 5

https://campus​bee.ug/prog​gie/fish-festi​val-retu​rns-in-sea​son-two-at-st-kiz​ito-high-sch​ool-namugo​ngo/. https://www.ndejj​euni​vers​ity.ac.ug/ene​rgy-resea​rch-and-deve​lopm​ent-cen​ter-erdc/. https://www.ndejj​euni​vers​ity.ac.ug/2018/08/15/nde​jje-uni​vers​ity-water-resea​rch-and-deve​lopm​ent-cen​tre/. https://www.moni​tor.co.ug/uga​nda/busin​ess/tec​hnol​ogy/nakas​eke-model-villa​ges-get-boost-in-brique​ttemak​ing-tec​hnol​ogy-3359​494?view=html​amp. https://www.ndejj​euni​vers​ity.ac.ug/docs/resea​rch/Con​fere​nce/FirstScientificCo​nfer​ence​OnBi​owas​teRe​ cycl​ing-inUga​nda-2016.pdf. https://www.wey​eug.com/waste-to-ene​rgy-youth-proj​ect/. www.sum​mitg​reen​comp​any.com. http://catch.sum​mitg​reen​comp​any.com. http://uga​nda.watsu​pafr​ica.com/news/high-sch​ool-fish-festi​val-at-st-kiz​ito-nbs-youth-voice/; https://www. newvis​ion.co.ug/new​_vis​ion/news/1511​264/fish-festi​val-st-kiz​ito-sch​ool-namugo​ngo.

6 7 8 9

166

Universities and Green Innovations

References Andersson, K. Rosemarin, A., Lamizana, Ba., Kvarnstrom, E., Mc Canville, J., Seidu, R., Dicksin, S., and Trimmer, C. (2016). Sanitation, Wastewater Management and Sustainability: From Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery. Nairobi and Stockholm: United Nation Environment Programme and Stockholm Environment Institute. Bandura, A. (2002). ‘Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication’, in J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (eds), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 121–53. Berchin, I. I., Sima, S., Lima, M. A., Biesel, S., Santos, L. P., Ferreira, R. V., … Ceci, F. (2018). ‘The Importance of International Conferences on Sustainable Development as Higher Education Institutions’ Strategies to Promote Sustainability: A Case Study in Brazil’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, pp. 756–72. Biggs, E. M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, J. M. A., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., … Imanari, Y. (2015). ‘Sustainable Development and the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: A Perspective on Livelihoods’. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, pp. 389–97. Borrello, M., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Pascucci, S., and Cembalo, L. (2017). ‘Consumers’ Perspective on Circular Economy Strategy for Reducing Food Waste’. Sustainability, 9, p. 141. Brundtland, G. (1987). ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’. United Nations General Assembly Document A/42/427. http://www.un-docume​nts. net/our-com​mon-fut​ure.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2022. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018). ‘MUD Jeans – Pioneering a Lease Model for Organic Cotton Jeans’. https://www.ellen​maca​rthu​rfou​ndat​ion.org/case​stud​ies/pio​neer​ing-a-lease-model-for-orga​nic-cot​ ton-jeans. Accessed 2 November 2021. European Commission (EC) (2016). ‘Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste’. http://ec.eur​opa.eu/envi​ronm​ent/ waste/framew​ork/. European Commission (EC) (2017). ‘Bio-Based Products’. http://ec.eur​opa.eu/gro​wth/sect​ors/biotec​hnol​ ogy/bio-based-prod​ucts​_en. Ghosh, S., and Agamuthu, P. (2018). ‘Circular Economy: The Way Forward’. Waste Management and Research, 36, pp. 481–2. Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) (2018). ‘Uganda Country Planning Framework 2017–21’. https:// gggi.org/site/ass​ets/uplo​ads/2018/04/UGA​NDA-COUN​TRY-PLANN​ING-FRAMEW​ORK.pdf. Gregorio, V. F., Pie, L., and Terceno, A. (2018). ‘A Systematic Literature Review of Bio-Green and Circular Economy: Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management’. Sustainability, 10, 4232. Holmgren, K. L., Verstraete, W., and Cornel, P. (2015). State of the Art Compendium Report on Resources Recovery from Water. London: IWA Resources Recovery Cluster. Homrich, A. S., Galvao, G., Abadia, L. G., and Carvalho, M. M. (2018). ‘The Circular Economy Umbrella: Trends and Gaps on Integrating Pathway’s. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, pp. 525–43. Huibers, F., Redwood, M., and Raschid-Sally, L. (2010). ‘Challenging Conventional Approaches to Managing Wastewater Use in Agriculture’, in P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri (eds), Wastewater Irrigation and Health. Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Low-Income Countries. London: Earthscan, pp. 287–301. Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) (2012). ‘Chad: Panic, OUTCRY at Government Charcoal Ban’. www.irinn​ews.org/Rep​ort/82436/CHADPa​nic-out​cry-at-gov​ernm​ent-charc​oal-ban. Accessed 21 December 2012. Kakembo, F. (2018). ‘Sanitation as Business: Diversifying Income and Livelihoods for Women in Fishing Villages in Uganda’. Journal of the Asian Development Perspectives, 9 (1), pp. 51–67. Kakembo, F., and Galabuzi, B. K. (2020). ‘Developing the Circular Economy in Uganda: Prospects for Academia-Public-Private-Partnerships (APPP)’, Universities, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development in Africa – Conference Proceedings 2020, German African University Partnership Platform for the Development of Entrepreneurs and Small/Medium Enterprises, 8, pp. 74–90.

167

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kyriakopoulos, G. L., Kapsalis, V. C., Aravossis, K. G., Zampara, M., and Mitsikas, A. (2019). ‘Evaluating Circular Economy under a Multi-Parametric Approach: A Technological Review’. Sustainability, 11 (21), p. 6139. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su1​1216​139. Le Cortois, A. (2012). ‘Municipal Solid Waste: Turning a Problem into Resources’. Private Sector & Development, World Bank Magazine, 15, pp. 2–4. Accessed 13 March 2017. Medkova., K., Vanhamäki, S., and Kivelä, R. (2017). ‘Bio-Based Circular Economy Good Practices in Päijät-Häm’, in Kirsti Cura (ed.), Lahti Circular Economy Annual Review 2017. Publication Series of Lahti University of Applied Sciences, Part 31. Finland: Lahti University. Murray, A., and Buckley, C. (2010). ‘Designing Reuse-Oriented Sanitation Infrastructure: The Design for Service Planning Approach’, in P. Drechsel, C. A. Scott, L. Raschid-Sally, M. Redwood and A. Bahri (eds), Wastewater Irrigation and Health. Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Low-Income Countries. London: Earthscan, pp. 303–8. Murray, A., and Ray, I. (2010). ‘Wastewater for Agriculture: A Reuse-Oriented Planning Model and Its Application in Peri-Urban China’. Water Research, 44 (5), pp. 1667–79. Putra1, W., and Setyaningrum, W. (2018). ‘The Effect of Edutainment toward Students’ Interest in Learning Mathematics’. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097, p. 012120. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusions of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press. Salguero-Puerta, L., Leyva-Diaz, J. C., Cortes-Garcia, F. J., and Molina-Moreno, V. (2019). ‘Sustainability Indicators Concerning Waste Management for Implementation of the Circular Economy Model on the University of Lome (Togo) Campus’. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, p. 2234. Sehgal, K. (2018). ‘Current State and Future Prospects of Global Biogas Industry’, in M. Tabatabaei and H. Ghanavati (eds), Biogas: Fundamentals, Process and Operation. Cham: Springer, pp. 449–72. United Nations (2014). ‘World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision’. CD-ROM Edition. http://esa. un.org/unpd/wpp/. Accessed on 4 September 2016. United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 30 December 2021. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2012). Education for Sustainable Development in Action. UN Decade for Sustainable Development 2005–14. UNESCO Education Sector Learning & Training Tools N°4, Paris: UNESCO. World Bank (2016). Burning Opportunity: Clean Household Energy for Health, Sustainable Development, and Wellbeing of Women and Children. Geneva: World Health Organization. www.propo​rco.fr/web​ dav/site/propa​rco/sha​red/PORTA​ILS/Sectue​r_pr​ive_​deve​lopm​ent/PDF/SPD14/rev​ue_S​PD15​_UK.pdf. World Bank (2017). Progress toward Sustainable Energy. Global Tracking Framework 2017, Summary Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. Zsóka, A., Szerénuy, Z. M., Széchy, A., and Kocsis, T. (2013). ‘Greening Due to Environmental Education? Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, Consumer Behavior and Everyday ProEnvironmental Activities of Hungarian high School and University Students’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, pp. 126–38.

168

169

9

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong JOY LAM TSZ LOK AND OLES KWONG YU TO

Introduction A review of sustainability initiatives in recent years at the University of Hong Kong suggested ‘reconciling the pursuit of excellence with sustainable development’ and called for ‘transformational change which requires learning at multiple levels involving institutional policy, expertise across multiple disciplines and individual and group learning among a wide range of stakeholders’ (Kildahl and Liao, 2013, p. 137). Since the establishment of a dedicated Sustainability Office in 2008, the first in Hong Kong, the university’s sustainability journey has not been smooth. Some earlier milestones, like the establishment of the Hong Kong Sustainable Campus Consortium (HKSCC, 2021a), a citywide university sustainability consortium in 2010, and the active participation of the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) since 2017, set the foundation for catalysing changes in recent years. Perseverance in advocating for changes was critical for success: numerous project ideas and attempts on campus failed or remained pilots. However, these attempts provided first-hand and acute lessons to become familiar with stakeholders and the systems. The institutional policy change on a Disposable Free Campus (University of Hong Kong, 2017a) is truly a milestone to celebrate, building on the university’s sustainability expertise, understanding of the campus facilities, administrative set-up and infrastructure potential, and a core team committed to pushing the agenda forward and willing to acquire skills required for analysis, communication and community engagement. The ability to recognize opportunities and the flexibility to pivot, coupled with regular communication channels and mutual trust with senior leaders and stakeholders, were essential to driving large-scale sustainability changes on campus. When an opportunity emerged because the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) gained traction around the world, the development of the value case of transition to fully embracing the SDGs at the university was completed in a short time. The value case demonstrated the ability of the Sustainability Office in pinpointing the issues that the stakeholders cared about the most as well as navigating through the complex governance structure of the organization to gain support from the management. The university is a collective, and the most valuable players are each individual. Identifying, earning and maintaining relationships with sustainability champions with an open mind across

169

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and outside the university ensures that synergies can happen, and ideas are spread. Many of the successful examples in sustainability often stem from ideas or actions that can be attained simply. Focusing on early wins empowers stakeholders and builds momentum and visibility for further scaling. However, sometimes difficult trade-offs are needed to maintain progress. In this era of uncertainty and digital transformation, being transparent, confident and accountable allows collaborative grassroots and centrally curated actions that often give rise to magnifying positive results. In this chapter, two institutional examples are explored: the ‘Ditch Disposable’ campaign and the adaptation of SDGs to illustrate and evidence transformative change for sustainability at the University of Hong Kong.

Ditch Disposable as a Case Study of Transformational Change on Campus The Sustainability Office of the University of Hong Kong launched a campus-wide environmental campaign called ‘Ditch Disposable’ in 2016 that aimed to reduce disposable waste at the university and to promote sustainability (University of Hong Kong, 2020). An official ceremony was held in March 2017, drawing the attention of some local press. Along with this campaign, the university introduced a policy on disposable plastic bottles on 1 July 2017 (University of Hong Kong, 2017a). The policy banned the sale and distribution of single-use plastic water bottles of one litre or less on campus. This pertains to all catering and retail outlets, vending machines and campus events. Prior to Ditch Disposable, the University of Hong Kong banned the use of Styrofoam boxes and drinks containers in all catering outlets in 2009 and introduced a ‘no shark fin’ policy in 2008. These were two early attempts to leverage university-controlled operation (catering outlets are administered by a central catering office at the university, with private operators engaged as service providers at university premises) and campus-wide policy to foster environmentally responsible behaviour. The ban on Styrofoam boxes was a collaboration with the central catering office, the Sustainability Office and the Students’ Union (SU). After the policy, only paper or other plastic take-away boxes and containers were used. The no shark fin policy banned the consumption of shark fin in all university-financed meetings and banquets. Anyone who would like to issue a claim to the university to pay for meeting or banquet expenditures had to demonstrate through the claim form that no shark fin has been consumed for the claim to be processed. These two initiatives informed the establishment of the later Ditch Disposable campaign and relevant policies. In 2016, public awareness on plastic pollution issues was on the rise. The focus on plastic has been increasing as a topic in the media, followed by programmes globally to end the use of single-use plastics (Paterson, 2019). In Hong Kong, it was a normal practice to serve small bottles of water to event participants and speakers, and people could easily buy bottled water at vending machines and convenience stores located around the city. However, it is an extremely unsustainable practice. According to the public consultation paper on Producer Responsibility Scheme on Plastic Beverage Containers, released by the Environmental Protection Department of the Hong Kong SAR in February 2021 (Environmental Protection Department, 2021), billions of single-use plastic beverage containers are consumed every year (amounting to more than 200 bottles per person annually), of which the majority are disposed of in landfills, the prime and only way to treat domestic waste at the city (Environmental Protection Department, 2021). A recent 170

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong

study from Green Earth, a Hong Kong based non-governmental organization, also shows that only one in four hundred people would bring a reusable bottle for takeaway drinks. These figures indicated the need for a more holistic and effective waste management strategy to tackle the growing plastic problem. Therefore, the University of Hong Kong’s Sustainability Office devised the Ditch Disposable campaign. With existing filtered-water dispensers, the office believed that campus facilities could be enhanced to support the university community even if no small-sized bottled water were permitted on campus. Early Champions At the launch ceremony of the campaign, twenty-seven early champions pledged to ditch disposable and choose reusable by implementing the policy before the policy came into force in July. The champions include various catering outlets, university departments and offices, student residential halls, academic faculties and student organizations. The Sustainability Office individually invited the early champions to participate. By demonstrating the feasibility of opting out of bottled water and given the early commitment by wide-ranging stakeholders within the university, much anxiety and scepticism in the community was relieved. The Sustainability Office also organized various empowerment activities and awareness raising events such as beach clean-ups and movie screenings. It was particularly important that catering outlets were among the early champions. By working transparently with one of the stakeholders that would be most financially impacted, it allowed discussion and collective action to be taken to mitigate negative consequences, as well as to gain trust and confidence in further collaborations. UNIfy Skip the Straw Single-use plastics continued to be the centre of attention in environmental concerns by the public. After the video of marine biologists removing a plastic straw from the nostril of a sea turtle went viral in 2015, public sentiment on plastic straws ramped up (National Geographic, 2015). A year after the ditch disposable ceremony, through the HKSCC (a group of all eight public universities in the city to develop and champion dynamic and active collaborative sustainability solutions), the University of Hong Kong co-led an initiative in which all universities in the city reduced the use of single-use plastic straws (HKSCC, 2021a). In March 2018, the university hosted a no straw week for all campus catering outlets, in which almost 17,000 plastic straws were saved, and continued the effort to reduce disposable plastic straws use with no straw Mondays throughout the year. From September 2018, the university banned single-use plastic straws from being distributed in centrally managed catering outlets, except in emergency or medical circumstances. It is estimated that approximately 80,000 plastic straws have been saved every month since the policy implementation. Impact of Ditch Disposable Partnering with the Master of Science in Environmental Management, student researchers assessed the impact of Ditch Disposable in 2017–18. The qualitative and quantitative assessments included interviews, questionnaire surveys, focus group meetings, waste audits as well as analysis of sales data from retail outlets and vending machines on campus. The study analysed 171

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

how various parties in the university complied with the policy and collected opinions about the campaign to inform future interventions. It was demonstrated that the introduction of the policy combined with the Ditch Disposable campaign provided encouragement and support to comply with the policy more positively, instead of merely introducing a ban, which may exert a negative emotional connection. All the early champions interviewed demonstrated sustained passion and support in the endeavours, despite minor inconvenience or additional arrangements that may have been incurred. Since the policy went into effect, there has also been a 20 per cent reduction in the purchase of beverages other than water in disposable plastic bottles. The number of beverages in metal and glass containers has stayed similar. In addition, more university members were starting to bring their own reusable water containers: a 20 per cent increase in people bringing a reusable bottle to campus daily was recorded. The survey pointed towards a perception of limited filtered water dispensers on campus, often in locations that were not convenient to students. Subsequently, the university installed new state-of-the-art water dispensers across campus, bringing the total number of dispensers to about ninety. While the university was not the first university in the city to ban plastic straws, it was encouraging to see peers taking the lead in tackling environmental issues in a similar fashion. By working with the HKSCC, the initiative gained much more traction and drew energies from different student bodies across the city. In addition, the Hong Kong Government in late 2017 introduced a ban on single-use bottled water in vending machines on all government-owned premises (Hong Kong Government, 2017). This also helped establish the University of Hong Kong as a leader in proactively addressing environmental issues pertaining to society. 2020 Disposable Plastic Free Campus Policy Following the success of banning bottled water and straws on campus, it was found from campus waste audits that the University of Hong Kong still produced a lot of single-use plastic wastes. Staff and students demanded more from the university, to shoulder more responsibility and demonstrate leadership in the city. Research (see Muposhi et al., 2021) has called for a wider focus on all single-use plastic items than only focusing on one or two items (i.e. plastic bags, plastic straws). It is also indicated that the success of plastic bans relies on the availability of suitable alternatives (e.g. reusable grocery bags) and the capacity to monitor and enforce such bans. The Sustainability Office lobbied relevant stakeholders and called for a total ban on disposable plastics in 2018. Three main categories of single-use plastics (food service wares, plastic bottles (one litre or below) and Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) banners) were identified as the major types of plastics waste at the university. These items were also widely used by stakeholders; therefore, the policy was proposed to only come into effect in September 2020. During the interim period, the Sustainability Office worked closely with stakeholders across the university to change perception (e.g. conducting awareness series, introduction of green ambassadors), help with locating alternatives (e.g. sourcing food service wares from different materials with caterers) and facilitate compliance (e.g. working with various offices and departments to create tailor-made plans according to their specific needs). An online toolkit was produced and a dedicated task force within the Sustainability Office was set up to help anyone at the university (from individual students to retail operators, to event managers) to understand and comply with the policy.

172

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong

The impact of the policy, however, was hampered by the Covid-19 pandemic that hit Hong Kong in early 2020. The university imposed various disease control measures to combat the virus, including the introduction of online learning, crowd dispersal and hygiene policies, as well as work-from-home procedures that drastically reduced the on-campus population. Therefore, during a survey conducted by the Sustainability Office, it was estimated that the policy saved 100,000 single-use plastic items on campus annually. As Covid-19 has changed some ways of working and perceptions about disposable plastics, a series of follow-up stakeholder engagements need to be undertaken. On 1 September 2020, the disposable plastic free campus policy officially came in effect at the University of Hong Kong. It represented years of hard work, persistence and creativity at the Sustainability Office and by relevant stakeholders. The success of the campaign was based on starting small and introducing the items to ban step by step, as these are most straightforward and achievable. Two branded messages were particularly impactful to the introduction and implementation of the policy: 1. ‘Ditch Disposable (Choose Reusable)’ – a catchy, easy-to-remember phrase that was used to brand all events and communications, for example, ditch disposable markets and plastic-free picnic events. Even a rap song was produced for the campaign, which was considered as fun and engaging rather than forbidding. 2. ‘Be Part of It’ – a slogan adopted initially to invite offices and departments to be early champions at the beginning of the campaign. Again, it was inviting rather than forcing compliance to increase a sense of ownership to this initiative and as a sense of agency to be part of the change/solution.

UN SDGs – Comprehensive Lens on Sustainability on Campus Early Adopter of the SDGs The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) were launched in 2015 (United Nations, 2021). The SDGs consist of seventeen interlinking goals that aim to foster development while striking a balance between social, economic and environmental sustainability, along with the commitment of ending poverty, hunger, AIDS and discrimination against women and girls by 2030. On the same day of the official endorsement at the United Nations, 15 September 2015, the University of Hong Kong’s Sustainability Office organized a local launch ceremony on the university campus. At the event, representatives from society, business, non-governmental organizations, as well as student leaders of the university were invited to share their perspectives on the SDGs and associated impacts and actions. The university was one of the early movers in engaging with the SDGs locally. In 2016, the University of Hong Kong published a vision document titled ‘Asia’s Global University’ (University of Hong Kong, 2016, ‘Introduction’), which stated thus: The principles of sustainability will guide our planning and development at every level. We will respond purposefully to the challenges identified by the United Nations through the Sustainable Development Goals and play our part in addressing the issues of inequality, health, education, disaster prevention, poverty, environment,

173

174

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and well-being identified therein. We are superbly placed to lead a cross-cultural and civilisational dialogue. (para. 3) Sustainability Reporting The Sustainability Office has been producing sustainability reports for the university since 2008. The report has been based on Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI, 2021), which were widely used by businesses at that time. However, the reports were not commonly used by university stakeholders, as they were operational and management in nature. Internal discussions at the Sustainability Office began around the revision in format, aim and scope of sustainability reporting, and a researcher was engaged to investigate potential options. In 2019, the Times Higher Education (THE) introduced the new University Impact Rankings (THE, 2021) that evaluates the sustainability impact of universities based on an institution’s contribution to delivering the SDGs. The ranking focused on universities’ social, economic and environmental impact, aligning with the seventeen SDGs. This facilitated the decision by the senior management to fully embrace and transition the reporting to match the SDGs. The report framework was revised to cover research outputs, undergraduate and postgraduate courses and dedicated degree programmes, campus operations and performances, as well as to highlight selected sustainability initiatives and knowledge exchange projects developed by university students and staff, all mapped against the SDGs. As a comprehensive university, sustainability reports based on all seventeen goals cover a wide range of activities and initiatives across the university, giving a much better representation of the impact the university has on achieving sustainability. Stakeholders were also more aware and involved in both the development and promotion of the report, enhancing engagement within the university community, as well as branding externally. University Impact Ranking The University of Hong Kong was ranked tenth globally in the first 2019 THE University Impact Rankings (THE, 2019), in which over 450 institutions worldwide participated. The university’s performance was particularly encouraging in achieving the SDGs of reduced inequalities (SDG 10), partnership for the goals (SDG 17) and quality education (SDG 4), in which the university ranked globally fourth, sixth and ninth respectively, against its overall ranking of tenth. On SDG 10, the university is recognized for facilitating access of first-generation university students, women, students from developing nations and under-represented groups; measures against discrimination; and support service for people with disabilities. On SDG 17, the effort to provide meaningful education around the SDGs across the university, the participation in local, regional and global cross-sectoral dialogue and thought-leadership in addition to transparency in sustainability reporting are highlighted. The university’s open access to its education resources and activities for the public, including early adoption of massive open online coursed (MOOCs) since 2014, gave it a high ranking on SDG 4. After participating in the THE Impact Rankings, the University of Hong Kong was invited to the working group on THE Impact Rankings of the ISCN in 2020 (ISCN, 2021) that aims to share insights on driving sustainability in the higher education sector through ranking

174

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong

participation. The working group commissioned an internal study among university members to assess whether participation in such rankings would promote greater sustainable development among universities, as well as to identify the limitations of the existing THE Impact Ranking methodology and propose improvements. Study results showed that participation in sustainability rankings helped sustainability offices to understand the structure of their institutions, as well as to foster buy-in for future sustainability initiatives. The working group subsequently shared the study’s results with renowned rankings institutions such as THE and QS World University Rankings for consideration in future ranking designs, thereby contributing to an international discourse of better adaptation for the SDGs. Sustainable Development Goals in the University Curriculum Responding to the university’s vision document, the SDGs have been discussed more and embraced at the university. The university’s Common Core, the trans- and interdisciplinary undergraduate curriculum offered by all ten faculties, addresses the SDGs through its undergraduate courses, SDGs competitions and promotion of transdisciplinary research opportunities for students. One such iconic SDG-related initiative is ‘Critical Zones: Gender, Cities, and Well-Being’ (University of Hong Kong, 2021b) in which students can take a course or form small peer-developed research teams that focus on a particular SDG and formulate a methodology and outcome accordingly. Apart from the university, the SDGs have gained traction in other higher education institutions (HEIs) in Hong Kong. In 2020, the HKSCC set up a working group on sustainable education, spearheading the development of SDG-related education programmes among the eight member universities. Composed primarily of academic representatives from each university, the working group aims to ensure all undergraduate students are exposed to sustainability ideas. To lay the groundwork for future curriculum development, the working group conducted a benchmarking study on the practices of each member university in identifying and documenting SDG-related courses, with the aim of establishing a standardized methodology for all member universities in identifying sustainability-related courses. The inventory, once complete, will provide an overview of the sustainability landscape in the higher education sector curriculum as well as highlight areas that require strengthening. As an example, in 2020, the Sustainability Office co-developed an experiential learning course with the Bachelor of Arts and Science (Design+) team with a view to developing impactful innovation to make the university campus more sustainable (University of Hong Kong, 2021a). About 120 students from different disciplines learnt about the challenges and opportunities connected to selected SDG topics on campus (i.e. biodiversity, energy, inclusion, mental and physical health, resilience, waste). In one semester, experts guide the students and mentors to experiment, develop prototypes and assess concepts to address sustainability challenges of their own choice. Through first-hand problem-solving and leading the process themselves, students are empowered to be leaders and implement sustainability projects that could be scaled up on the campus. One of the initiatives derived from the experiential learning course has been Blue Plate (University of Hong Kong, 2021c), selected to be part of the SEED programme at iDendron, the university’s in-house start-up incubator. Under the theme of resilience, Blue Plate intends to help youngsters in Hong Kong to eat healthier and waste less on a limited budget. The students

175

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

use social media platforms to share low-cost, zero-wastage, healthy meal plans, that show young people how to cook a variety of dishes with the same ingredients throughout the week. The SEED Programme supports early-stage start-up projects initiated by students, alumni and staff at the university with co-working spaces, training, supportive networks and seed funding. iDendron serves as a collaborative community to nurture entrepreneurial talents and drive innovation and entrepreneurship (University of Hong Kong, 2021c). Under SEED, it is expected that the team at Blue Plate will boost collaboration with market vendors to provide users with more convenience in purchasing the ingredients. Also in 2020, the Sustainability Office started working with the university libraries and others to facilitate teaching of the SDGs at universities, colleges and schools in Hong Kong through a series of teaching by design thinking workshops, book displays, exhibitions and activities. Leveraging the academic and teaching talents and resources, it is another example of how the university plays a pivotal role in translating concepts of sustainability to be more accessible and applicable in education.

Barriers to Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong In this section, the barriers or issues that challenged the university in its endeavours to further transform or embed sustainability at its core are explored. Sustainability (Continuity) in Projects The difficulties of sustaining sustainability progress are sometimes overlooked or underestimated. The University of Hong Kong was an early mover among Asian universities in addressing environmental and social sustainability issues. While the chapter has described two examples of successful introduction and implementation of sustainability initiatives, the success did not come easily. Kidal and Liao (2013) provide an overview of some of the barriers in driving sustainability at the university: Since 2008, the university has established a dedicated Sustainability Office, introduced a committee framework to address campus sustainability issues (note, disbanded in 2017) and launched new communication tools and internship programmes. Externally, the university has increased its engagement with local and international HEIs. Despite important early accomplishments, internal and external factors are compounding the university’s sustainability challenges. At the university, sustainability is just one of many competing priorities vying for the attention of the leadership and senior management in a period of growth and change. Expansion in the student body, staff, and campus facilities and the development of a new curriculum have placed unprecedented demands on university management, while exerting pressure on resource use. (p. 133) From 2008 to 2015, the Sustainability Office has been mostly focusing on initiating projects, building relationships and embedding sustainability whenever and wherever possible. Many of the initiatives stopped at the concept stage or at most the pilot stage, especially when the university was at the forefront of progress compared to others. One of the examples is a pilot to retrofit 176

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong

buildings on campus. With a campus that is over a 100 years old, the campus has expanded with new buildings being added every decade through the years of its existence – of these, many are not energy efficient and require substantial maintenance. In 2011, the Sustainability Office introduced a new performance contract model to retrofit buildings at low cost with little financial risk to the university. Out of the 100 buildings at the university, only two completed the retrofits with LEEDEBOM certification (Sun et al., 2018). University administrators regarded such an operating model as one-off as it required alternative thinking and special arrangements, meaning the project owners had to go through a lengthy and uncertain approval and funding process and demanded an unusual skill set from the team involved. It certainly offered insightful lessons, and later, as the concepts of energy performance contracts grew more mature in the market, the university has begun to readopt these contracts at a smaller scale but with regular upgrades to the facilities. In 2017, the university committed to three key projects to advance sustainability (University of Hong Kong, 2017b). Funding for these projects was ring-fenced and they were made possible due to a substantial saving from the electricity company’s tariff rebate earlier that year. One of these projects, called the Green Revolving Fund (University of Hong Kong, 2017b), was created to support carbon emission reduction and other environmental improvement initiatives on campus by investing in energy-efficiency projects and by using the utility and maintenance cost savings achieved to the fund and support future projects. However, in the end, only two lighting upgrades were completed as part of the energy-efficiency projects. Due to accounting and other difficulties, the money that was saved was not returned to the fund. Sustainability Governance In recent research on sustainability governance at HEIs around the world, the University of Hong Kong was quoted as an example where sustainability governance takes a more distributed-agency approach. The researchers identified four types of governance: academic centrally coordinated, academic distributed-agency, operational centrally coordinated and operational distributedagency. On the operational side, the Sustainability Office develops awareness campaigns, identifies allies and provides a connecting resource for operational and academic entities interested in pursuing more sustainability. This approach led to some centrally coordinated results, such as strong buy-in through engaging early champions in the Ditch Disposable initiative. The need for more incentivized proponents and a clearer mandate for sustainability among the university’s senior management has been identified as a next step for better uptake of sustainability at the university. The lack of clearly defined actionable sustainability commitments also prohibits further ambitious and systematic rollout of sustainability initiatives. The Sustainability Office is also instrumental in driving sustainability at the university and in the city. While embracing the SDGs allowed a wider scope and for members of the university community to connect their own work to sustainability, most sustainability endeavours had been led or formulated by the Sustainability Office. Other than more defined goals, workforce upskilling and community empowerment are important to further advance sustainability across the university. Local Sustainability Context Research on consumer green behaviour (Khan et al., 2020) reported that knowledge and attitude have a significant and positive impact on peoples’ green behaviour. A campus environmental 177

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

sustainability index conducted by the HKSCC in 2019 also found correlations between behaviours and (campus-introduced sustainability) measures. Similarly, the ban on plastic bags had an equally positive influence and the researchers called for government interventions to moderate people’s daily habits through awareness raising, introducing producer responsibility and improving waste management infrastructure (Jia, 2019; Khan et al., 2020). Although success can be attained more easily within a controlled environment like the university campus, it is equally, if not more, important that the local government and civil society offer adequate planning, policy and ecosystem to support similar sustainability-conscious behaviour in the city.

Conclusions Key learning points include the fact that the public’s perception of single-use plastics and the introduction of the THE University Impact Ranking caught the attention of the university community. From students to staff, academics to senior management, the call for sustainability action at the university has never been higher. Without the early years’ foundation, understanding the ways of working at the university and building a network of allies, the sustainability agenda at the university could not have taken off. The Sustainability Office took a leap of faith to introduce an ambitious ban on all disposable plastics on campus in 2020 and to fully embrace the SDGs in 2019. The Sustainability Office succeeded in pivoting from earlier efforts focusing on sustainable operations and campus management (carbon, water, waste) to a whole-campus policy (Ditch Disposable). The stakeholders involved became much wider (from a few core campus management offices to all ten academic faculties, over a 100 student organizations and a university community of over 40,000 people). The approval process and governance structure also became much more complex than managing a single sustainability project (e.g. building retrofits). However, taking a stance to ditch disposable also put the university at a focal point of sustainability endeavours locally and globally, which unsurprisingly boosted the confidence to emerge as a greater leader. The overwhelming external support and attention to commit to being a leader have in turn put to rest a great deal of hesitation and conservatism within the university. Universities tend to be strong communities with strong identities. Stakeholders feel empowered when the institution is being bold to be effective themselves. The initial ban on single-use plastic bottles has proven that it was important to focus on ‘low-hanging fruit’ and celebrate early wins. Positive peer pressure should also be applied delicately. When working with all public universities on plastic straws, it was not only crucial that the university came out looking good, but also critical that all the parties involved were happy with the implementation and outcome of the campaign, with the work involved and credits being shared among partners. When introducing a more ambitious, long-term commitment, it was important to include relevant stakeholders as early as possible to align expectations, plan collaboratively and allow ample time for facilitating discussion, gaining buy-ins and negotiating trade-offs. Having comprehended the impact that a ‘world-class model’ and rankings have on universities, the decision to fully embrace the SDGs was made in a blink. As Marginson stated in ‘Positioning University in the Globalized World: Changing Governance and Coping Strategies in Asia’, ‘We cannot eliminate global comparison. Our only option is to work to make them better’ (2008, p. 2). A comprehensive, top research-focused institution like the University of Hong Kong has had 178

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong

trouble connecting its positive and negative impact on sustainability. Universities are often siloed; while the academics and researchers pioneer world-class discoveries, the central operational offices often rely on limited financial and human resources to ensure a smooth running of the campus. On paper, innovative sustainability inventions can be evaluated on campus; however they often take years to materialize. While it is great to attain an energy-positive campus or zero-waste management through the application of state-of-the-art technology and operating systems, many stakeholders at the university would not be excited or individually associated with these initiatives. This realization only came after many years of attempts at mobilizing the university community to act. In 2015, the SDGs offered a terrific opportunity to rethink the aims and objectives of university sustainability endeavours: they must relate to the core mission of education and research. Through comprehensive assessments on sustainability, comprising research, education and knowledge exchange, the impact can now be better quantified and tracked. Such initiatives also fostered connections between committed, passionate and talented individuals across the university, whose work contributed directly to the reputation of the university and leveraged their expertise to advance sustainability on campus thereby creating empowered individuals. The decision to participate in the THE University Impact Rankings was a truly evocative, instrumental key turning point for sustainability at the University of Hong Kong. The great result of a global tenth ranking was both kudos to the progress so far and an encouragement to do more to maintain the leadership position. Sustainability is extremely broad and subject to interpretation. However, once the clearly defined and scoped SDG framework was embraced, the discussion became about how instead of what. The process and scope of sustainability reporting to involve more stakeholders at the university and cover more reporting parameters than just operational data on carbon, water and waste added flavours and colours to the report. More audiences found the report useful, informative and interesting. By embedding the seventeen SDGs as topics in the curriculum, the knowledge and energies of academics and students have been channelled towards the development of projects on- and off-campus and the findings are shared with the university and wider community. Scaling and Future Prospects Being placed tenth on THE University Impact Rankings and embracing the SDGs have broadened the focus of the University of Hong Kong on sustainability to social and environmental sustainability. It has also expanded the scope of sustainability initiatives from purely sustainable campus operations to curriculum and sustainability living and has fostered collaboration in the city. The University of Hong Kong’s Sustainability Office played an integral role in the HKSCC and served as convenor in 2019, steering the trajectory of the consortium. During the convenorship, a few instrumental interventions were developed, setting up the consortium for future success. At the outset, the consortium built on the success of its first joint university environmental campaign on plastic straws to follow up with the annual ‘UNIfy’ campaigns that included the eight member universities (UNIfy, 2018). In 2020, the consortium organized UNIfy: Sustainable Living #StayAtHomeEdition (HKSCC, 2021b) to promote a healthy lifestyle, energy-saving, low carbon healthy diet and waste reduction during the Covid-19 pandemic. More importantly, the consortium developed and approved a new strategic plan to guide the consortium for the 179

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

next eight years (HKSCC, 2021c). The plan sets out meaningful goals, such as a establishing a collective set of performance targets, increasing education for sustainability and embedding the SDGs in the curriculum. The plan aspires to position the Hong Kong higher education sector as a leading voice for building a sustainable community in Hong Kong by being transparent in its goals, targets and performance; utilize collective strength, research and roles as educators to influence change makers for positive sustainable outcomes; prepare university graduates to succeed in an increasingly resource-constrained world and utilize university campuses as a living lab for sustainable innovation, practice and learning. The new strategic plan further strengthens the collaborative efforts of the eight member universities in Hong Kong through the formal establishment of three working groups on campus performance, campaigns and education. The Working Group on Sustainability Education aims to ensure that 100 per cent of the students are exposed to sustainability ideas, concepts and skills building by 2027. Transformational change requires consistent development such that it can be scaled. One of the 2017 key initiatives included a scale-up of a pilot project from 2015 about a student-focused carbon reduction and behavioural change programme. Co-led by the Sustainability Office, a sustainability-themed residential college and an energy start-up, the college installed smart meters in student rooms and a real-time data dashboard. During the pilot, students in the college led the development of data-driven solutions that reduced electricity use by over 25 per cent. Hong Kong Government officials at the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP21) highlighted the pilot as an outstanding demonstration project. The 2017 scale-up enabled 1,800 students from more than fifty countries to participate, with experiential learning programmes open to all University of Hong Kong students. An encouraging 23 per cent of electricity savings were recorded in the scale-up project. Having demonstrated success, a further scale-up of the project is currently underway as part of a three-year collaborative programme that started in 2021 titled ‘Preparing a New Generation of Smart and Sustainable Consumers’. Smart meters installed in students’ resident halls across all eight university campuses in Hong Kong, with facilitated educational programming, will show the intensity of electric consumption from different appliances and equipment, and help students make informed decisions to consume resources responsibly. The project owners were persistent and successfully lobbied stakeholders, decisionmakers and sponsors throughout the years. It also required thorough engagement and dedicated effort in turning ideas into pilots, followed by the on-campus scale-up to an implementation across all universities in Hong Kong.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT



180

1. Timing is everything and, in this case, widescale sustainability success was possible in a university that cares deeply about its global reputation due to the changing public attitudes and introduction of global league tables on impact. 2. Transformational change is possible where discrete successes can be scaled up. 3. Successful and widescale change within the university was enhanced by management, administrators, academic staff and students co-creating and cooperating towards common goals.

Driving Sustainability at the University of Hong Kong

References Environmental Protection Department (2021). ‘Producer Responsibility Scheme on Plastic Beverage Containers’. https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/defa​ult/files/epd/engl​ish/envi​ronm​enti​nhk/waste/pub_​ cons​ult/files/con-doc-en.pdf#page=10. Accessed 5 August 2021. Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://www.glob​alre​port​ing.org/. Accessed 4 August 2021. Hong Kong Government (2017). ‘Bottle Ban Sets an Example’. https://www.news.gov.hk/en/cat​egor​ies/ envi​ronm​ent/html/2017/11/2017​1124​_194​827.lin.shtml. Accessed 10 September 2021. Hong Kong Sustainable Campus Consortium (HKSCC) (2021a). ‘Home Page’. http://www.hkscc.edu.hk/. Accessed 15 May 2021. Hong Kong Sustainable Campus Consortium (HKSCC) (2021b). ‘Home Page’. http://www.hkscc.edu.hk/ act​ivit​ies/joint-uni​vers​ity-campa​ign-2020---unify-sust​aina​ble-liv​ing-sta​yath​ome-edit​ion. Accessed 15 May 2021. Hong Kong Sustainable Campus Consortium (HKSCC) (2021c). ‘HKSCC Strategic Plan 2019–2027’. http://www.hkscc.edu.hk/about. Accessed 15 May 2021. International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) (HKSCC) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://intern​atio​nalsust​aina​ble-cam​pus-netw​ork.org/. Accessed 15 May 2021. Jia, L., Evans, S., and van der Linden, S. (2019). ‘Motivating Actions to Mitigate Plastic Pollution’. Nature Communications, 10 (1), pp. 1–3. Khan, M. S., Saengon, P., Alganad, A. M. N., Chongcharoen, D., and Farrukh, M. (2020). ‘Consumer Green Behaviour: An Approach towards Environmental Sustainability’. Sustainable Development, 28 (5), pp. 1168–80. Kildahl, A., and Liao, S. (2013). ‘Reconciling the Pursuit of Excellence with Sustainable Development at the University of Hong Kong’, in Ariane König (ed.), Regenerative Sustainable Development of Universities and Cities: The Role of Living Laboratories. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https:// www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/regen​erat​ive-sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-of-unive​rsit​ies-and-cit​ies-978178​ 1003​633.html. Accessed 4 October 2021. Marginson, S. (2008). ‘ “Ideas of a University” for the Global Era’. Paper Presented at Positioning University in the Globalized World: Changing Governance and Coping Strategies in Asia Conference, The University of Hong Kong, 10–11 December 2008.Muposhi, A., Mpinganjira, M., and Wait, M. (2021). ‘Considerations, Benefits, and Unintended Consequences of Banning Plastic Shopping Bags for Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review’. Waste Management & Research, 40 (3), p. 0734242X211003965. National Geographic (2015). ‘How Did Sea Turtle Get a Straw Up Its Nose?’ https://www.nat​iona​lgeo​ grap​hic.com/anim​als/arti​cle/150​817-sea-turt​les-olive-rid​ley-mar​ine-deb​ris-ocean-anim​als-scie​nce. Accessed 15 May 2021. Paterson, H. (2019). ‘Plastic Habits – An Overview for the Collection of Plastics and Sustainable Earth’. Sustainable Earth, 2 (1), pp. 1–8. Sun, X., Gou, Z., Lu, Y., and Tao, Y. (2018). ‘Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Building Green Retrofits: Case Study of a LEED EBOM Gold Project’. Energies, 11 (8), p. 1936. Times Higher Education (THE) (2019). ‘Impact Rankings 2019’. https://www.times​high​ered​ucat​ion.com/ ranki​ngs/imp​act/2019/over​all. Accessed 15 May 2021. Times Higher Education (THE) (2021). ‘Impact Rankings 2021’. https://www.times​high​ered​ucat​ion.com/ imp​actr​anki​ngs. Accessed 15 May 2021. UNIfy (2018). https://www.hku.hk/press/news_d​etai​l_19​175.html. Accessed 1 July 2021. United Nations (2021). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://sdgs.un.org/. Accessed 15 October 2021. University of Hong Kong (2016). ‘Asia’s Global University: The Next Decade: Our Vision for 20162025’. https://sppo​web.hku.hk/vis​ion2​016-2025/index.html. Accessed 1 May 2021. University of Hong Kong (2017a). ‘Ditch Disposable Policy’. https://www.esta​tes.hku.hk/eo-gene​ral/sus​ tain​abil​ity/sus​tain​abil​ity-polic​ies/dis​posa​ble-plas​tic-free-cam​pus-pol​icy. Accessed 1 May 2021.

181

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

University of Hong Kong (2017b). ‘Green Light for HKU’s Sustainability Initiatives’. https://www.hku. hk/press/press-relea​ses/det​ail/15941.html. Accessed 1 May 2021. University of Hong Kong (2020). ‘Ditch Disposable Campaign Timeline’. https://www.esta​tes.hku.hk/ eo-gene​ral/sus​tain​abil​ity/sus​tain​abil​ity-unit/Ditch-dis​posa​ble. Accessed 1 May 2021. University of Hong Kong (2021a). ‘BASc (Design+)’. https://www.arch.hku.hk/pro​gram​mes/des​ign/bache​ lor-of-arts-scien​ces-in-des​ign-plus/. Accessed 15 October 2021. University of Hong Kong (2021b). ‘Common Core’. https://com​monc​ore.hku.hk/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ ent-goals/criti​cal-zones/. Accessed 15 October 2021. University of Hong Kong (2021c). ‘iDendron’. https://idend​ron.hku.hk/teams/seed-award​ees/. Accessed 15 October 2021.

182

183

10

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus ANDRÉIA ABRAHÃO SANT’ANNA AND LEONARDO FERNANDES COELHO REZENDE DOS SANTOS

Introduction Extensive research has been undertaken about educational transformation, twenty-first-century skills and the future of work. Technological advances and digital transformation have been the focus of such discussions, shaping our social fabric, economies and the way we work, educate and learn. Human skills and capabilities are relevant factors for economic success and individual well-being. ‘The Future of Jobs Report 2020’ by the World Economic Forum (2020a) identifies the skills shortages and the difficulties in attracting and retaining talent as the leading constraints for companies to adopt new technologies and fully benefit from their business potential. The report notes thus: What is needed is fundamental reform – or, more accurately, a revolution in the way education and training systems operate and in how they interact with labour market policies and business approaches to training workers with new skills. (World Economic Forum, 2020a) The challenges faced today are unquestionably more complex and global, transcending academic disciplines; while the world has changed in several dimensions, the educational paradigm has not (Goldberg, 2009). This chapter presents the case of Newton Smart Campus, a living lab at Newton University in Brazil, which aims to inspire, articulate and empower the academic community to create solutions to real-world problems by using the campus as a learning and prototyping space. The Smart Campus living lab is an experience for students from the engineering bachelor programmes to develop soft skills while solving engineering challenges. A regular issue raised in the education of engineers is the inconsistency between the traditional engineering curricula and real-world engineering problems. While traditional curricula made engineers increasingly scientific in response to the economic drives of that time, the globalizing technological and economic changes increase the interest in creativity (Goldberg, 2009). Soft Skills In the thesis project ‘The Importance of Cross-Function Competencies (Soft Skills) in Engineering Education’, Costa (2015) researched undergraduate and graduate engineering students from

183

184

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

seventeen different universities in Brazil. They found that 37 per cent of the respondents stated they did not receive a solid foundation on communication and resources management during their education, and 21 per cent classified leadership and conflict management as a requirement not covered by the engineering curriculum (Costa, 2015). Parallel research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), ‘Understanding the Careers of the Alumni of the MIT Mechanical Engineering Department’ (Wolfe, 2004), surveyed nearly 700 mechanical engineering graduates. The research reported that the students found much less use for the engineering science and mathematics subjects than they did for the soft skills that they had to learn after graduation (Wolfe, 2004). The students detailed that to advance in their current position, a substantial proficiency in leadership and soft skills were required. These skills were expected and required daily while engineering and science skills were called upon much less frequently (Wolfe, 2004). The ‘Future of Jobs Report 2020’ by the World Economic Forum (2020a) undertook an extensive survey with employers from across fifteen industry sectors in twenty-six countries to provide a comprehensive view of labour market trends in the lead up to 2025. The report provides a list of soft skills the survey respondents selected as rising in prominence in the next four years (World Economic Forum, 2020a). Table 10.1 gives the list of the top fifteen skills for 2025 for the general respondents and the list for the Brazilian respondents. Complementing this information, LinkedIn launched the ‘LinkedIn Learning 2020 Workplace Learning Report’ that identified the soft and hard skills companies need most. With this information, companies can develop their upskilling solutions to take on market opportunities better. The report collected data from the network of over 660 million professionals and 20 million

TABLE 10.1  Top skills for 2025, Brazil

Top Skills for 2025

Top Skills for 2025 – Brazilian Respondents

1. Analytical thinking and innovation

1. Active learning and learning strategies

2. Active learning and learning strategies

2. Analytical thinking and innovation

3. Complex problem-solving

3. Creativity, originality and initiative

4. Critical thinking and analysis

4. Leadership and social influence

5. Creativity, originality and initiative

5. Emotional intelligence

6. Leadership and social influence

6. Critical thinking and analysis

7. Technology use, monitoring and control

7. Complex problem-solving

8. Technology design and programming

8. Resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility

9. Resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility

9. Technology design and programming

10. Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation

10. Service orientation

11. Emotional intelligence

11. Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation

12. Troubleshooting and user experience

12. Troubleshooting and user experience

13. Service orientation

13. Technology use, monitoring and control

14. Systems analysis and evaluation

14. Systems analysis and evaluation

15. Persuasion and negotiation

15. Persuasion and negotiation

Source: World Economic Forum (2020a).

184

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

TABLE 10.2  LinkedIn 2020 Workplace Learning Report, Brazil

The Skills Companies Need Most in 2020 1. Creativity 2. Persuasion 3. Collaboration 4. Adaptability 5. Emotional intelligence Source: LinkedIn (2020).

TABLE 10.3  Professional Skills for Engineers

Professional Skills for Engineering Curriculum 1. Ethical behaviour and trustworthiness 2. Employability skills, including self-confidence and positive outlook, accepting responsibility, perseverance, sincerity, respect for others, good judgement, etc. 3. Effective communication, including advocacy and persuasion 4. Effective collaboration including leadership, followership and consensus building 5. Resourcefulness and the capacity for independent learning 6. Entrepreneurial mindset and associated business acumen 7. Inter- and multidisciplinary thinking 8. Creativity, curiosity and design 9. Empathy and social responsibility 10. Global awareness and perspective Source: Miller (2017).

jobs. The skills listed came from the ones with the highest demand based on the hiring rate. Table 10.2 gives the list of the soft skills that came out of the report. Examining the need to rebalance the engineering curriculum with an emphasis on professional skills, Miller (2017), the first President of Olin College, summarized these skills from different sources, including the World Economic Forum and the National Academy of Engineering, as shown in Table 10.3. Integrating into the student the experience broad thinking, synthesis, teamwork and consensus building, entrepreneurial mindset and creative design, the same way that advanced analysis and new science are core in the curriculum, is a challenge for the current engineering curriculum (Goldberg, 2009). The author also reports that faculty members defend a ‘rigorous’ curriculum devoted to ‘the basics’ but engineering students have trouble asking questions, naming extant technology or novel technological phenomena, explaining how things work, breaking big problems into solvable little problems, brainstorming, and visualizing, and communicating effectively with speech or the written word. (Goldberg, 2009, p. 4)

185

186

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

In the face of this growing change in skills development, students see the great current challenges that they care about as more human than scientific. The soft skills in this scenario assume increasing relevance is the framework by which students will learn to collaborate, create and make a positive impact in people’s lives (Miller, 2017). Developing soft skills goes beyond content-centric methodologies since the focus is on attitudes, behaviours and motivation (Miller, 2017). Knowledge alone does not affect attitude. Engineering schools have been adopting openended problems to stimulate the students’ practice. However, soft skills demand practice and improve with experience over time, as they require personal experiences to build habits of mind (Martin et al., 2005). Students that take internships and co-op experiences in industry tend to perform better in soft skills than those who have no such experiences. Professional environments and extracurricular activities offering similar experiences for students are also transformative for their development. Academic competitions, hackathons, entrepreneurial and business plan competitions, community service and athletics are all relevant activities as part of the university experience. Students that engage in these activities commonly have better educational and career results (Miller, 2017). In ‘Using Successful Graduates to Improve the Quality of Undergraduate Engineering Programs’, Scott and Yates (2002) undertook research with graduate engineering students to identify the important skills for successful engineering practice; they wanted to understand the extent to which universities play a part in developing these skills. The skills group rated highest by the students was emotional intelligence. For the respondents, real-world problems that involve technical, emotional and cognitive dimensions are the most appropriate for developing these skills. Interpersonal skills can be leveraged in formal and informal experiences during an undergraduate programme. The interviewers reported that to develop the skills needed to succeed in their careers, the total university experience should be considered, that is experiences inside and outside the classroom (Scott and Yates, 2002). Living Labs Although the origin of the concept of a living lab is debatable, it is known that it secured greater traction since 1995 when William Mitchell from the MIT Media Lab used it to describe a lab built to observe the routines and interactions in the home life of the research volunteers adapting to new technologies (MIT, n.d.). The concept then gained a greater scale in the early 2000s when the European Commission stimulated an innovation system based on living labs, fostering the creation of ENoLL – the European Network of Living Labs (Ballon and Schuurman, 2015). The different definitions adopted by authors show the evolution of the concept of living labs and the ongoing visibility of this practice in different environments. According to Niitamo et al. (2006), a living lab is a user-centric open innovation environment that uses practice and research to engage relevant partners in real-life contexts and fosters sustainable solutions. The ENoLL defines these as follows: Living Labs (LLs) are defined as user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings. (ENoLL, 2021) The network strengthens the characteristics of practice, innovation, collaboration and real-life studies and application of the labs. ENoLL also puts living labs as an integration between citizens,

186

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

research organizations, companies, cities and government to co-create value, to prototype and to validate innovations and businesses (ENoLL, 2021). Liedtke et al. (2012) adopted the concept of living lab as a method of user-oriented research to leverage innovation. The authors highlighted the difficulties of traditional methods in predicting the successful adoption of a new product or process by consumers when it is market ready. A living lab approach may help to diminish the risk in this process, promoting a more sustainable outcome. Niitamo et al. (2006) also acknowledged this approach, defining it as a research method for sensing, testing and refining solutions in real-life contexts, fostering innovation by partnerships between private and public entities. Ballon and Schuurman (2015) outlined some common characteristics of living labs, namely user-centred approach, open innovation, co-creation with users, research process and reallife settings. In the paper ‘State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs’, Niitamo et al. (2006) share seven best practices for living labs based on analyses of several initiatives around the world: 1. To cooperate with relevant players of technology and application providers, in which their products should be influenced by the living lab methodology. 2. To have access and to experiment with new technologies with users in real-life contexts. 3. To include different segments of the society in the value chain for the desired impact. 4. To keep an open operation to be able to capture value from different solutions and different players, even if competitors are in the same environment. 5. To be a space for public commitment to address fundamental change in society and to become a platform to enhance public services. 6. To include user experiences and to engage citizens/consumers in the creation process. 7. To aggregate and to use knowledge in information and communication technologies, so the living lab may be able to transfer capacity to other research areas.

Newton University, Brazil With forty-nine years of history, Newton is among the traditional higher education institutions in Minas Gerais, Brazil. It offers undergraduate, post-graduate and online bachelor programmes in business, technology, health, engineering, education, communication, social science and law. As part of its commitment to promote reflection and encourage a change in attitude towards sustainable development, environmental awareness and conscious consumption, Newton supports and promotes the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN), to end poverty, fight inequality, injustice and climate change by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Newton believes that the students become impactful leaders when they connect their passions and skills to local and global challenges. The institution’s extracurricular activities are organized around Newton Innovation Centres that are labs, practice centres, outreach programmes and collaborative interdisciplinary spaces. They are responsible for connecting teaching, research and outreach to solve the local greatest challenges. Although they are autonomous in management, the centres share the SDG agenda as a common framework for projects.

187

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Newton Smart Campus Case Study A Brief Summary on Smart Cities Urbanization is a movement of migration from rural territories to cities. This migration intensified from the first Industrial Revolution (1760–1840), with the end of the Second World War (1945) and continues to grow to the present day (Limonad, 2009). It is estimated that about 55 per cent of the world population live in large urban centres and the projection for 2050 is that this percentage will reach values above 70 per cent (United Nations, 2019). This growth leads to various aggravating factors in an intensely populous city. Among them are complications in urban mobility, the increase in waste generation and difficulties of disposal, and intense use of finite resources, such as water and energy (Bouskela et al., 2016). The United Nations highlights many concerns due to urbanization problems. For example, the share of the urban population living in poor communities rose to 24 per cent in 2018, only half of the population has convenient access to public transportation (data from 2019) and air pollution has caused 4.2 million premature deaths in 2016 (United Nations, 2021). Hence, thinking about how cities can organize themselves more efficiently to manage their resources is a key area of inquiry – namely, ‘Smart Cities’. Smart Cities fully aggregate the accessible technological resources and especially integrate citizens in this system, leveraging their role as the main character for change in the process of social, economic, environmental and technological restructuring (Instituto Nacional de Telecomunicações (INATEL), 2016). According to Bouskela et al. (2016), Smart Cities are more efficient for urban activities and services, as well as their competitiveness, considering the current needs together with a vision of the future. In short, a Smart City typically has the following features (Bouskela et al., 2016): 1. Generates integration that provides public administration with the necessary and transparent information for better decision-making and budget management. 2. Allows a better service for users of services and improves the image of public agencies, thus raising the degree of satisfaction of the inhabitants. 3. Optimizes resource allocation and helps reduce unnecessary spending. 4. Generates common procedures that increase the efficiency of government. 5. Produces performance indicators that help in the measurement, comparison and improvement of public policies. 6. Allows greater involvement of organized civil society and citizens in administration with technological tools that help to monitor public services, pointing out problems, informing and interacting with municipal administration to solve problems. Kosowatz (2020) lists ten cities that are recognized as leading the way to cities of the future: 1. Singapore: 95 per cent of the population has broadband access. The government is investing resources to map the entire city using sensors to aggregation boxes. These data are sent to specialists for analysis and action in delivery services. Singapore is leading the development of a virtual 3D city model through public and private partnerships. Other investments in the next few years are in solar panels, smart architecture and energy-efficient lighting for all public roads. 188

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

2. Dubai: In this case, the city plans to digitalize all government services. A monitoring system for bus drivers using artificial intelligence (AI) has reduced traffic accidents caused by fatigue. Other investments are in innovative technology for construction (like building a 31 foot tall, 6,889 square foot concrete building using a 3D printer), and mobility (the DubaiAbu Dhabi hyperloop project). 3. Oslo, Norway: The city is embracing a wide use of sensors to control lighting, heating and cooling. The city’s goal is to cut emissions by 95 per cent by 2030. Because of this, Oslo is creating opportunities in developing electric vehicles (EVs), a smart grid and EV charging technology. 4. Copenhagen, Denmark: This city is integrating smart development with its own ambitious environmental policies. The incubator ‘Copenhagen Solutions Lab’ has a system that monitors traffic, air quality, waste management, energy use and other items, and it compares operations in real time. The Danish capital is well known for their residents biking to work in half of the city – so there are a lot of investments in other planned routes, using feedback from users to improve recommendations. 5. Boston, United States: The city’s masterplan revolves around citizen participation using a collection of apps by which citizens receive parking information, report service issues or communicate with each other. They use the approach of gamification to help engage the community in planning and development. 6. Amsterdam, Netherlands: This city has created an open database with 12,000 datasets from every urban district. Through its Internet of Things (IoT) Living Lab, a 3,700 square metre area fitted with IoT-enabled beacons, users can access data using Bluetooth devices. As with Copenhagen, the residents use bicycles, car-sharing platforms and autonomous vehicles. Other investments are in smart grids, where power is distributed and stored based on demand; the use of carbon dioxide to generate electricity; and dimmable light-emitting diode (LED) lights in sidewalks and bike routes. 7. New York, United States: The city installed hundreds of smart sensors, and the collected data will help manage trash pickup. Throughout the city, online charging kiosks are replacing public telephone booths to enable internet connectivity. The Police Department has tested web-based software that uses historical crime data to predict and respond to crime. 8. London, UK: The city created an incubator platform for start-ups to develop solutions for a wide range of urban issues. These public data are as open as possible, encouraging collaboration between public sector, technology companies and academia. The city is also providing 5G connectivity to the entire city and open access to Wi-Fi in public buildings as well as on the streets. 9. Barcelona, Spain: Since 2011, the city has hosted the Smart City Expo and World Congress to promote a self-sufficient city of productive neighbourhoods and a hyper-connected zero emissions area. Its LED light poles are mounted with sensors that monitor traffic, air quality, pedestrian activity, noise and can dim or switch off lights as needed. Smart bins fitted with vacuums suck waste into underground storage, reducing odours and decreasing the number of trips from collection trucks. They are reducing car numbers on streets, with a bike-sharing system. 10. Hong Kong SAR, PRC: More than seventy innovative initiatives were launched in 2017, many based on smart government and the economy. Their lamp posts are fitted with sensors, 189

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and 5G development is very advanced. One attractive feature is a new mobile-friendly city dashboard screen that uses data from various government departments to show real-time images, maps, icons and charts of information. The city of Belo Horizonte, where the Newton Smart Campus is located, is also moving towards becoming a Smart City. In 2016, Belo Horizonte’s 2030 strategic plan created seven challenges, forty-three goals and thirty-six strategies (Belo Horizonte, 2016). The challenges were stated as desired outcomes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Belo Horizonte as a city with a very high human development index Economy with continuously sustainable growth City without poverty, inclusive and with decent housing for all Compact, integrated, inclusive and connected city with sustainable mobility Resilient and environmentally sustainable city City where people live longer, with health, safety and quality education Belo Horizonte with transparent, shared and excellent governance

To tackle these challenges, strategies and objectives, Belo Horizonte city hall created the Millennium Observatory Department, which is tasked to localize and map the most relevant SDGs to evaluate the city’s performance in achieving these goals. The department and their partners, including Newton University, have published two reports: ‘Belo Horizonte SDG Monitoring Report’ and ‘2020 Belo Horizonte Monitoring Report on the Sustainable Development Goals’ (Belo Horizonte, 2021). Cities need to focus on energy saving actions, due to population growth and scarcity of resources. University campuses also need to consider energy requirements given the fact that university buildings, from classrooms, offices, laboratories, dormitories, restaurants, shopping centres and sports facilities all demand energy and may not use energy in an efficient way. Therefore, a university campus can be conceived as equivalent to a big city (Guerrieri et al., 2019). Newton Smart Campus Newton Smart Campus proposes to identify real problems of society and the intensification of urbanization and develop solutions to help solve these problems, using the campus as a space for prototyping and learning. This concept was created in 2015, in collaboration with students from the Global Entrepreneurship Lab (G-LAB) programme at MIT. In 2016, Newton Smart Campus was created in Belo Horizonte. The focus is that all activities and projects should fit into the concepts of Human, Smart and Sustainable Cities, and be committed to the UN SDGs and Belo Horizonte’s 2030 strategic plan. Among the objectives of the Newton Smart Campus Programme, the following are highlighted: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

190

Make cities more human, smart and sustainable. Meet the seventeen SDGs. Meet the seven challenges of Belo Horizonte’s 2030 strategic plan. Make university campuses smarter. Articulate, empower and inspire the academic community to create solutions to real problems applicable in the urban context, aligning them with the needs of Brazil in the coming decades.

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

6. Encourage leadership since the first graduation years, giving students the responsibility for managing projects from each axis to achieve the best solution considering effectiveness, lower cost, execution time, impacts and financial return. 7. Be a reference in Human, Intelligent and Sustainable Cities in Minas Gerais State. The main purpose of the programme is to enable students experience the market challenges by practicing the theories learnt during their university education. Through this programme, Newton University would support the graduation of market-ready and qualified professionals. The Smart Campus is organized into ten verticals that correspond to themes that a city needs to develop. In each of them, a student is responsible for bringing solutions through the implementation of projects related to the axis. Usually, some projects permeate more than one axis, and the students must collaborate to develop the projects together. The work axes are divided as follows: 1. Information and Communications Technology (ICT): Innovative solutions in ITC that contribute to providing, improving and expanding communication, information management, quality of life and social inclusion. 2. Urbanization: Projects that optimize urban complexity, developing solutions for planning, sustainable low-cost construction, analysis and application of modern and ecological technologies for buildings, social management and understanding of urban and rural behaviours. 3. Energy: Projects involving the study of intelligent solutions for the generation, distribution, monitoring and supply of energy from alternative sources that do not negatively impact the environment. 4. Art, culture and education: Projects that aim to promote hybrid and personalized learning, making use of emerging technologies such as gamification and learning methodologies that involve practice and experimentation. 5. Mobility and security: Development of solutions that improve urban mobility and research for developing multimodal transport that guarantees usability, reduction of traffic and the general safety of users and public patrimony. 6. Health and quality of life: Projects that assist in the prevention and mitigation of health problems and promote a better quality of life, integrating sports projects, health and social activities. 7. Environment: Projects that seek to make the city environmentally intelligent, to optimize and protect the available resources, as well as to promote cultural changes aligned to the tripod’s perspective of ‘environment, society and economy’. 8. Industry and business: Projects that develop solutions in production, processes and innovative industrial technologies, focused on optimization, rationalization and improvement of the quality of productive processes, effectiveness, entrepreneurship and management of the contemporary business. 9. Newton tech: Projects aimed at seeking partnerships between companies and industries to provide services and increase the opportunity of internships for students in the academic community. 10. Governance: Responsible for integrating, controlling and directing the efforts of the other axes so that the projects developed achieve the objectives. 191

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

The students responsible for each axis are called trainees and are effectively trained and empowered to manage projects and teams to implement the projects. They are subordinate to a general supervisor of the Smart Campus, who is a professional with experience in industry, innovation and project management. The trainees have mentors, namely professors with a background in the area of study who act as a consultant in the projects. The trainees who are responsible for the project teams volunteer students to engage in specific projects. The number of participants in each team depends on the complexity of the project and is jointly decided with the general supervisor. All Smart Campus trainees receive training in organizational culture, Smart Cities and project management. Within the project management course, trainees gained experience in the following areas: 1. Definition of project, process and programme 2. Stages of a project 3. Building a project charter 4. Building a work breakdown structure (WBS) 5. Building a project plan 6. Schedule 7. Cost control 8. Follow-up of projects 9. Closure of projects 10. Lessons learnt Based on this structure, students work as project managers in their areas under the supervision of the Smart Campus general supervisor. A project timeframe is between six months to a year for implementation. The project scope is aligned with the concept of Smart Cities and classified as an outreach initiative according to the Brazilian Ministry of Education. The project deliverable is a prototype that represents a real solution for the campus and the city. The problems addressed in Smart Campus may come from the students themselves, from professors, from the Academic Board or the campus management. To evaluate the performance of the projects, Newton Smart Campus established quality indicators as a percentage of project realization (for projects in progress) and the number of projects completed at the end of the academic term. In addition, trainees have personal goals such as the number of formalized partners and the number of project appearances in the media. To achieve the objectives, trainees must develop skills beyond the content obtained in their graduation, such as negotiation, conflict resolution, leadership and management. Projects directly impact stakeholders such as Rector’s Office, Academic Directorate, campus management, engineering programmes coordinators, students, professors, staff and administrative sectors such as purchasing, finance, legal, infrastructure and laboratories. This multi-stakeholder engagement in the projects is required from the outset of the project design and foreseeing all risks and responses to them. Since its implementation, Smart Campus has delivered more than 100 projects that have a positive impact on the campus and society. Qualitative Research: Understanding the Smart Campus Skills Development One of the main goals of the Smart Campus is to develop the skills of Newton students so they are better prepared for the market challenges. To understand the effectiveness of the 192

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

programme structure to reach its goals, qualitative exploratory research was conducted with forty-four students. This methodology has been well established in academia to evaluate soft skills acquisition (Martin et al., 2005; Ngang et al., 2015). A questionnaire was used and included introductory questions, like how long the student stayed in Smart Campus, working type (volunteer or scholarship student), year of participation and work axis. After these questions, the students were asked to: 1. Define their competencies/skills before joining Smart Campus 2. Evaluate on a 1–5 range scale the importance of working with SDGs as a theme 3. Evaluate on a 1–5 range scale the importance of working with the Smart Cities theme 4. List the most important attributes that made them stay in Newton Smart Campus 5. Identify what competences/skills they learnt while on Smart Campus and would not have learnt in their undergraduate course 6. State their level of agreement with the phrase (in 1–5 range scale): ‘Working on the Smart Campus developed skills that I would not have developed if I were just taking my undergraduate course.’ 7. Evaluate on a 1–5 range scale the importance of the Smart Cities training 8. Evaluate on a 1–5 range scale the importance of the project management training 9. Evaluate on a 1–5 range scale the importance of the Smart culture training 10. Evaluate on a 1–5 range scale the importance of the Smart Campus general supervisor leadership during their experience 11. Define their competencies/skills after the Smart Campus experience 12. Leave a testimonial about Newton Smart Campus The competences/skills developed drew upon the ten top skills of tomorrow and how long it takes to learn them, published by World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum, 2020b), namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Analytical thinking and innovation Active learning and learning strategies Complex problem-solving Critical thinking and analysis Creativity, originality and initiative Leadership and social influence Technology use, monitoring and control Technology design and programming Resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation

From the survey respondents, 47.7 per cent self-identified as male and 52.3 per cent female. A total of 86.4 per cent received an outreach scholarship while working for Smart Campus and the other 13.6 per cent were volunteers in the programme. Of the respondents, 11.4 per cent worked in the first year of its creation (i.e. 2016); 9.1 per cent in 2017; 27.3 per cent in 2018; 36.4 per cent in 2019; 11.4 per cent in 2020 and 4.5 per cent in 2021 (current students from Smart Campus). In terms of duration of engagement, 11.4 per cent of the students worked in Smart Campus for one to three months, 63.7 per cent for three months to one year, 11.4 per cent for one to two years and 4.5 per cent for more than two years. 193

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

When they were asked about the skills and competences they had before being a Smart Campus member, most of the students answered that they were focused on graduating and engineering calculus and that their soft skills needed to be improved, especially public speaking, project management and ability to structure ideas. Some students pointed out that Newton Smart Campus was their first professional experience. A total of 95.5 per cent of students affirmed that working with the theme of SDGs was highly relevant to their professional development, while 96.2 per cent affirmed that working with Smart Cities concepts has high relevance. The top five most important features that made students stay in Newton Smart Campus were: (1) working with other colleagues (in groups), (2) having autonomy to carry out the projects, (3) improving their awareness about sustainability and the environment, (4) making public presentations and (5) collaborating with other living/innovation labs inside the institution. The most relevant skills participants learnt while on the Smart Campus were creativity, originality and initiative; analytical thinking and innovation; active learning and learning strategies; critical thinking and analysis; and reasoning, problem-solving and ideation. In terms of agreement level with the assertion ‘Working on the Smart Campus developed skills that I would not have developed if I were just taking my undergraduate course’, 2.3 per cent evaluated it with 3 score, 11.4 per cent with 4 score and 86.4 per cent with the highest score. With regard to how relevant the Smart Cities courses training were, 84.1 per cent rated it as above average; 77.2 per cent rated the project management course as very important, while 77.3 per cent agreed that Smart Culture training was relevant for their professional development. The contribution of the Smart Campus leadership, represented by the general supervisor, in the students’ soft skills development was classified in 84.1 per cent with the highest score, followed by 13.6 per cent with 4 score and 2.3 per cent with 3 score. Mentorship and guidance leads, therefore, to a higher impact in the student experience in the living lab. When the students evaluated the skills and competences they gained after being a Smart Campus member, most respondents pointed out that they had gained confidence in public speaking, honed their critical thinking skills, improved their ability to working in groups, learnt to venture out of their comfort zone and developed soft skills. One of the former members testified that recruiters look them up in LinkedIn for their skills and abilities, and they always receive good job offers. Another student noted that nowadays they are able to make presentations more confidently to professionals from all levels of the hierarchy, both within the company and elsewhere across Brazil. Testimonials To reinforce the qualitative resource results, the following are some testimonials of former Newton Smart Campus trainees: I had the opportunity to network through socializing, partnerships and friendship with colleagues from other courses. It was remarkably interesting [to note] the rich interdisciplinarity exchange of information, the vision of other areas and the ‘pains’ of different cohorts. The many meetings about the projects when everyone could hear and was heard made the whole team feel important, and everyone felt involved in every decision. I got to know the campus better, its processes; I interacted with other places and university sectors, with other outreach projects and their places, enjoying 194

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

significant exchanges for both parties. I highlight the skills acquired. I have learned to deal with the feasibility of a project or partnership, understand hierarchical issues and develop plans within all this reality. I always had creative freedom to develop my project in Newton Smart Campus; I used tools and partnerships; I gathered teams. As a programme based on the SDGs, learning their importance for the future we are going to have once we leave the academic environment and become part of everyday life. I improved many daily and consumption practices in my personal life thanks to this kind of vision. I have also developed a critical outlook at some aspects of the profession. Finally, and most important of all from my point of view, I had an inspiring leader, who through sharing experiences, visions, principles of human development and a lot of empathy welcomed me and helped in my personal progress. I will always remember all of this. I believe it is something that we all have to be grateful for, for having been part of the Smart Campus family, growing, learning and having many memorable moments. (An electrical engineering graduate, who conducted an app development project in 2018 that enables inter-student loans of items such as calculators, lab coats, technical drawing rulers, etc.) Smart Campus was my first internship opportunity. It was extremely important to my decision to continue investing in my course or not, due to the engineering market scenario. Regarding networking, I landed my current job through the Smart Campus project. It had a bearing on my success during every phase of the recruitment process. I have learned to be more sociable and more flexible about other people’s opinions for a task that should be performed by all trainees. I became more ambitious about my goals within the faculty and about having a macro view of the disciplines of other courses. I treasure the lessons I learned during the nine months of Smart Campus, especially the work environment culture of providing a relaxed and less formal environment, when possible, and the seriousness with the established goals. It was an incredibly good cycle! (A mechanical engineering student, who was responsible for the ‘Health and Quality of Life’ vertical in 2019) Before joining Smart Campus, I had a hard time expressing myself and the fear of judgement. Over time, this became something natural, as we are all the time giving presentations, being encouraged to think outside the box, and doing projects autonomously. I lost the fear of exposing my opinions and I always tried to help my co-workers who work in other areas, and they always helped me to seek the best. (An architecture student, current Smart Campus trainee, who is developing a Building Information Model (BIM) course using Revit software for academic community disposal).

Conclusions The skills of every professional, regardless of training area, transcend technical issues. To evidence this, extensive research has identified twenty-first-century skills, like analytical thinking, innovation, creativity and initiative, among others. It is a challenge for students to develop these skills through undergraduate disciplines and courses. That is why living labs are an acceptable alternative to reach these objectives. 195

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Newton Smart Campus is a living lab used to identify real problems of society and the intensification of urbanization, and to develop solutions to help solve these problems, using the campus as a space for prototyping and learning. It is organized into ten verticals that correspond to themes a city needs to develop. Since its implementation in 2015, Smart Campus has delivered more than 100 projects that have had a positive impact on the campus and society. To cite one such example, in 2020, despite our actions being limited due to the Covid-19 pandemic, more than 1,300 Newton students and more than 700 external people were involved in the production of content related to sustainability, mental health and home office tips. One of the Smart Campus projects highlights is the digital qualification, which provides digital inclusion for children, adolescents and adults, increasing their knowledge of computer tools and impacting current and future employability. Developed for Morro das Pedras, a local vulnerable community, the project launched in 2018. Newton Smart Campus trainees and other students designed the course as well as its content, articulated the new cohorts with the community leaders and facilitated the classes. Four cohorts completed the course, and more than forty-five people were trained on the contents of computer devices, desktop, Internet and Libre Office tools (Writer, Calc and Impress). According to the community leader, the project has had several positive impacts: young people entered the labour market, elderly women use computers in their home routine, and teenagers use what they have learnt for school activities. To understand whether the programme structure was effective in reaching its goals, qualitative exploratory research was conducted with forty-four students. More than 95 per cent of students affirmed that working with the theme of SDGs and Smart Cities has an above-average relevance in their professional development. It showed Newton Smart Campus characteristics like working with other colleagues; having autonomy to carry out the projects, raising awareness about sustainability and the environment; building confidence with public presentations; and collaborating with other living/innovation labs inside the institution. Overall, it helped to achieve greater employability for graduates in the market and more success in their professional path. The focus for the coming years is to work more on methodologies to achieve soft skills development more consistently, involving complex projects with greater impact for the academic community and the city of Belo Horizonte.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT



196

1. The ‘living lab’ model is used as a learning instrument to both advance the engagement of students with sustainability as an agenda for change and support their development of ‘soft skills’ prized by employers. 2. Framing the campus as a ‘living lab’ can be used to promote smart solutions working with the city in pursuit of the Smart City model. 3. Real problems of the local community can be the source of learning as well as fuel research and innovation for the university; it can also contribute positively to wider societal impact in the community.

Living Lab: Newton Smart Campus

References Ballon, P., and Schuurman, D. (2015). ‘Living Labs: Concepts, Tools, and Cases’. Info, 17 (4). doi: https:// doi.org/10.1108/info-04-2015-0024. Belo Horizonte City Hall (2016). ‘BH 2030 Strategy Plan’. https://proyec​toal​las.net/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ ads/2018/01/Belo-Horizo​nte-Ciu​dad-sos​teni​ble-ingl%C3%A9s.pdf. Accessed 14 October 2021. Belo Horizonte City Hall (2021). ‘Millennium Observatory’. https://pre​feit​ura.pbh.gov.br/plane​jame​nto/ plane​jame​nto-e-orcame​nto/obser​vato​rio-mile​nio. Accessed 14 October 2021. Bouskela, M., Casseb, M., Bassi, S., De Luca, C., and Facchina, M. (2016). The Road to Smart Cities: From Traditional Management to the Smart City. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. https://publi​cati​ons.iadb.org/publi​cati​ons/engl​ish/docum​ent/The-Road-tow​ ard-Smart-Cit​ies-Migrat​ing-from-Trad​itio​nal-City-Man​agem​ent-to-the-Smart-City.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2021. Costa, N. (2015). ‘A Importância Das Competências Transversais (Soft Skills) Na Formação Do Engenheiro’ (The Importance of Cross-Function Competencies (Soft Skills) in Engineering Education). Graduation Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://enoll.org/. Accessed 28 June 2021. Goldberg, D. E. (2009). ‘The Missing Basics & Other Philosophical Reflections for the Transformation of Engineering Education’. http://phil​sci-arch​ive.pitt.edu/4551/. Accessed 28 June 2021. Guerrieri, M., La Gennusa, M., Peri, G., Rizzo, G., and Scaccianoce, G. (2019). ‘University Campuses as Small-Scale Models of Cities: Quantitative Assessment of a Low Carbon Transition Path’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 113, p. 109263. https://www.scienc​edir​ect.com/scie​nce/arti​cle/pii/ S13640​3211​9304​71X. Accessed 28 June 2021. Instituto Nacional de Telecomunicações (INATEL) (2016). Smart Cities: Concepts and Applications. Santa Rita do Sapucaí, Brazil: Instituto Nacional de Telecomunicações. Kosowatz, J. (2020). ‘Top 10 Growing Smart Cities. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers’. https://www.asme.org/top​ics-resour​ces/cont​ent/top-10-grow​ing-smart-cit​ies. Accessed 15 June 2021. Liedtke, C., Jolanta, M., Welfens, M., Rohn, H., and Nordmann, J. (2012). ‘Living Lab: User-Driven Innovation for Sustainability’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13 (2), pp. 106–18. Limonad, E. (2009). ‘Reflexões sobre o Espaço, o Urbano e a Urbanização’. GEOgraphia, 1 (1), pp. 71–91. LinkedIn. (2020). ‘4th Annual 2020 Workplace Learning Report’. https://learn​ing.linke​din.com/cont​ent/ dam/me/learn​ing/resour​ces/pdfs/Linke​dIn-Learn​ing-2020-Workpl​ace-Learn​ing-Rep​ort.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2021. Martin, R., Maytham, B., Case, J., and Fraser, D. (2005). ‘Engineering Graduates’ Perceptions of How Well They Were Prepared for Work in Industry’. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30 (2), pp. 167–80. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (n.d.). ‘Living Labs’. http://liv​ingl​abs.mit.edu/. Accessed 28 June 2021. Miller, R. (2017). ‘Why the Hard Science of Engineering Is No Longer Enough to Meet the 21st Century Challenges’. Paper Presented at the New Approaches to Engineering in Higher Education Conference, London, 22 May, pp. 77–94. Ngang, T. K., Chan, T. C., and Vetriveilmany, U. D. (2015). ‘Critical Issues of Soft Skills Development in Teaching Professional Training: Educators’ Perspectives’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205 (May), pp. 128–33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbs​pro.2015.09.039. Niitamo, V.-P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., and Hribernik, K. A. (2006). ‘State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs’. Paper Presented at 2006 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), 26–28 June. pp. 1–8. Scott, G., and Yates, K. W. (2002). ‘Using Successful Graduates to Improve the Quality of Undergraduate Engineering Programmes’. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27 (4), pp. 363–78.

197

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 30 December 2021. United Nations (2019). ‘ONU prevê que cidades abriguem 70% da população mundial até 2050’. https:// news.un.org/pt/story/2019/02/1660​701. Accessed 28 June 2021. United Nations (2021). ‘Overview SDG 11’. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goa​l11. Accessed 28 June 2021. Wolfe, K. E. (2004). ‘Understanding the Careers of the Alumni of the MIT Mechanical Engineering Department’. Graduation Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. World Economic Forum (2020a). ‘The Future of Jobs Report 2020’. https://www.wefo​rum.org/repo​rts/thefut​ure-of-jobs-rep​ort-2020/dig​est. Accessed 28 June 2021. World Economic Forum (2020b). ‘These Are the Top 10 job Skills of Tomorrow – and How Long It Takes to Learn Them’. https://www.wefo​rum.org/age​nda/2020/10/top-10-work-ski​lls-of-tomor​row-how-lon g-it-takes-to-learn-them/. Accessed 28 June 2021.

198

199

11

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities JANET HADDOCK-FRASER

Introduction As the exemplars in this handbook demonstrate, good practice innovation and transformational change for sustainability is evident now in higher education (HE) globally. Sustainability resonates as an agenda, driver or mantra in many ways albeit the level and reach of engagement may differ, whether by institutional type, geography or organizational culture. Sustainability leadership and management is emerging as a theme or function in the sector, often from estates-based environmental-compliance origins and sometimes extending into a strategic, whole-institutional imperative. The journey has not always been clear in direction or been seen as institutionally relevant. Sustainability champions have faced barriers, including being heard or measuring what is ‘good’ among other issues (Haddock-Fraser and Gorman, 2020). Despite a slow start, the importance of sustainability in the HE sector is moving towards the norm rather than the exception. The past decade has been a springboard for enhanced engagement and interest for university staff and students globally. Universities engaging in some aspect of sustainability, whether estates-based environmental activities, curriculum development or strategies aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations (UN), 2015), runs into the thousands globally. Increasing numbers of universities are engaging through monitoring sustainability performance, such as the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS; initiated and managed by Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) in the United States) or through league table positions (such as People and Planet in the UK or the Times Higher Global Impact awards). With this groundswell of good practice and innovation within universities, it would be an error to overlook the role networking has among institutions – locally, regionally or globally – in growing sustainability success and transformational change. A multitude of associations and member networks exist globally and now cover a range of geographies, sustainability issues and discipline/subject areas. Within the context of this chapter, the role and impact of missionled organizations, with a clear mandate to enhance, improve and expand interest and action in sustainability in higher education institutions (HEIs) and among their staff and students are explored. These are termed here Sustainability Member Associations (SMAs).1

199

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Most Membership Associations (MAs) have common governance features, including ultimate control by members (directly or indirectly), support from volunteers in governance posts and functions (who may be elected by the members, e.g., board of trustees). Their strength and viability depend on membership participation and engagement. MAs are typically governed and operated by members, on behalf of members, and even those with employed staff recognize that the staff are appointed and employed by the members (via the trustees). As such, members agree on the goals, objectives and the strategy of the MA; they are usually the major sources of funds for the association and provide their human and intellectual capital in support of its missions. These characteristics are shared by SMAs, with the addition of being sustainability ‘mission-led’ or ‘values-led’. Regardless, they still need to be financially viable to exist and so need to add sufficient value to their sponsors or supporters to enable them to continue. Many are registered as charities and seek to deliver against objectives for the public good. Income is needed to survive and thrive – to employ staff, perhaps support premises and operations. Options for income generation all speak to their supply of instrumental value to a range of potential stakeholders (usually members) including: 1. Individual or institutional members through a membership ‘fee’. 2. Products and services offered, including but not limited to conferences, accreditation services, knowledge platforms and network platforms. 3. Sponsorship from commercial organizations seeking affiliation or benefit from association with the SMA and its members. Within the scope of this chapter, SMAs serving the HE sector are considered. These operate individually or collectively to deliver opportunities to advance the sustainability agenda within the sector and their societies, for members and between members. Their role is examined by undertaking the following: 1. Identifying the benefits of group membership and MAs conceptually, at the level of individual member, community of practice and the association’s purpose. 2. Outlining the global development, scope and drivers of SMAs serving the HE sector. 3. Critically assessing the benefits gained by the existence and activities of SMAs in the sector. This is undertaken by a case study of one SMA, the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC), operating in the UK and Republic of Ireland with reach internationally through its awards and work. The intention is not only to celebrate the role of SMAs but also to suggest opportunities for enhancing their ability to support further transformational change. It brings together thoughts and views developed by the chapter author (JH-F) in their role as Chair of Trustees for the EAUC (UK and Ireland) between 2016 and 2020, an SMA that was started in 1996 as one of the first globally that now has 91 per cent of HEIs in the UK and Ireland as members.

Concepts Underpinning Membership Association Benefits As the Covid-19 virus pandemic (which started in late 2019) demonstrated, human connectedness could bring widescale human trauma. However, it also showed the importance of collective effort 200

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

in finding solutions to the pandemic, and of the need for individuals to have social interaction. This is not a new insight, of course, with John Donne’s famous quote from 1624 noting thus: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. (Donne, 2012, p. 45) Apart from a few, most people sense the benefits of being part of a group or tribe and having a collective identity. Knowles and Gardner (2008) summarize the benefits of group membership as follows: 1. Bringing individuals together for collective action to enable greater ‘voice’ (e.g. local community pressure groups lobbying for climate change action by government). 2. Providing ‘safety in numbers’, thus protecting individuals and their material possessions (e.g. a neighbourhood watch or community group). 3. Enhancing an individual’s self-esteem or value through association with a group (e.g. a university alumni association). 4. Enabling an individual’s values or beliefs to be legitimized as they surround themselves with others who share these (e.g. a political or religious group). 5. ‘Diminish individuals’ existential terror by providing symbolic immortality’ (Knowles and Gardner, 2008, p. 1200). This could be by, for example, being part of a military regiment or a mission-led group seeking fundamental change (such as the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement in 2019). 6. Bolstering a sense of belonging and connectedness with others (i.e. ‘this is my tribe’). While these features apply generically to membership of any group – formal or informal – this chapter focuses on the group membership benefits of SMAs. When exploring their benefits, it is helpful to consider their impact in the following terms: 1. The SMA mission and objectives, as far as they relate to the success of the SMA, to its members’ employers (individual university and the sector as a whole) and to the advancement of the sustainability agenda. 2. Benefit of collective/network (benefits from interacting with others towards a common objective). 3. Individual benefit (benefit to the individual from membership). Although boundaries between these categories are blurred, the literature reviewed here considers each in turn. Mission and Objectives Few organizations exist without affirmed purpose: universities and SMAs are no exception. Three core concepts underpinning purpose are (1) legitimacy theory (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975); (2) stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) and (3) institutional theory (Carpenter and Feroz, 2001). These concepts, although developed at different times for different reasons, align as they speak to an SMA’s purpose, role and organizational dynamics. Fernando et al. (2014, p. 169) developed a conceptual framework incorporating the three concepts, identifying that organizations: 1. Seek survivability and stability of its business (i.e. viability) 2. Seek legitimacy of its business 201

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

3. Try to be accountable to its stakeholders 4. Try to conform to procedures and structures of other organizations that are within a particular field. Legitimacy theory looks at the context within which an organization operates and draws attention to the way its activities relate to the values of the wider social system in which it operates (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975). In other words, a social contract exists between an organization and its respective societies. Gray et al. (2010, p. 28) noted that organizations can only continue to exist if the society in which they are based perceives the organization to be operating to a value system that is commensurate with the society’s own value system. Stakeholder theory supports the notion that organizations should exist with wider accountability and influence than those of their owners/shareholders, defining stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives. (Freeman, 1984, p. 49) This definition has been used to further categorize stakeholders, including whether they are: internal or external (to the organization); latent, expectant or definitive subgroups (e.g. shareholders, customers); supportive, non-supportive or not interested; voluntary and involuntary (Fernando et al., 2014). Different stakeholders may vary in their priorities for the organization as well as in the extent to which their views are relevant. This can be particularly pertinent where stakeholders hold differing views and priorities, with the organization then needing to balance conflicting interests. Institutional theory speaks to organizational forms and reasons for having homogenous characteristics in those organizations with similar forms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Carpenter and Feroz (2001, p. 569) defined institutional theory as based on the premise that organizations respond to pressures from their institutional environment and adopt structures and/or procedures that are socially accepted as being the appropriate organizational choice. This leads to norms of values, assumptions and acceptable modes of behaviour that have been termed ‘isomorphism’, or similar ways of operating. In the context of this account, it can be applied to the HE sector and/or SMAs. Decoupling, the other key dimension of institutional theory that is related to the separation between the external image of an organization and its internal structures, is less relevant in the context considered here. As noted, each of these key concepts speak to the importance for an organization to be part of its ecosystem of influencers, not separate from it, and that this inevitably leads to common characteristics between similar types of organizations. Deducing from, and contextualizing for SMAs, it can be supposed that: 1. As values-led sustainability organizations, they rely on societal and stakeholder attitudes towards the agenda – and their interpretation of scope and priorities within it – to concur with their activities.

202

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

2. Their key stakeholders are their members, but in this instance, members are also stakeholders (typically as employees and sometimes students) of universities and so operate with interests (and power) both with the SMA and within their own institution. 3. SMAs often have different geographical coverage but a certain homogeneity of membership (universities). As such, it can be assumed that they operate as an organizational field (SMAs in the HE sector) and are likely to show common characteristics and ways of operating. This may give opportunities for them to share good practice if there is no overlap/competition for member base.

Collective/Network Benefits The purpose and value brought by collective effort and engagement is widely recognized. This builds on the adage that collective effort has a wider benefit compared to a series of individual’s efforts (sometimes described as 2 +2 = 5) (Dlouha et al., 2018). There is resonance here with social network theory that emerged through sociology, social psychology and organizational behaviour studies. The mature literature for this includes the work of Travers and Milgram (1969), from whose work the notion of ‘6 degrees of separation’ (or small-world phenomenon) developed whereby it was ‘calculated’ that each American citizen was fewer than six interpersonal links from any other American. As a key influencer in the field, this was discussed by Lin (1999) who noted the enhancement of social capital from networks by: 1. Increased information flow between individuals facilitated by a network. 2. Social ties between individuals that increases credibility and trust between parties. 3. Sense of belonging, identity and recognition in being part of a group with similar interests and resources (linking with social identity theory). Associations demarcated by profession (e.g. librarians, accountants) bring widescale benefits, including development of professional codes and norms (certification, ethical codes, good practice or the tangible benefits of being identified as a member), and serve as valuable social functions for individuals who share similar employment but in different organizations (symbolic benefits) (Markova, 2013). This is particularly important for individuals where they may be the only individual, or part of a small group serving a function (e.g. in house law or accountancy team), providing professional identity in addition to employee identity. For sustainability staff in HE, SMAs are likely to be an important professional and social support mechanism, particularly in the early stages where sustainability (or environmental compliance) was handled by one or a few individuals in an organization. Networks also bring opportunities to collectively create and innovate and – depending on how tightly bound the network is – to bring in challenge, alternative information and thinking from outside the group into it. Those networks with weak ties and structural holes (Burt, 1992) are more likely to enable these as they reduce homogeneity of experience, knowledge and values within the network (and the risk of groupthink). Applying this to SMAs, the fact that members work in a range of functions (academic and professional services), but also at different universities and in different national contexts, could assist in enabling members to benefit from challenge, creativity

203

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and opportunities to catalyse transformational change. A recent development in this context is the establishment of the Global Alliance formed in March 2015 whereby thirty-six SMAs from Africa, Asia, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Americas came together to share information and to seek collective advocacy. Individual Benefit and Social Identity Theory The ‘I’ and the benefits of group membership to an individual is explained through social identity theory (SIT). Tajfel (1981), who first postulated SIT, defined it as that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. (Tajfel,1981, p. 255) This theory suggests that an individual classifies themselves (and others), in part at least, through the heuristic of distinct social categories. These may be socio-demographic characteristics of gender, age or religion (Markova et al., 2013). These characteristics may be inherent in the individual (gender, age) and/or be determined by groups individuals choose, or are selected, to join. Using the focus of this review, the latter includes those individuals (directly or indirectly through their institution) who choose to join SMAs, and the benefits accorded to them of being part of that ‘group’. These bring what Markova terms ‘symbolic benefits’ to the individual and psychological benefits of being part of an ‘in-group (Castano et al., 2002). These benefits are enhanced if group membership is restricted, by invitation or associated with affirmative role models. In the case of SMAs, this does not apply as membership is often based on (1) payment of a subscription; (2) eligibility by being a staff or student at a university. A subscription model operates smoothly where the ‘funding’ member is the same as the ‘participating’ member as their values, interests and incentives are aligned. This is not necessarily the case for SMAs that are based on ‘organizational membership’, where the organization is composed of multiple individuals. This is the situation under consideration in relation to the EAUC case study discussed later in this chapter. Within an SMA, subgroups may exist depending on (1) which university an individual is at; (2) their role at the university; (3) other factors, such as wider profile in the sector. In addition, some SMAs have developed different membership types, including associate members (from outside the sector) as well as fellows (to recognize and reward excellence in sustainability practice and engagement with the SMA). These factors can both increase and dilute the risk of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-of-group’ dynamics establishing within the membership. In summary, the following are key factors that make for a successful SMA: 1. The long-standing viability of the SMA, measured by membership numbers, income generated, growth, impact and surplus. 2. The ability of the SMA to be relevant to its stakeholders, including crucially who its key stakeholders are in terms of interest and influence. 3. The alignment of SMA objectives and stakeholder objectives, in this instance alignment with those of individual universities in terms of their sustainability ambitions. 4. The benefit to individual members from engagement with the SMA, whether at an individual level or through networking and engagement with others, and whether the value provided by the SMA resonates with the individual’s needs. 204

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

Given the mission-led nature of SMAs, whereby their remit is to encourage and pursue furtherance of sustainability in the sector, they need to be more than support clubs for members. In addition to being accountable to the sector, they need to challenge it, and its member institutions and individuals within them, as well as embrace and disseminate good practice among them. Before discussing and evaluating these in relation to the case study of the EAUC, a short contextualization of the scope and global reach of SMAs in the sector is given.

Development of Sustainability Member Associations in Higher Education Two decades ago, sustainability-focused staff (if they existed) in universities were usually sole operators, often with environmental compliance responsibilities as part of a wider job description. Sustainability as a term was not widely used – or understood – other than as a synonym for viability. Individuals given the remit often learnt on the job, with little in the way of professional guidance or accreditation to help them or colleagues to support or engage in this area. Individuals with common interests began to emerge informally, with a view to provide mutual support and information sharing. By 1996 in the UK, this informal network had formed into the member organization the EAUC, an organization that has grown from a handful of members to 205 institutional members (as of 2020). The AASHE followed in 2005 covering North American (from a regional network started in 2001) and the Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) member network shortly afterwards. Member networks now exist globally, with regional or national organizations (and their date of establishment where known) including: 1. ARIUSA – Alianza de Redes Iberoamericanas de Universidades por la Sustentabilidad y el Ambiente (Spain, Portugal, South and Central America) (started 2007) 2. CCUEN – Canadian College and University Environmental Network 3. CAS-Net Japan – Campus Sustainability Network Japan (2014) 4. EcoCampus Belgium 5. KAGI – Korean Association for Green Campus Initiative (2008) 6. MESA – Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in Africa 7. NSCN – Nordic Sustainable Campus Network (2012) 8. Sustainable University Network of Thailand Many of these networks joined the Global Alliance in 2015 with a mission to be a ‘network of networks’ working to make universities a major contributor to the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), building on the UN Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). Other networks, member groups and alliances exist in addition that either: 1. Include sustainability/environmental management as part of a wider mandate. These include the International Association of Universities (IAU), Advance HE (UK) and Universities UK. 2. Focus on a particular theme, function or discipline area. In a business school context, for instance, these include the Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative (GRLI), Academy of Business in Society (ABIS) and Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME). These may also focus on issues, such as climate change or social justice within the discipline/ function. 205

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

It is heartening to see such widespread development of SMAs in the sector, particularly in the past twenty years, as growth in awareness and interest in sustainability spreads globally. Although a detailed description of each of these is not possible within the scope of this account, it is important to recognize the role these SMAs have in advancing the sustainability agenda globally. The SMAs differ in terms of maturity, range of services offered, focus and level of engagement (e.g. from supporting environmental operations to driving strategic change at sector level). Dlouha et al. (2018) provide a useful analysis and synopsis of SMAs globally, noting that: 1. They tend of be active in various, but not all areas, of academic life including education, research, campus operations, outreach, HE policies, professional development and student initiatives. 2. Advocacy is seen as a particularly important activity to provide presence, authority and impact for the SMA. 3. They bring collective benefit and add value to the development and furtherance of the sustainability agenda and action to individual HEIs, as well as nationally, regionally and globally. 4. They create an important conduit for peer-to-peer debate, shared learning and opportunities for consistent responses to further sustainability agendas within member institutions. 5. Success in SMAs does not seem to be based on outcomes or performance, hence it is difficult to compare and contrast relative success and leads to the development of disparate approaches to supporting and furthering the sustainability agenda among their members.

The Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges: A Case Study To meaningfully assess the success of SMAs in transformative change, this section takes forward a critique of one SMA as a case study (the EAUC), with the objectives of understanding how the EAUC operates, how it aligns with the conceptual benefits of MAs highlighted and the extent to which it can deliver transformative change for the sector. What is the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges? The EAUC was launched in 1996 with the aim of raising the profile of environmental management and to facilitate improvement of environmental performance in member institutions. To start with, this was achieved by providing a forum for sharing experiences and information among individuals from different colleges and universities and through disseminating good practice on environmental issues, campus greening and curriculum greening. The EAUC became a Registered Charity (Number: 1106172) and an Incorporated Limited Company (Number: 5183502) in 2004 (EAUC, n.d.). Since then, it has been governed by Articles of Association, incorporated in 2005 as a charitable company limited by guarantee (having been an unincorporated association until then). The Articles outline the EAUC’s objectives as follows: 1. to promote sustainable development for the benefit of the public by the preservation, conservation and protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources, particularly by and in relation to Universities and Colleges; 206

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

2. to advance the education of the public, and those attending or working in Universities and Colleges, in all aspects of sustainable development and the preservation, conservation and protection of the environment; and 3. to promote research into all aspects of sustainable development and the preservation, conservation and protection of the environment, particularly in relation to Universities and Colleges, provided that the useful results of such research are disseminated to the public. (EAUC Articles of Association 4.1, 2018, pp. 3–4) Over time, the organization has developed in size, scope and influence as outlined in Table 11.1, which provides information from EAUC’s annual reports in 2005 and 2020. Numbers of ‘educational’ members are the numbers of universities or further education (FE) colleges who are members. In both cases, there are a small number of corporate and associate/partner members from outside the sector, and these are not included here. The number of members presented in Table 11.1 does not reflect the extent of membership engagement, as can be seen with the data provided for number of contacts – with each educational member (institution) in 2020 having an average of thirty-two members of its staff and students receiving information from and engaging with the EAUC. In terms of income, although the total income has increased over time, the range of income sources has not shifted substantially. The EAUC is dependent on membership fees, with conference and events fees (from the Green Gown Awards) making up the bulk of its additional income. In recent years, specific services and products have been offered to members for an additional fee, and there has been some success in project funding and corporate sponsorship. In common with many SMAs, the EAUC has a small staff base. In 2021, there were eight staff in Cheltenham (of whom some were part time) and four in the Scotland2 office (some part time). Staff roles include chief executive officer (CEO), operations, events, member relations, programme management (Scotland), finance, communications and marketing, and awards. The type and range of activities the EAUC engages with has expanded in recent years from operational campus environmental management support towards 1. a more holistic frame for sustainability (although in the last two years the focus has been on climate change); 2. operating at an institutionally relevant strategic level (‘making sustainability just good business’); 3. international networking and advocacy.3 EAUC’s most recent strategy (2017–21) focuses on 1. encouraging the strategic alignment universities have between their goals for research, teaching and institutional viability with sustainability goals; 2. creating a more impactful voice through advocacy activities with members and their stakeholders; 3. creating and sharing new knowledge and innovation relating to sustainability; 4. expanding the scope of sustainability, geographically (to global partners) and throughout core university activities; 5. building a stronger community through improved member engagement between members and with the EAUC; 6. building a long-term business model for the EAUC. 207

208

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

TABLE 11.1  EAUC Annual Reports Compared for Member Numbers, Income and Key

Projects/Activities 2005

2020

Number of educational members (institutions)

163 (61 FE, 102 HE)

205 (65 FE, 140 HE)

Number of other members/partners

14 VIP members 11 associate members

12 companies represented 170 strategic partners

Number of contacts (multiple contacts within each membership)

6,566 individual educational contacts 408 company member contacts

Total income

£57,314a

£621,224

Income from membership

£12,073

£192,381

Examples of key projects/activities highlighted in the annual report

• Sustainable purchasing and procurement • Environmental performance improvement (HEEPI) • Guidance on employing an environmental manager • Transport – car parking and management, travel plans • Biodiversity guide for campuses • Waste management guide • Sustainable production and consumption

• Launch of climate commission with HE/FE strategic partners including UUK, GuildHE and AoC • Development of leadership labs, emerging leaders programme and leadership academy • Declaration of climate emergency • Blogs, responses to government consultations on low carbon skills, reaching net-zero, SDGs and environment bills • Resource and information sharing between members and interested parties through sustainability exchange and communities of practice • Development of Sustainability leadership scorecard • Development of Scope 3 reporting tool

Note: aApproximately US$77,000. Source: EAUC Annual Report 2005, EAUC Annual Report 2020.

The Success of the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges as a Sustainability Member Association As summarized earlier, there are key areas that make for a successful SMA. These relate to the long-standing viability of the SMA, the ability of the SMA to be relevant to its stakeholders and the benefit to individual members from engagement with the SMA; these are discussed in turn.

208

209

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

Long-Standing Viability At the outset, the EAUC was seen as a success story, growing its income base, range of activities and sphere of influence over the fifteen years since incorporation. The organization in 2020 had 38 per cent of all FE and HEIs in the UK as members (as well as six Irish HEIs and five other international members): the percentage of UK HEIs is now much higher (91 per cent of the total are members of the EAUC) compared to a low take up from FE members (17%).4 With little opportunity to grow through increased HE membership numbers, and a membership model of institutional fees, rather than member fees for individuals, the EAUC needs to look at how to provide good value to ensure high retention rates and/or to increase membership numbers of company members and international members. To date, it has achieved income growth through increased membership fees (justified through enhanced member offers of information and support) but also through the promotion of additional products and services. Of particular import is income from the annual conference and event attendance fees at the annual Green Gown Awards, managed through the EAUC. In recent years, the organization has added products and services such as leadership training, but also sought commercial sponsorship (e.g. Interface, Proctor and Gamble, PWC) to subsidize events such as the Green Gown Awards and conference sponsorship. This has not only enabled costs to members to be contained, but also helped commercial organizations gain access to academics and professional service staff in universities and colleges. This move has not been without its critics among members who question the synergies of multinational commercial organizations with the mission of sustainability and HE. Relevance to Stakeholders (Individual Members) and Alignment of Objectives The EAUC’s 2017–3 strategy brought with it the substantial benefit of positioning the organization as relevant to senior leadership and academics among its educational members, not only the sustainability champions who were its traditional membership focus. It has leveraged the trend in the late 2010s towards sustainability becoming a mainstream concern in universities. This has been influenced in large part by changing student attitudes and greater interest in sustainability through, in particular, ethics and climate change. It has been able to mobilize and share expertise among its members and other partners to help inform the collective through, for example, leadership training for HE and FE management and advice guides for governing bodies. The ambitious strategy also aims to position the EAUC as a global fulcrum for SMAs but also relevant in mainstream organizational priorities within its members’ institutions. Overall, the strategy has seen great success and has enabled the EAUC to be proactive in championing transformational change for sustainability in HE and FE institutions. At one level, it gives members sight of the ‘art of the possible’ in terms of ambition towards widening the scope and scale of sustainability achievements, but also enables members to legitimize their ambitions within their own organizations through sharing exemplars of good practice. The strategy is not without issue, however. These relate to member heterogeneity and the competitive space of member organizations.

209

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

1. Member heterogeneity: A challenge for the EAUC has been how it develops and enhances its sustainability mission and strategy while continuing to service the needs of its longstanding members, who are frequently individuals who pay the membership subscription from their departmental/business unit budget within their organization. There is a legacy in many members for the subscription to be paid by the ‘head’ of sustainability. Traditionally this role was part of an estates department, based on the role of the EAUC in supporting environmental managers and professionals. However, ownership of the sustainability agenda increasingly sits in senior management, academic management, finance, estates or even human resources, and this is where recent strategic priorities resonate more. Although environmental management operational support is still available, it is more difficult to justify fee increases where budgetary authority sits with those holding such operational functions. The challenge for the EAUC becomes one of offering different lenses through which the multiple and disparate interests of staff and students can purposefully engage with the EAUC and to recognize that all actions towards greater sustainability are a step in the right direction. 2. Competitive space of member organizations: When the EAUC started, it filled a ‘gap’ in the market for an SMA supporting environmental managers in universities and colleges who were working on estates-focused environmental management matters. It provided a network of peer support, specific information and sector context that other member organizations did not. Over time, and as sustainability has become a mainstream concern in the sector and beyond, the EAUC has found itself having to contend with – or collaborate with – member organizations whose remit overlap with theirs. Examples from within the UK include the following: o Advance HE, a leadership-focused organization targeted at middle and senior leaders in HE but who are now embracing leadership for sustainability. o Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE), whose remit of estates management now covers sustainability. o Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), a global and multisector association for anyone working, studying or interested in environment and sustainability. It also offers professional accreditation for environmental managers and professionals. o Institute for Environmental Science (IES), which provides support for anyone interested in any aspect of environmental science, including its education. The challenge for the EAUC as a mission-led organization is to embrace collaboration and networking with other member associations for wider benefit while at the same time maintaining legitimacy for its members and enhancing its member offer. With budgets squeezed in the sector, there is a danger for the EAUC of ‘being stuck in the middle’ offering neither the most-resonated senior leadership offer nor the most-respected professional environmental management support. Member Benefit: Individual and Networks The EAUC started as a ‘club’ of like-minded professional service environmental managers in universities and colleges, with a view to peer support and learning. At the time, most were working in a sole capacity within their institutions and the social capital gained from the network was substantial. As the sustainability agenda has expanded, the range of perspectives and interests of individuals engaging with the EAUC has grown. This has brought substantial benefit to the 210

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

wider agenda in the sector, and individual institutions such as the EAUC have been able to act as facilitators of cross-functional engagement within and between universities in order to seek holistic advances in sustainability. The EAUC has also grown and developed with the estatesbased members who, in many universities, are finding themselves moving towards institutionwide roles in sustainability, incorporating education for sustainability and student experience, for instance, within their remit. As universities have started to engage with the sustainability agenda at an institution-wide, strategic level, with increasing numbers now having a senior leader responsible (in part, at least) for sustainability, the EAUC has been able to help enhance knowledge and understanding of function-specific members to enable meaningful contributions within their organizations. It has achieved this through provision of training programmes, but also through member-led communities of practice, support groups as well as provision of research and information. In recent years, the EAUC has created a ‘fellowship’ scheme, whereby members who provide exceptional engagement and value to the organization are recognized for their contribution. Over the past four years this has been operational, and these individuals can be called upon by the organization to help with engagement and development as well as to lend their expertise on key knowledge areas. However, the programme does not hold the prestige it could. – Instead, it is based on nominating individuals who can provide time and resource to the EAUC rather those who have achieved eminence through association, which does not resonate well with senior university management or funding bodies. Importantly, members benefit from support and expertise from other members, as well as from the EAUC as an SMA directly. The opportunities for peer-to-peer support and co-creation are extensive, with little evidence of members operating in a competitive space. As part of a wider survey, Haddock-Fraser et al. (2018) found that sustainability leaders in universities overwhelmingly valued the role of SMAs (the EAUC in particular, but also others such as the National Union of Students) in supporting their sustainability success, with 90 per cent of respondents citing them as a key network or point of reference outside of their organization. For information, other external influences of relevance to them included external accreditation (10%), out of sector networks (25%), engagement with businesses (40%) and league tables (30%). The EAUC has been successful in building member value through its networks, and has been fortunate to play an important role as a facilitator, or hub, for information exchange and shared development of the sustainability agenda among its members and other stakeholders. As it is dependent on extensive member engagement to enhance the sustainability mission, this engagement is crucial for member value and mission-delivery. The EAUC in some ways is a victim of its own success, in terms of growth of the agenda and range of member type. With sustainability’s wide scope and contested priorities depending on individual’s interests and functions, it is easy to imagine how the concept of ‘member benefit’ could become confused in definition and difficult for the EAUC to service. An example of this was seen in 2018 when, following a strategic review (where there was extensive engagement by some members on the steering group), it was proposed to change the name from ‘Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges’ to ‘United Futures’. The rationale was that the original name did not reflect the wider sustainability remit, nor did it resonate with senior leadership or out of sector agents, from whom the EAUC was increasingly seeking support. The Articles of Association required 75 per cent of members (one member vote per university, usually the 211

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

individual who pays the membership fee) to vote to agree to the name change. At the Annual General Meeting in 2018, 72 per cent voted in favour of the change; however, the name stayed the same despite the majority supporting the change. This reflected the legacy of the long-standing ‘club’ among in the membership, illustrating the issue that the EAUC has in servicing the needs of membership – namely disparate lenses, perspectives, needs and priorities among members. Hence, dealing with the tussle between those keen for change and those wanting to maintain the status quo is its core challenge.

Conclusions It can be deduced that the EAUC is a successful SMA in terms of how it is assessed against viability, relevance and member value at a macro level. However, the nature of the organization and the disparate nature of its stakeholders (with Garrett and Davies (2011) describing trying to manage in academia as ‘herding cats’) mean that it is difficult to get complete alignment of all interested parties. Of course, difference and debate help advance thinking and encourages disruption and change, avoiding groupthink and agenda complacency. In the case of the EAUC, the issue of membership fee structures and the relative power of the budget holder for the membership fees has been a block on progress and has steered the agenda away from holistic strategic sustainability transformative change towards the needs of individual functions and members – such that progress is at the pace of the member who is slowest to change. This creates a tension in the EAUC in terms of how it positions itself. Its current ambitious aspiration for holism in sustainability development is laudable but needs multiple functions, perspectives and voices. However, as noted earlier, individuals engaging and influencing within the EAUC are also members of their own universities (as staff and students), where their employers’ priorities and objectives may differ or not resonate. The risk is two-fold: first, the opportunity the EAUC has to lead on transformational change in the sector may be diluted, as it must provide member value, whether ambitious or not. Second, members may seek alliance with alternative MAs that more closely meet their specialist needs, such as IEMA (for environmental professionals), AUDE (for estates managers) and Advance HE (for university leaders), resulting in a perception of the EAUC offering a less differentiated, or less defined, proposition ultimately challenging its organizational viability and relevance. This may affect the viability of the EAUC but may provide opportunities for growth and development of the sustainability agenda across the sector, particularly if university leadership engages with it. Trying to meet the needs of all and draw together the disparate strands for holistic transformational change in sustainability is necessary for the sector though, rather than a siloor function-based approach. The challenge is – and always has been – how the EAUC can take all members with them. Separating their offering by different types of member function risks losing the advantage it has of bringing together multiple voices and disparate stakeholders, but without specificity in offer they will lose membership to those organizations seeking a focused offer from their MA. Already, informal splinter groups have formed (e.g. among the ‘Russell Group’ of universities), and the benefits of the EAUC offer would become dissipated if such groups gained independent traction. At the end of the day, though, what matters is transformational change towards greater sustainability in the sector. If what the SMA is currently offering cannot find a distinctive and valued space in the conversation, it needs to 212

Sustainability Member Associations for Universities

undergo transformative change itself and seek new business models and membership offers or leave others to lead the agenda.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT



1. SMAs bring substantial benefit to the development of sustainability within the sector and individual institutions through pooling knowledge and encouraging best practice. 2. It is imperative that SMAs have a clear focus and scope: sustainability is such an allencompassing concept that trying to cover all its dimensions risks dilution of tangible achievements and can present a muddled position to prospective members. 3. As organizations, SMAs rely heavily on being a benefit to their members. Member voice and member engagement are thus essential to their long-term success. However, there can be a tension between being appropriately supportive to members and while also challenging them to make more change for sustainability across the sector.

Notes 1 For the purpose of this chapter, these are defined as any member organization operating with HEIs as members (either as individuals within it or at an institutional level), whose core purpose is to support or enhance sustainability (or some aspect of sustainability, such as environmental sustainability). 2 The Scotland office operates semi-autonomously and services, among other responsibilities, project management for sustainability initiatives funded directly by the Scottish government. 3 This includes the establishment of the Global Alliance referred to earlier in the chapter. 4 The success and relevance (in terms of membership) has not gained traction with the FE sector, with little growth in membership numbers and lower retention rates than in the HE sector. The reasons include the issues of systemic government budget cuts in the FE sector over the last decade, and frequent FE college mergers, meaning the pool of potential members is shrinking. However, these factors do not detract from the question of the relevance of the EAUC’s more recent initiatives towards international engagement, and engagement in core academic activities in research, knowledge exchange and advanced learning and teaching for its FE members. It does try to mitigate this through FE member networks and different fee structures. However, it brings into question whether the needs of FE and HE can be delivered in an organization that already has a wide – and expanding scope – in terms of what the notion of sustainability covers in the sector context.

References Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carpenter, V. L., and Feroz, E. H. (2001). ‘Institutional Theory and Accounting Rule Choice: An Analysis of Four US State Governments’ Decisions to Adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26 (7), pp. 565–96. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M.-P., and Sacchi, S. (2002). ‘I Belong, Therefore, I Exist: Ingroup Identification, Ingroup Entitativity, and Ingroup Bias’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (2) (February), pp. 135–43.

213

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

DiMaggio, J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), pp. 147–60. Dlouha, J., Henderson, L., Kapitulcinova, D., and Mader, C. (2018). ‘Sustainability-Orientated Higher Education Networks: Characteristics and Achievements in the Context of the UN DESD’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, pp. 4263–76. Donne, J. (2012). The Best of John Donne (1624). (Classic Poet) Paperback CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Dowling, J., and Pfeffer, J. (1975). ‘Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behaviour’. Pacific Sociological Review, 18 (1), pp. 122–36. Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.eauc. org.uk/who​_we_​are. Accessed 9 May 2021. Fernando, S., and Lawrence, S. (2014). ‘Theoretical Framework for CSR Practices: Integrating Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory’. Journal of Theoretical Accounting, 10 (1) (Fall 2014), pp. 149–78. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garrett, G., and Davies, G. (2011). Herding Cats: Being Advice to Aspiring Academic and Research Leaders. Devon: Triarchy. Gray, R., Owen, D., and Adams, C. (2010). ‘Some Theories for Social Accounting? A Review Essay and a Tentative Pedagogic Categorisation of Theorisations Around Social Accounting’, in M. Freedman and B. Jaggi (eds), Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosure: Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 1–54. Haddock-Fraser, J., and Gorman, D. (2020). ‘Building Your Influence: The Role of the Smart Sustainability Leader’. Emerald Open Research, 2, p. 53. doi: https://doi.org/10.35241/eme​rald​open​ res.13819.1. Haddock-Fraser, J., Rands, P., and Scoffham, S. (2018). Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury. Knowles, M. L., and Gardner, W. L. (2008). ‘Benefits of Membership: The Activation and Amplification of Group Identities in Response to Social Rejection’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (9) (September), pp. 1200–13. Lin, N. (1999). ‘Building a Network Theory of Social Capital’. Connections, 22 (1), pp. 28–51. Markova, G., Ford, R., Dickson, D., and Bohn, T. (2013). ‘Professional Associations and Members’ Benefits. What’s in It for me?’ Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23 (4), pp. 409–536. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Travers, J., and Milgram, S. (1969). ‘An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem’. Sociometry, 32 (4) (December), pp. 425–43. United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 30 December 2021.

214

215

PART 2

Higher Education as a Driver of Sustainability beyond the Institution: Transformation from Inside to Outside the Academy WENDY M. PURCELL AND JANET HADDOCK-FRASER

While Part 1 explores how sustainability can be adopted as a driver of change within higher education institutions (HEIs), as they react and respond to influencing factors outside the academy, Part 2 examines how a university working with and for sustainability can influence, effect and amplify change beyond the institution, working with and through others. Each carefully curated chapter reflects the key roles a university can choose to play when it adopts sustainability as a lens on its core activities of teaching/learning, research/innovation and civic/ community engagement. This is not an altruistic choice. Rather, positioning sustainability as a strategic university agenda is shown to co-create value with its stakeholders that is shared as it delivers on the goals of sustainable development. It also serves to advance the academic standing of the HEI in a myriad of ways, whether that is through institutional ranking, donor support or simply demand for places. Critically, context matters. From Aruba to New Zealand, Canada to Nepal, Scotland to Japan, Spain to South Africa, and England to the United States, each chapter demonstrates the importance of heritage and place. Heritage is reflected especially in institutional and national cultures and values as well as disciplinary and professional routes, while place captures pressing issues of inequity and injustice making clear the connection from local actions to global goals. It is clear from the various chapters that sustainability needs to be both mission-led and self-led to be rightly transformational. As such, universities have found ways to connect their strategic sustainability intentions with projects and initiatives throughout the institution and within their wider stakeholder ecosystem. In this way, they are alert to new possibilities and build critical trust capital with participants, sponsors and funders that go on to support new ventures and experimentation – leveraging the power of working across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Several chapters (Chapter 12, McGill University; Chapter 16, University of Edinburgh; Chapter 23, University of the West of England, Bristol) chart the institution’s sustainability journey over time. In these stories are key lessons others can use to leapfrog their own efforts, as well as relevant frameworks and theories of change that can help them do so. In most chapters, students are clearly identified as key agents of change, with important insights about their vital

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

role within projects and as mobile quanta of change as leaders and professionals upon graduation. Some initiatives are described in detail (Chapter 20, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington; Chapter 21, Chiba University) so that others can adapt them where appropriate. From exploring leverage points that can be used to influence change (Chapter 12, McGill University) to structures that enable universities to convene with stakeholders around a shared purpose (Chapter 15, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; Chapter 14, Harvard University), the various scales of impact (Chapter 13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Chapter 13, Princeton University) are explored from campus to the world. Effective leadership and agile governance are needed, with new models and structures proposed, given change for sustainability must be led (Chapter 14, Harvard University). Change beyond the university can be at the level of the community (Chapter 20, Te Herenga Waku – Victoria University of Wellington; Chapter 16, University of Edinburgh; Chapter 24, City University New York), city/region (Chapter 15, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; Chapter 13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University), nation state (Chapter 17, University of Aruba; Chapter 19, Kathmandu University) or continent (Chapter 22, University of Cape Town; Chapter 18, University of Pretoria). Central to all these efforts are the convening power of HEIs to bring parties together around a project or mission and their focus on learning and discovery. Bringing the innate curiosity and talents of faculty and students to co-create solutions with relevant problem-owners advances both learning and research and accelerates change. Each chapter reflects a host of actors, from individual faculty to global networks, apiece with agency and activated in different ways but all focused on a shared sustainability agenda often aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). All the accounts capture a sustainability journey – one that is still very much in progress. No one HEI has arrived. While it is clear from the explanations that transformation takes time, there is, however, consensus that progress needs to be faster and change deeper given the urgency of the challenges facing humanity today and ahead. None of the chapters makes the case for exceptionalism; the accounts are not about bragging or polishing institutional sustainability trophies. Rather, sharing the models and frameworks used and the lessons learnt enables learning both by the institution offering the case as well as those who go on to read the work. While the cases presented are a small selection from among some 2,000-plus HEIs worldwide, they are offered humbly as examples for the purposes of learning and in anticipation that the care taken to narrate the path towards sustainability journey offers insights to those on their own journey. Holding universities as fundamental to the pursuit of sustainability, their role acting in concert with stakeholders from business, civic society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and entrepreneurs, serves to amplify their ability to deliver against the key issues of our time to help create a world that leaves no one behind.

216

217

12

Sustainability Transformations at McGill BLANE HARVEY, STEPHANIE LEITE AND SARAH HEIBERG

Introduction McGill University celebrated its bicentennial in 2021, sparking an institution-wide reflection on the university’s past, progress and achievements over the past 200 years. As McGill embarks on its third century, it is also a time to reimagine the university within a context of rapid change and society’s expanded expectations of HEIs. As stated in the McGill University 2017–2022 Strategic Academic Plan, ‘no university can lead globally in the 21st century without putting sustainability at the centre of its operations, research, and teaching’ (McGill Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic), 2017). From this perspective, McGill’s bicentennial is also an opportunity to take stock of the global grand challenges facing humanity and to rethink the university’s role in addressing them. McGill’s size (both in population and campus footprint) and positioning as one of Canada’s leading research universities make it a compelling site not only for studying sustainability, but also for undertaking transformations of its own. The university welcomes approximately 40,000 students yearly and includes 1,747 tenured and tenure-stream faculty, 4,608 contract academic staff and 6,345 professional (non-academic) staff (McGill University, 2020a, b; McGill University Analysis, Planning and Budget, 2021). The university is one of only three English-language universities in Quebec – Canada’s only francophone province – with McGill’s main campus nestled between Montreal’s multicultural downtown core and the city’s iconic Mont Royal Park and including a number of heritage buildings that date back to its establishment as the oldest university in the city. While an integral part of McGill’s identity and charm, these heritage buildings pose a material challenge to the university’s operational sustainability compared to younger universities. In contrast to McGill’s urban downtown campus, its 650-hectare Macdonald Campus is the largest green space on the island of Montreal, notably housing the university’s Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences and the Bieler School of Environment. McGill also stewards several additional ecological assets in the Greater Montreal region such as the Gault Nature Reserve and Morgan Arboretum (McGill University, n.d. a; McGill University, n.d. b). McGill has taken some important steps towards its aim of becoming a leader in sustainability and has been recognized in the process. Some recent examples of note include recognition as one of Canada’s greenest employers since 2017 (McGill Office of Sustainability, 2021); winning the 2019 International Green Gown Award’s Sustainability Institution of the Year (Green Gown

217

218

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Awards, 2021); and being rated as a ‘Sustainability Initiative Leader’ in a 2015 study of Canadian post-secondary institutions (Beveridge et al., 2015). However, the dawning of McGill’s third century and plans for a large-scale sustainability-focused infrastructure project have prompted a need for further critical reflection on the status of the university’s work on sustainability. It has also sparked a debate about how to ensure that these transformations are themselves inclusive and lasting, and what level of ambition is appropriate given the pressing societal challenges currently faced by humanity. McGill finds itself at the beginning of its next important phase in its sustainability journey, with a new five-year strategy and large-scale infrastructure investments planned for the coming years. As such, learning from the successes and challenges of McGill’s efforts to date is an important step in positioning the university strategically for the journey ahead. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to identify effective leverage points to propel McGill’s ongoing sustainability journey by assessing progress made over the past decade. Key questions include: 1. What milestones, drivers and enabling conditions appear to have had the greatest impact on advancing McGill’s sustainability agenda? 2. What barriers were overcome, and what challenges have proven more persistent or systemic? 3. How can an analysis and understanding of leverage points be used to accelerate sustainabilitydriven transformation at McGill and, potentially, at other HEIs? By tracing the university’s sustainability journey thus far, and reflecting on what has been achieved to date, key considerations for McGill to pursue its ambitions as a leading twenty-firstcentury global university with sustainability at its core were identified. There is also great value in sharing these lessons with the wider higher education community.

Methodology Given the chapter’s aim of identifying the drivers of systemic change in McGill’s efforts towards sustainability, two analytical constructs were used to support the investigation. The first, Meadows’ (1999) concept of leverage points to sustainability, helps to understand the entry points to promoting sustainability that exist within a given system. Here the system in question was the university itself, including its students, faculty, operations, facilities, norms of practice and more. The second, Geels’s (2011) multilevel perspective on sustainability transitions, helps to understand the transition of sustainability practices and innovations, from niche use to widespread adoption into wider systems and – perhaps – into even more widespread use, termed by Geels (2011) as the ‘socio-technical landscape’. The analysis draws on three types of data: 1. academic literature, especially studies focusing on sustainability transitions in higher education. 2. McGill policy documents. 3. interviews with targeted individuals from McGill’s present and past administration, faculty and student body. Drawing from an initial review of policy documents, including McGill’s Vision 2020 Sustainability Strategy as well as the 2020–2025 Climate & Sustainability Strategy, research questions were developed that concentrated on McGill’s sustainability journey.

218

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine individuals identified as key actors in McGill’s sustainability initiatives. The sample included five administrators, three faculty members and one student whom the research team invited to participate in the study. Participants were selected based on their perceived ability to provide insights into milestones, enabling factors and barriers to advancing the university’s sustainability agenda. Participants had worked at or been affiliated with McGill for between one and thirty-four years. Interviews lasted from 45 to 75 minutes and were structured around a series of eight core questions (Appendix 12.1). Due to safety protocols in place as part of the Covid-19 pandemic at the time, all interviews were undertaken virtually and were digitally recorded. Recordings were transcribed using an automated platform and then manually checked for transcription accuracy. First-cycle coding was conducted deductively, using categories that aligned with interview questions. A literature review on sustainability transition theory was conducted in parallel to coding, which resulted in the identification of key concepts that framed a thematic analysis of the interview data. Key terms, which are included throughout the analysis, are as follows: 1 Driver: Factor that compels a system to change (Linnér and Wibeck, 2021). 2 Governance mechanism: Pathway or process by which a targeted outcome is achieved (Linnér and Wibeck, 2021). 3 Intervention: A particular element of policies, programmes, strategies and the like that is designed to produce a situation which can secure desired outcomes (Linnér and Wibeck, 2021). 4 Leverage point: The part of the system that can be influenced for a proportionally greater effect on the whole system (Linnér and Wibeck, 2021). 5 Regime: Forms the ‘deep structure’ that accounts for the stability of an existing sociotechnical system (Geels, 2011). 6 Niche: ‘Protected space’ where users have special demands and are willing to support emerging innovations. Niche actors work on radical innovations that deviate from existing regimes (Geels, 2011). 7 Landscape: The wider context which influences niche and regime dynamics. The landscape level highlights not only the technical and material backdrop that sustains society, but also includes demographic trends, political ideologies, societal values and macro-economic patterns (Geels, 2011). Through the interviews and document analysis, a timeline of McGill’s sustainability journey over the past thirty years was generated and a list of key moments or milestones over this period identified (Appendix 12.2). Milestones were recorded in the analysis if at least one interviewee identified them as having had a significant effect on sustainability at McGill. Finally, three of these key moments or milestones were selected as case studies for a more in-depth analysis. Case studies were identified based on the frequency with which they were cited as significant by respondents, as well as the diversity of case types they represented. More specifically, in line with the literature reviewed, cases selected reflected a more ‘bottom–up’ emergence of impetus for change (from niche to regime), a more ‘top–down’ change (where drivers emerged at the regime level) or a combination of these two types of drivers.

219

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Literature Review Towards Sustainability Transformations in Higher Education Scholars of education and sustainability have increasingly called upon us to rethink the role that higher education can play in wider societal transitions to sustainability. They point to higher education’s continued tendency towards disciplinary silos, the persistent gaps between knowledge production and the application of new knowledge towards societal challenges, as well as the separation of cognition from affect and emotion as barriers to deeper and more transformative forms of learning (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015; Sterling, 2004; Irwin et al., 2018). Sterling (2004) argues that educational responses to the challenges of sustainability can be conceptualized as a continuum, ranging from dismissal or denial at one end, to fundamentally transformative responses at the other. To date, much action within HEIs might be described as ‘accommodation’ (Sterling, 2004, p. 59) where new sustainability initiatives (largely contentfocused) are bolted-on to existing systems in ways that do little to disrupt the dominant thinking, values or norms of practice. True paradigm-shifting responses, argue Lotz-Sisitka et al. (2015), require moving beyond such accommodations – where existing systems are optimized or supplemented, towards a more transformational revisioning of how educational institutions can ‘do better things differently’ (p. 73). The concept of transformation is long-studied in both education and sustainability scholarship, yet its definition, the site of change (be it individual, collective, or system-wide) and enabling factors remain the sources of much debate (Mezirow and Taylor, 2009; Westley et al., 2011; Feola, 2015; Scoones et al., 2020). Drawing together a range of these perspectives, O’Brien and Sygna (2013) propose taking a holistic perspective to conceptualizing transformation as ‘a process that takes place across three embedded and interacting spheres’ (O’Brien and Sygna, 2013, p. 19): 1. the practical sphere, which represents the behavioural and technical responses to sustainability challenges; 2. the political sphere, which constitutes the social and ecological systems and structures within which we live and work, and which govern many of the possibilities for collective action on sustainability challenges; 3. the personal sphere, which encompasses the individual and collective beliefs, values, world views and paradigms that shape our understandings of what is possible and desirable. Understood in this light, both technical interventions and perspectival change can be understood as contributing to transformations, albeit to differing extents. Alongside the debates and discussions of what transformation is are competing views of the most appropriate ways to study transformation. Consequently, an ever-growing range of frameworks and methods has been proposed to help identify, map and understand the drivers and barriers to transformative change, covering a wide range of orientations to the phenomenon. Two widely used approaches of particular relevance to this analysis are the multilevel perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions popularized by Geels (2011, 2019) and Donella Meadows’ (1999) concept of leverage points, which has been increasingly used in relation to sustainability transitions in recent years (e.g. Posner and Stuart, 2013; Abson et al., 2017; Linnér and Wibeck, 2021). 220

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

The Multilevel Perspective The multilevel perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2011, 2019) provides ‘a “big picture” integrative approach’ to understanding and thinking strategically about transformative change (Geels, 2019, p. 197). It proposes a means of tracing trajectories of change, where niche innovations are taken up at wider levels of society, disrupting dominant systems and practices, and leading to changes in regimes of practice – while interacting with the wider socio-technical landscape. Transitions, in this MLP, represent profound transformations in an existing system that unfold through an interplay between these niche, regime and landscape levels. These transformations must overcome entrenched modes of working and thinking, termed by Geels (2011) as ‘lock-ins’, in order to disrupt the dominant systems. Returning to O’Brien and Sygna’s (2013) conceptualization of transformation, the MLP tends to take as a starting point the practical sphere – engaging with behaviour and practices in response to sustainability challenges, but also engages with both the political and personal spheres. Studies using the MLP have tended to focus on sustainability transitions in provisioning systems that relate to production and consumption, such as energy, water and food (Geels, 2019). However, there exists a small body of literature applying this framework to what Geels (2019) terms socio-institutional systems, including higher education (e.g. Schneidewind and Augenstein, 2012; Ramsarup et al., 2018; Deleye et al., 2019; Hoinle et al., 2021). For Deleye et al. (2019), who used the MLP to study the Flemish higher education system, the approach serves to capture the complexity of the existing system and to clarify what potential transitions to a new system might entail. The focus on multilevel dynamics is useful in helping people situate themselves and the practices they are involved with within the wider landscape of a system (Deleye et al., 2019, p. 1110). Leverage Points The concept of leverage points was developed by Meadows (1999) to describe places one might intervene in particular systems in order to effect change. Drawing on insights from the systems analysis community, Meadows proposed a hierarchy of twelve leverage points, where certain types of intervention should effect more transformative change than do others but recognizing that such deep leverage points (such as shifts in system goals or paradigms) are often much harder to reach (see Figure 12.1). For Fischer and Riechers (2019), the shallow leverage points proposed by Meadows are causal in nature, representing more straightforward cause-and-effect relationships between increased efficiency and reduced consumption, for example. Abson et al. (2017) argue that these tend to be the leverage points more frequently targeted in actions on sustainability. The deeper leverage points, however, are teleological in nature (Fischer and Riechers, 2019). They invite us to rethink the purpose of particular actions or aims rather than the means by which we achieve them. For example, this might involve interrogating whether the current scientific paradigm can at once be a major driver of environmental degradation – and the means by which global sustainability challenges can be solved. Bringing these two lenses (causal and teleological) on current systems into a common framework is a powerful way to consider both smaller and bigger changes to working towards transformation within a given system. The leverage points concept has enjoyed considerable uptake in studies of sustainability in higher education, where systems perspectives are essential to understanding the complex interplays 221

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education 1. The power to shift the paradigm to deal with new challenges 2. The paradigm used to design the system 3. The goals of the system 4. System structure/self-organization 5. System rules 6. Information flow structures 7. Reinforcing feedback loops 8. Balancing feedback loops 9. Delays relative to change rates 10. Stocks and flow structures 11. Buffer sizes 12. Constants, parameters, numbers

Intent Design

System

Feedbacks Parameters

FIGURE 12.1  Leverage points and system characteristics, McGill (framework adapted from Abson et al. (2017) and Leuphana Universität Lüneburg (2015)).

between different actors and processes within the university. Posner and Stuart (2013, p. 274), in their use of systems perspectives to identify leverage points for sustainability transitions at the University of Vermont, conclude that ‘knowledge of the different kinds of leverage points and how to identify them can empower administrators, faculty, and students to select specific policies and actions based on their effectiveness at producing more desirable system-wide behavior’. The MLP and leverage points frameworks each bring a different set of insights to understanding what transformation is, how it happens and the types of influence over it in specific settings, such as HEIs. The MLP enables a better understanding of the emergence and trajectory of innovations – and how these shape (or are shaped by) more entrenched socio-technical regimes – and wider landscapes. While these trajectories are rarely linear or clear-cut (Smith et al., 2010), the MLP provides a useful heuristic for understanding how small-scale innovations may find their way into more formalized use, as well as how broader trends in higher education (such as growing commitment to sustainability and equity) might create downward pressure on regimes to adopt new mindsets, policies, or practices. The leverage points concept, however, can serve as both a tool for analysis and for intervention. Used retrospectively, the concept allows an understanding of why particular interventions might have generated the deep (or shallow) change that they did, or conversely, to understand how future systems transformation might be pursued most effectively. In the sections that follow, these tools are brought to bear on key milestones in McGill’s sustainability journey to better understand the nature of the changes that unfolded, the drivers of these changes and the insights that we can be derived from them.

McGill’s Sustainability Journey While McGill’s sustainability journey is uniquely linked to its history, place and the people who have contributed along the way, this journey has also been influenced by broader societal shifts and growing attention to questions of sustainability in higher education (see Appendix 12.2 222

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

for a more detailed timeline of some of McGill’s key sustainability milestones from 1990 to 2021). Tracing McGill’s journey to date allows patterns in how the university has successfully advanced sustainability in the past to be discerned, and where success has been more limited. Understanding these patterns and their causal factors contributes to institutional self-awareness and reflection that are critical for McGill to achieve its sustainability ambitions going forward. Early Years (1990–2007) In the years leading up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, McGill made its first sustainability commitments as a signatory to the Talloires (1990) and Halifax (1991) declarations affirming the university’s role in furthering environmental sustainability, and environment and development, respectively. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, sustainability initiatives began to emerge on campus (McGill University, 2012, p. 12). One notable example is the McGill School of Environment. Recently renamed the Bieler School of Environment, this was, as one faculty member described it, a bottom–up initiative led by a group of professors from three faculties committed to developing an interdisciplinary school to bridge the social sciences, humanities, and natural and applied sciences (McGill University, n.d. c). In addition, while discussions to develop an environmental policy were initiated in the mid-1990s, McGill’s first environmental policy was adopted in 2001, with companion principles adopted in 2002 (McGill University, 2012, p. 12). McGill pursued its environmental sustainability work throughout the 2000s, introducing more robust measuring and tracking approaches such as an initial greenhouse gas inventory in 2004 and the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework in 2005. In the early 2000s, a significant number of social sustainability initiatives were launched. Student-led initiatives included Queer McGill, the Union for Gender Empowerment, the Midnight Kitchen (providing meals to people in need) and the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Policy and services. During that timeframe, three new university offices linked to social sustainability were established: the Social Equity and Diversity Education (SEDE) Office, the First People’s House for Indigenous Students and the Office for Students with Disabilities. This cluster of social sustainability activities at McGill occurred shortly after the three-pillar approach to social, environmental and economic sustainability emerged as the dominant or common view in the early 2000s (Giddings et al., 2002 in Purvis et al., 2018, p. 685). The mainstreaming of the tricameral approach to sustainability at the landscape scale, combined with pressure from student-led social justice/sustainability initiatives, likely served as enabling conditions for institutionalizing social sustainability at McGill through the establishment of the three new offices dedicated to social equity and diversity. Contemporary Trends (2008–21) An analysis of McGill’s sustainability milestones reveals 2008–10 as a tipping point in the university’s sustainability journey. First, a series of impactful sustainability milestones occurred at this time, including the creation of a Director of Sustainability position in 2008, the establishment of the McGill Office of Sustainability and the Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF) in 2009, and the adoption of McGill’s first Sustainability Policy in 2010. Second, there was a marked shift from most sustainability initiatives targeting a single pillar of sustainability (environmental, social or economic) until 2007 towards a significant number of sustainability initiatives targeting 223

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

two or three pillars beginning in 2008. An emblematic example from this period is the McGill Food Systems Project, a student-led initiative developed in consultation with McGill’s Food and Dining Services and the Director of Sustainability to foster a more sustainable and transparent food system across the university through applied student research, community engagement and stakeholder collaboration (McGill University, n.d. d). Another student-led movement, Divest McGill, was founded in 2012 to draw attention to McGill’s investment portfolio and promote fossil fuel divestment (FFD). Furthermore, SPF funding began flowing to projects in 2010, leading to heightened awareness of sustainability issues and increased participation in sustainability projects across the campus. Arguably, one of the most impactful projects funded through the SPF during this time was the ‘Vision 2020: Creating a Sustainable McGill’, which was a broad consultation and community engagement process to develop a sustainability strategy for the university. Launched in 2012 and carried out over two years, this process involved over a thousand participants through twentyeight events and various online platforms and resulted in a shared McGill sustainability vision ‘to be one of the best universities in the world by doing our best for the world’ (McGill University, 2014, p. 11). Around this time, sustainability became increasingly entrenched within McGill’s institutional governance mechanisms. For example: 1. The university adopted the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS), achieving a Silver rating in 2012 and Gold ratings in 2016 and 2020. 2. The 2010–2015 Energy Management Plan was created and updated for the period 2016–21. 3. The university’s first five-year Sustainable Procurement Strategic Plan was adopted in 2013. Another cluster of sustainability activity occurred during the period 2016–20. Notable examples from these years include the founding in 2016 of the McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI) – an interdisciplinary network of sustainability researchers at McGill – and the Provost’s Task Force on Indigenous Studies and Indigenous Education that resulted in fifty-two calls to action to which the university is responding. In addition, McGill’s Vision 2020 Climate and Sustainability Action Plan (2017–2020) was released in 2017; a plastic bottle ban was introduced in 2019; and action plans addressing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and anti-Black racism were both adopted in 2020. Most recently, in December 2020, McGill approved its 2020–2025 Climate & Sustainability Strategy, which includes three ambitious long-term targets: 1. Attain a STARS Platinum rating by 2030. 2. Become zero-waste by 2035. 3. Achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. Reaching these long-term targets may require intervening at deeper leverage points to effect changes to McGill as a community and as a complex socio-institutional system.

Institutional Transformations through the Lens of Leverage Points and the Multilevel Perspective Transition Model Research into the key milestones and turning points along McGill’s sustainability journey, complemented by insights gleaned through interviews, pointed to a particular dynamic operating between the niche and regime levels at McGill. While some institutional sustainability 224

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

trends could be clearly traced back to grassroots bottom–up beginnings (niche), other broad sustainability changes could be directly linked to top–down institutional governance mechanisms and policy decisions (regime). A third, hybrid approach was also observed, whereby brokers and intermediaries for change across the university capitalized on both bottom–up pressure and top– down support to make significant sustainability progress at McGill. Three case studies illustrate how each of these approaches has played a role in McGill’s journey to becoming a more sustainable institution. The leverage points framework and MLP transition model are used to analyse each case and identify enabling conditions, change drivers and how barriers were overcome. Case 1: Bottom–Up and Top–Down Drivers of Change – The Sustainability Projects Fund If the university is held to be a complex socio-institutional system (Posner and Stuart, 2013, p. 274; Loorbach et al., 2017, cited in Geels, 2019, p. 188), then McGill’s Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF) is a useful case to examine how different leverage points can effect change within such a system. McGill’s SPF was created in 2009 as a mechanism to develop and provide seed funding for interdisciplinary sustainability projects on campus. Similar to other university student levies, McGill students contribute C$0.55 per credit towards campus-level sustainability projects. However, McGill introduced three innovations compared to peer institutions that have helped shift the university towards a culture of sustainability: 1. The McGill administration matches the student levy, dollar-for-dollar. This was a precondition from the student body, initially met by the administration in part by increasing the cost of paid parking spots on the downtown campus. Through this innovative funding arrangement, the SPF generates approximately C$1 million in funding annually (the largest fund of its kind in Canada). Simultaneously, as a faculty member highlighted, it created a disincentive for more polluting forms of transportation (McGill University, 2012, p. 31). 2. A governance council, composed of four student and four staff members, guides the SPF with membership reflecting the same parity as the fund itself. The body reviews project applications and – based on consensus – decides whether they receive funding. One faculty member noted that this creates a shared sense of shared ownership for the success of SPF projects across the university. 3. The SPF staff give feedback to project teams to improve their proposals, including with whom they should partner with to achieve broad stakeholder representation (McGill Business Consulting Group, 2017, p.7). SPF staff serve as key intermediary actors by ‘collecting, aggregating and disseminating lessons from projects’ and ‘facilitating new connections between actors’ (Geels, 2019, p. 196). As a result, of the 250+ projects funded to date, 86 per cent have been student–staff collaborations. Since its creation in 2009, a total of C$10 million in sustainability project funding has been allocated, over 4,500 volunteers have been mobilized, 150 partnerships and more than 445 sustainability-related student jobs have been created. Participants in SPF projects report not only improved knowledge of sustainability and personal growth, but also better leadership, budgeting, planning, teamwork, networking and negotiation skills – thereby increasing their capacity to 225

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

be change agents on campus and beyond (McGill University, 2020c, p. 11). Furthermore, by funding a range of sustainability projects spanning McGill operations, academics and culture, the SPF creates the enabling conditions for learning and development processes that significantly contribute to an institutional – or regime-level – culture shift towards sustainability. Emerging Insights and Lessons The case of the SPF supports the observation that, while shallow leverage points rarely result in significant transformation on their own, they can provide the spark that ignites deeper leverage points (Meadows, 1999, p. 6). The SPF aims to use the shallowest leverage point (#12: constants, parameters, numbers [subsidies, taxes, standards]) by charging a fee to students that is matched by the administration to fund sustainability projects at McGill. However, by funding campus sustainability projects, change is now occurring at the deeper structure of information flows leverage point #6. As one faculty member noted: Students who wanted to work on projects of relevance to McGill were never able to get hold of the data or even be allowed to meet with people and facilities … The Sustainability Projects Fund removed the financial barriers, and then opened up the informational barriers to help people do things that they already wanted to do. When considering the cumulative impact of the 250+ projects on the university as a socioinstitutional system, it could be argued that the SPF has been successful at effecting change at an even deeper leverage point, # 4: the power to add, change, evolve or self-organize system structure. According to Laloux (2014): in a self-managing organization, change can come from any person who senses that change is needed … Innovation doesn’t happen centrally, according to plan, but at the edges, all the time … Some attempts fail to catch on; others rapidly spread. (p. 203) The SPF’s decentralized and distributed approach has arguably made McGill’s sustainability culture more resilient to landscape- and regime-level barriers than would have been a top– down, leader-driven sustainability effort because it is not dependent on one or a few charismatic leaders but has permeated throughout the organization. Therefore, this case suggests that, under certain conditions, deeper sustainability transformation within socio-institutional systems can be achieved through many smaller, incremental changes. Case 2: Bottom–Up Drivers of Change – The Divest McGill Campaign Over half of the interviewees for this study identified McGill’s FFD movement as a significant initiative in the university’s wider sustainability narrative. While McGill has yet to commit to full or partial divestment at the time of writing, the divest campaign illustrates the complex interactions among economics, politics, culture and public opinion that necessarily make sustainability transitions difficult (Geels, 2011). Founded in 2012, Divest McGill began as a student-led initiative connected to a larger FFD movement that started in 2010 at Swarthmore College in the United States (Yona and Lenferna, 2016; Maina et al., 2020). FFD in turn had been modelled after previous divestment campaigns, 226

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

targeting industries like tobacco and regimes such as South Africa’s apartheid (Yona and Lenferna 2016; Maina et al., 2020). Looking beyond the economic case for investments, FFD movements cite climate change science as the basis of a moral argument that places responsibility on institutions to withdraw financial support from fossil fuel companies (Maina et al., 2020; Beer, 2016). For FFD to take effect in McGill’s investment policies, the Office of Investments must receive a recommendation from McGill’s Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR). CAMSR has therefore been targeted by Divest McGill using a range of strategies. When a first petition to divest was submitted to CAMSR and subsequently rejected in 2013, Divest McGill spent the next two years gathering support from additional students and faculty members. The next petition, submitted to CAMSR in 2015, was accompanied by 1,300 signatures and a 150-page research document outlining the argument for divestment (Divest McGill, 2018). This second petition was denied by CAMSR in 2016. In response to CAMSR’s rejections, Divest McGill has used a number of tactics combining moral and financial arguments to draw attention to their campaign, including sit-ins, boycotts, protests, workshops, open letters and a diploma-returning ceremony in which nineteen alumni participated (Taylor, 2016). As one student noted, the movement has brought significant attention to sustainability and has succeeded in attracting supporters who previously had little or no engagement in such topics. Though CAMSR has yet to recommend full FFD, there have been several changes in McGill’s investment strategy since the campaign started. Most notably, in 2019, CAMSR submitted a report to the Board of Governors that included a series of eight recommendations for decarbonizing McGill’s investment portfolio. Recommendations included increasing ‘impact investment’ funds that contribute to decarbonization; increasing the amount invested in the university’s fossil fuelfree fund that was established in 2017; taking a leadership role and collaborating with McGill’s peer group of fifteen Canadian research universities (U15) to promote best practices in the area of socially responsible investing; and reducing carbon emissions of the endowment portfolio by a certain percentage, which was later set by the Board of Governors at 33 per cent by 2025 (Fortier and Panda, 2020). The 2019 CAMSR report noted several influences that had shaped its recommendations, including members from the university community who ‘played a role in accelerating and deepening the university’s commitment to addressing climate change in the context of its efforts in sustainability’ (p. 9). The report also presented research on eighteen other universities that had made recent decisions to divest fully or partially. Of the eighteen institutions, sixteen of them were based in the United States and Europe, ‘where the weight of the energy industry in the economy is much smaller than in Canada, allowing for a greater diversification of the portfolios into other sectors without undue sector concentration or currency risks’ (CAMSR, 2019, p. 13). Rather than commit to divestment, CAMSR elected to focus on the integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters in its investment strategy and stated that there was ‘a recognition that divestment campaigns, on their own, may not be an effective measure to reduce carbon emissions nor have they had any statistically significant impact on the stock prices of affected companies’ (CAMSR, 2019, p. 14). McGill’s Board of Governors approved CAMSR’s recommendations in 2020 and released its first annual progress report in 2021. Figure 12.2 represents the Divest McGill case within the MLP framework. 227

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Fossil fuel divestment campaigns begin on college campuses Landscape (Swarthmore)

Unity College becomes first US college committed to divestment

442 institutions committed to divestment

CAMSR rejects petition to divest

Regime McGill endowment at 962.3 million CAD

Niche

Divest McGill’s 1st First Divest petition to McGill CAMSR to meeting divest 2010

2011

Canada signs Paris Agreement

2012

2013

2014

1000 institutions committed to divestment

IPCC releases Special Report on global warming

CAMSR recommends CAMSR releases strategies to progress report on CAMSR decarbonize decarbonization announces investment implementation second portfolio plan investigation Board of into fossil Governors fuel accepts CAMSR divestment recommendations

CAMSR rejects petition to divest

Assoc. of University Teachers votes to Diploma- divest University returning senate caremony endoreses Faculty of divestment Arts endorses Divest McGill

Divest McGill’s 2nd petition to CAMSR to divest

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Divest McGill joins Divest Canada Coalition with 18 others 2020

2021

2022

FIGURE 12.2  Divest McGill case within the multilevel perspective framework. (framework adapted from Geels (2011)).

Emerging Insights and Lessons The Divest McGill case exemplifies the strength of what Geels calls ‘lock-in mechanisms’ such as existing infrastructure, commitments and habits that make existing systems difficult to dislodge (2011, p. 25). One such example is CAMSR’s acknowledgement that McGill is heavily invested in pooled funds (CAMSR, 2019) that make it difficult to control and disentangle fossil fuel investments from other assets. In addition, Canada offers the highest per capita financial support among G7 nations to companies that explore and produce oil and gas (Maina et al., 2020). The McGill Board of Governors’ decarbonization targets intervene at a shallow leverage point (leverage point #12: constants, parameters and numbers); Yona and Lenferna (2016) argue that full divestment influences deeper leverage points by potentially changing the rules of the system (leverage point #5), the structure of information flows and operational paradigms (p. 193). Case 3: Top–Down Drivers of Change – The McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative The McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI; originally named the McGill Sustainability Sciences and Technologies Initiative) is a cross-campus research initiative established in 2016. The initiative was born from a large-scale external funding proposal developed by the Deans of Science, Agriculture and Engineering to bring together science and technology to address sustainability challenges. While this proposal was ultimately not successful, it sparked interest from the university’s Principal, who supported a special allocation of C$10 million to establish a hub on sustainability research at McGill. Since its inception, the MSSI has grown into a 200+ member network of students and faculty who hold a shared interest in sustainability. It provides funding for research and graduate training, and it plays a convening function for interdisciplinary events on sustainability – using these to create new opportunities for network building and knowledge sharing among its membership 228

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

(Harvey et al., 2020). The investment has supported five large, interdisciplinary research themes led jointly by prominent faculty members, along with a wide range of smaller projects led by faculty and students. In many of these projects, an interdisciplinary approach to studying the sustainability challenge was a pre-requisite for selection – an attempt to break down some of the disciplinary silos that are seen to prevent action on ‘wicked’ sustainability challenges (Turnpenny et al., 2009). Through its work, the initiative has helped to attract additional research funding on sustainability themes – funds that far surpass the initial C$10 million investment. Interviews with MSSI members suggest the impetus for creating an initiative like MSSI was two-fold. First, it addressed the recognized absence of a campus hub on sustainability research that could bring together a diverse range of disciplinary perspectives, in line with the complex nature of contemporary sustainability challenges. Second, it emerged from a strategic interest within the university to position itself as a leading player in the field of sustainability research, a key emerging challenge at the time. As such, MSSI arose from a recognized need at the regime level of the university (its administration, senior academics, etc.) who were well positioned to mobilize significant resources to bring an idea into being. This has created some exciting opportunities for novel collaborations, new research and support for future generations of scholars. At the same time, however, it has also led to criticisms from some members about how this top–down initiative (as some interviewees described it) defined concepts like sustainability, how intellectual agendas have been set and what outcomes are being achieved as a result. One faculty researcher reflected on the tension between top–down and bottom–up approaches to developing new collaborative spaces by contrasting the MSSI’s inception with their experience with the founding of the McGill School of Environment (mentioned above), where they brought [together] six or seven researchers per faculty, and they said, ‘okay, just build the School of Environment’. And, we really argued and fought for two years, but found a way that was clearly sustainable, because it’s been there for a long time. This assertion highlights contrasting views of what constitutes sustainable change, with some researchers pointing to the importance of a bottom–up collective ownership of the initiative, while others prioritized financial viability as a key determinant. According to another faculty member, the process pursued with the MSSI has also led to areas of focus and ways of working that have supported particular themes and topics and particular kinds of work that have attracted a small subset of people. But there is another subset of people, that may even be larger, who would like to be involved, but feel shut out for a variety of reasons, mostly because the themes or topics or process or way of spending money has not allowed them to participate. This observation is echoed in a recent study that highlighted the limited engagement of social sciences and humanities scholars in MSSI activities for example (Harvey and Chestnutt, 2020). As the first phase of the MSSI’s activities approaches an end in 2022, attention has shifted towards taking stock of where the initiatives have been most impactful, identifying where collective interests among faculty members align with key sustainability challenges on the horizon and translating those insights into a plan for sustaining interdisciplinary research for years to come. 229

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Emerging Insights and Lessons The case of MSSI presents an interesting contrast to more bottom–up initiatives like the Divest McGill movement, or the more co-constructed impacts of the SPF. Unlike the Divest McGill movement, the buy-in and leadership from stakeholders at the most senior levels of the university for the initiative made it comparatively easy to access leverage points #10 and #5, related to material flows (internal funding that was re-allocated to create the opportunity in this case) and rules in the system (creating a new space for collaboration sitting ‘outside’ of formal academic units), respectively. However, this same characteristic has led to a limited sense of collective ownership of the initiative and its aims among some researchers. MSSI has been effective in using its platform and resourcing to convene new conversations and broker new collaborations among its members but does not seem to have greatly shifted notions of who works on sustainability at the university, or relatedly, what sustainability entails as a field of research or study. For example, the Faculties of Agriculture and Environment, Science and Engineering continue to represent most of the research funded through the MSSI. Therefore, it seems unlikely that initiatives of this sort will reach deep leverage points such as paradigm change on their own. As the MSSI moves into its next phase of programming, questions about how to bring together top–down and bottom–up energies towards collective aims and how to create space for a greater diversity of perspectives on sustainability will be of continued importance.

Reflections on McGill’s Sustainability Journey Looking across the range of milestones in sustainability transformation that this study identified (see Appendix 12.2), and at the more in-depth case examples, some insights and areas where further investigation is warranted can be drawn out. 1. Valorizing the Roles of Brokers and Intermediaries in Enabling Transformative Change Many of the most impactful drivers of change on this sustainability journey have depended on the ability to bring together novel configurations of collaborators. Whether this is the SPF’s capacity to bring faculty, staff and students together to propose and fund new initiatives or MSSI’s role in brokering interdisciplinary collaborations on sustainability research, these initiatives serve to disrupt established practices and promote convergence between community members who hold different knowledge and perspectives. This brokering function has been increasingly recognized as key to bridging theory and practice, and for strengthening transdisciplinary collaboration on sustainability, but often remains overlooked or undervalued within academic settings (Irwin et al., 2018; Cooke et al., 2021). To make the most of this critical function, attention should be paid to how these brokering functions may be optimized in university partnerships, where they are best situated within the university, and to valuing their unique contributions as change catalysts. 2. From Niche to Regime and Landscape Change Drawing on Geels’s (2011) conceptual framing of transitions moving from niche upward and outward to more widespread adoption, the pathways through which sustainability milestones emerged at McGill were examined. It was determined that pathways of emergence are in fact 230

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

considerably more complex and diverse: some niche innovations remain niche in the face of system ‘lock-ins’ (e.g. Divest McGill); some transitions arise from trends in the wider socio-technical landscape (e.g. the SDGs, peer university trends, etc.); while other transitions emerge from the adoption of niche innovations. McGill’s Green Labs initiative, through which campus labs adopt more sustainable operational practices, serves as a strong example of a niche innovation, which was supported by the SPF and which has since then secured adoption that is more widespread across the university (Shalom, 2019). Of note, in cases where these transitions occur, support mechanisms (like the SPF) are found that help nurture and translate niche practices for wider use (see Smith, 2007). This further highlights the important role of catalytic spaces within the university (like the SPF and the MSSI at McGill) where novel practices can be developed, tested and (occasionally) promoted for wider adoption. 3. From Shallow to Deeper Leverage Points Analysis undertaken here supports Abson et al.’s (2017) assertion that sustainability initiatives typically tend to focus on shallower leverage points that are causal in nature. These may address sustainability challenges by re-allocating resources (as in the case of MSSI and SPF) or changing standards (as in the university response to the Divest McGill movement), for example, but often fail to produce more fundamental paradigm shifts. Evidence from McGill’s SPF does suggest that ‘chains of leverage’ (Fischer and Riechers, 2018) can lead many shallower changes to have a deeper cumulative impact that reshapes dominating world views or paradigms. This builds the case for the kind of coordinated and long-term investment into promoting or enabling change that the SPF exemplifies. However, the limited number of cases of deep leverage points identified in the current study and the growing urgency for societal transformation (e.g. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021) raise the question of whether universities like McGill should be doing more. Should McGill and other universities turn away from benchmarking and peer comparison and instead look to some of the more radical proposals advanced from below, for instance by its own student body? The case of the Divest McGill movement speaks to this tension between incremental and more transformative approaches to change. 4. Addressing the Uneven Pace of Change As is often the case with whole-of-system change processes, the pace of change at McGill has not been uniform. Analysis undertaken here suggests that transformations in research focus and teaching, for example, have lagged more operational transformations such as building retrofits and a campus-wide ban on plastic water bottles. Applying a leverage points perspective to this trend calls attention to the way that teaching and research agendas are frequently tied to deeper (and thus harder-to-reach) leverage points including system rules (what ‘ought’ to be taught and studied in a particular field), system goals and paradigms that define the purpose of higher education. Recalling O’Brien and Sygna’s (2013) conceptualization of transformation as a process that unfolds in three interacting spheres, the observations here highlight the importance of ensuring that practical technical actions to improve sustainability intersect with political and personal spheres of action by engaging with governance systems and values on campus. Further reflection on how sustainability transformations in one area of the university system can best serve to catalyse wider and deeper transformations are invited. As raised in the case of the 231

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

MSSI, how can scaled-up investments into funding for sustainability research (a lower-leverage action) serve to broaden participation and draw new fields into the sustainability dialogue? It is argued that achieving this helps to work towards deeper leverage.

Conclusions The insights gathered here from retracing McGill’s sustainability journey, and the tools used to gather them, can provide a strategic orientation to thinking through the changes that are to come. By using tools like the MLP and leverage points frameworks in a forward-looking fashion, it may be possible to think strategically and more intentionally about how to initiate more transformative actions towards sustainability at McGill and how to avoid the limitations of approaches tried in the past. As highlighted at the outset of this chapter, with the launch of a new sustainability strategy and a planned investment into a major new academic complex dedicated to sustainability systems and public policy, such as the New Vic Project (n.d.), McGill finds itself at a pivotal moment in its sustainability journey, where such a forward-looking analysis may be of great value. The McGill University 2020–2025 Climate & Sustainability Strategy is the first of McGill’s sustainability strategies to reference the Seventh Generation Principle, a core value of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy – one of the First Peoples on whose traditional territory McGill University now sits. According to this Indigenous sustainability principle, how current decisions and actions would impact descendants seven generations into the future should be considered (Haudenosaunee Confederacy, n.d.). It is notable that, at this critical juncture in McGill’s – and arguably the planet’s – existence, the university is looking not only 200 years into the past, but also 140 years into the future. The underlying assumption is that McGill must critically assess its origins and history in order to tackle successfully current sustainability challenges to ensure a habitable world for generations of students and researchers to come. McGill’s 2020–2025 Strategy outlines the university’s sustainability agenda over three timescales. In the immediate future, the strategy will guide interventions until 2025 across eight priority areas including research and education, infrastructure, travel, commuting, and more. In the near term, progress will be evaluated and likely inform the adoption of another fiveyear plan in 2025. Over the longer term, the university’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2040 will initiate a series of fundamental transformations that must unfold over the next two decades. Finally, the strategy’s inclusion of the Seventh Generation Principle conveys a longview, multigenerational commitment to sustainability. Operating across these three timescales will allow McGill to regularly assess progress and adjust its five-year plans, while working towards its wider aim to achieve carbon neutrality. As the effects of climate change bear down with increasing frequency and climate science continues to improve, it is possible that niche-level pressure and developments at the landscape scale will lead to a revision of timelines associated with McGill’s sustainability targets in order to accelerate change. The university’s commitment to the Seventh Generation Principle, if it is to translate into practice, will require a concerted focus on deeper leverage points, such as the power to add, change, evolve or self-organize system structure, and the goals of the system. Though HEIs are rarely able to transcend paradigms (Posner and Stuart, 2013), the ‘chains of leverage’ resulting from McGill’s multifaceted sustainability strategy may, over time, contribute to a paradigm shift. 232

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

The analysis of McGill’s sustainability initiatives undertaken here placed the university in the context of a larger movement and connected a web of actors, interventions and events that have been exerting pressure from both inside and outside the institution since the 1990s. Though McGill’s sustainability commitments have been steadily growing over decades, clusters of action that occurred at different points in time were identified. Another such wave of activity is expected to occur in response to developments like the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report, the Covid19 pandemic and the series of devastating weather events occurring across the globe. These developments invite reflection on McGill’s planned pace of change and raise the question: Are we fast enough? At the regime level, McGill will need to respond to this question and view its formal commitments to sustainability as a baseline for action, aiming not only to do better things differently but also to do it faster, through a holistic approach that leverages the synergistic potential of personal, practical and political spheres of transformation.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. Tracing the university’s history of engagement with the sustainability agenda reveals insights that can be used to accelerate its ambitions in this domain going forward. 2. Efforts to socially engineer collective engagement around sustainability, such as through elaboration of an institute, can be helpful but may also create a new silo. 3. The progress towards a sustainability goal or target, even when the said goal is not realized (e.g. fossil fuel divestment), is held to be important in the pursuit of this agenda given that sustainability is both a journey and a destination.

Appendix 12.1 List of Interview Questions 1. What do you understand sustainability to mean? 2. Describe your involvement on sustainability issues at McGill. 3. Earlier you told us what sustainability means for you. What do you think sustainability means for McGill? 4. How would you describe McGill’s sustainability ‘journey’ during your time here? What would you identify as two or three ‘critical moments’ or ‘significant changes’ that occurred over that period? a. Why did you choose these ones? b. What made them so important? c. Who was involved? d. How did they unfold? e. What happened as a result? (Both on campus and with McGill’s wider networks.) 5. Thinking back over these moments, what would you say have been the key enablers and barriers to change at McGill? (These could be people, trends, policies and so on; these could be internal or external to McGill.) 6. Looking forward, what would you like the impact of McGill’s investment and engagement on sustainability to lead to? Do you think we’re on track to achieving that? (Why or why not?) 233

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

7. Is there anything else about the McGill sustainability journey that you think is important to highlight? 8. Is there anyone else you recommend that we speak to on this topic?

Appendix 12.2 Timeline of Some McGill Sustainability Milestones (1990–2021) Date

Social

1990

1991

Late 1990s Student-run Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG)-McGill created (C)

1999 2000 2001

2002 2003

234

Environmental

Economic

McGill signs on to the Talloires Declaration committing to environmental sustainability in higher education McGill signs on to the Halifax Declaration affirming the role of universities to forward environment and development Energy efficiency projects introduced; paper recycling system launched (O)

Social Context of Business Management course (A)

Multi-stakeholder Environmental Policy Workgroup set up (O C) McGill School of Environment created (A C) Intercampus shuttle set up (A C) Construction of EcoResidences at Macdonald Campus (O C) Approval of Environmental Policy by Senate (O C) Creation of Subcommittee on the Environment (O C) Establishment of the First ReThink McGill Conference: an annual gathering designed to engage and encourage the McGill community to rethink its relation to the environment (O C) Approval by Senate of environmental principles and actions as companion to Environmental Policy (O C) Appointment of First full-time staff member (Environmental Officer) to implement Environmental Policy (O C) Establishment of the Sustainable McGill Project (O C)

235

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

Date

Social

2004 2005 Mid-2000s

2006 2007

2008

Establishment of the Equity and Diversity Education (SEDE) Office (C) Formation of the First Peoples’ House for Indigenous students (C) Establishment of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Equity Policy and services (C) Setting up of Midnight Kitchen (O C) Introduction of alternative frosh (C) Inauguration of Queer McGill (C) Establishment of the Union for Gender Empowerment (C) Foundation of the Sexual Assault Centre of the McGill Students’ Society (SACOMSS) (C) Creation of an Office for Students with Disabilities (O C)

Environmental

Economic

Development of greenhouse gas inventory (O) Creation of the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (A O C) Approval of Paper Use Policy (O) Commencement of Gorilla Composting (O C)

Formulation of SSMU Environmental Policy (C) Introduction of SSMU green fee (O C)

Study of net impact (A O C) Organization of the Desautels Business Conference on Sustainability (A O C) Establishment by the McGill Pension Plan of a Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) pool (O)

235

236

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Date

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

236

Social

Environmental

Economic

Launch of McGill’s Farmers’ Market (the first on-campus Farmers’ Market in Quebec) (C) Creation of Director of Sustainability position (O C) Creation of McGill Food Systems Project (A O C) Creation of McGill Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF) (A O C) Opening of the McGill Office of Sustainability (O C) Increase in campus parking fees as disincentive to commute to work by car and to help fund SPF (O C) Launch of McGill Feeding McGill initiative (partnership between Food and Dining Services and MacDonald Campus) (A O C) Adoption of the McGill Sustainability Policy (A O C) Launch of SPF funding and creation of associated Administrator position (reporting to the Director of Sustainability) (A O C) Conversion of the downtown campus to a pedestrian zone, including making McTavish Street pedestrian) (O C) Creation of the Sustainability, Science and Society BA & BSc programme (A C) Creation of the Energy Management Plan (2010–2015) (O) Receipt of First LEED Gold building certification for the construction of Life Sciences Complex (O) Launch of the McGill Office of Sustainability Catalyst Awards (C) Adoption of the Silver sustainability rating using the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS®) (O C) Identification of sustainability in both 2012 Achieving Strategic Academic Priorities (ASAP) and Strategic Research Plan (A O C) Launch of ‘Vision 2020: Creating a Sustainable McGill’ Process (A O C) Foundation of Divest McGill a research project of the SSMU Vice-Principal External (O C) Accomplishment of being first university in Quebec to receive a Fair-Trade Campus designation (O C) Achievement of being the first Canadian university to be recognized by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and to receive the MSC Chain of Custody Certification (O C) Submission by Divest McGill of a petition to Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) signed by 1,200 McGill community members; announcement by CAMSR of its decision denying Divest McGill’s request to divest from fossil fuel companies. (O C) Roll-out of the Sustainable Procurement Strategic Plan 2013– 2018 (O)

237

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

Date

Social

2014

Launch of ‘My Workplace’, a project intended to shift the administrative work culture at McGill to that of a true learning organization (C) Release of McGill’s Vision 2020 Sustainability Strategy (A O C), plus: • Vision 2020 Situational Analysis • Vision 2020 Impact Report • Vision 2020 Failure Report • Vision 2020 Priority Action Briefs Adoption by the McGill Board of Governors of the revised ToR for CAMSR which broadens the definition of social injury to include damage to the environment (O C) Submission of second petition by Divest McGill to CAMSR, which was signed by 1,300 McGill community members (O C) Release by CAMSR of its decision denying Divest McGill’s second request to divest from fossil fuel companies; resulting in sit-ins and a diploma-returning ceremony by several McGill alumni (O C) Achievement of STARS® Gold sustainability rating (O C) Updation of Five-Year Energy Management Plan (2016–2020) – ultimately extended by one year to 2021 (O) Roll-out of decision to enhance McGill Board of Governors’ stewardship role to include sustainability (O C) Selection by Principal’s Task Force on the Academic Vision and Mission of the RVH Site of Sustainability Systems and Public Policy pillars as the academic focal areas for the redevelopment project (A O C) Creation of McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI) (A C) Establishment of Provost’s Task Force on Indigenous Studies and Indigenous Education work and final report with 52 calls to action (A O C) Establishment of Provost’s Strategic Academic Plan 2017–2020, which states, ‘No university can lead globally in the 21st century without putting sustainability at the centre of its operations, research, and teaching.’ (A O C) Release of McGill’s Vision 2020 Climate & Sustainability Action Plan (2017–2020) (A O C)

2015 2016

2016–17

2017

Environmental

Economic

237

238

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Date

Social

2018

Implementation of the Waste Reduction and Diversion Strategy (2018–2025) (O C) Appointment of a Zero-waste Coordinator (a position created and filled)(O C) Revision of Sustainability Policy (A O C) Establishment of My Healthy Workplace 5-Year Action Plan (2018–2023) (C) Recipient of the International Green Gown Award’s Sustainability Institution of the Year (C) Imposition of ban of single-use plastic water bottles (O C) Release of the Campus Master Plan, including sustainability and Indigenous physical representation focus areas (O C) Received the title of Canada’s ‘Greenest Employers’ for a fourth consecutive year (O C) Growth of SPF to US$1,000,000 in funding per year (A O C) Establishment of the Board of Governors Committee on Sustainability (O C) Appointment of McGill’s first Executive Director of Sustainability. McGill Office of Sustainability moved from under Facilities Management and Ancillary Service to be under Vice-Principal (Administration and Finance) (O C) Release of the Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) Strategic Plan 2020–2025 (A O C) Release of McGill’s Action Plan to Address Anti-Black Racism (A O C) Co-leadership of McGill with University of Toronto to create the ‘Investing to Address Climate Change: A Charter for Canadian Universities’, a pledge made by 15 leading Canadian universities to tackle climate change through responsible investment practices Achievement of STARS® Gold sustainability rating (O C) Roll-out of McGill University Climate & Sustainability Strategy 2020–2025

2019

2020 2020

238

Environmental

Economic

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

Date

Social

2021

Establishment of partnership with University of the People (A C)

2021

Environmental

Economic

Appointment of Director for the New Model of Work Project Office (a position created and filled) (A O C)

Note: Citation (for most of the entries from late 1990s to 2012): McGill University (2012). A = Academics, O = Operations, C = Culture.

References Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, P. A., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., and Lang, D. J. (2017). ‘Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation’. Ambio, 46, pp. 30–9. doi: https://www.doi.org.10.1007/s13​280-016-0800-y. Beer, C. T. (2016). ‘Rationale of Early Adopters of Fossil Fuel Divestment’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17 (4), pp. 506–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-02-2015-0035. Beveridge, D., McKenzie, M., Vaughter, P., and Wright, T. (2015). ‘Sustainability in Canadian PostSecondary Institutions: The Interrelationships among Sustainability Initiatives and Geographic Institutional Characteristics’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16 (5), pp. 611–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0048. Committee to Advise on Matters of Social Responsibility (CAMSR) (2019). ‘Report to the Board of Governors’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/board​ofgo​vern​ors/files/board​ofgo​vern​ors/13._gd19-29_c​amsr​_rep​ ort.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2021. Cooke, S. J., Jeanson, A. L., Bishop, I., et al. (2021). ‘On the Theory-Practice gap in the Environmental Realm: Perspectives from and for Diverse Environmental Professionals’. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 3, pp. 243–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42​532-021-00089-0. Deleye, M., Van Poeck, K., and Block, T. (2019). ‘Lock-Ins and Opportunities for Sustainability Transition: A Multi-Level Analysis of the Flemish higher Education System’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (7), pp. 1109–24. Divest McGill. (2018). ‘Our Work Over Time’. https://www.dives​tmcg​ill.com/our-work. Accessed 14 June 2021. Feola, G. (2015). ‘Societal Transformation in Response to Global Environmental Change: A Review of Emerging Concepts’. Ambio, 44 (5), pp. 376–90. Fischer, J., and Riechers, M. (2019). ‘A Leverage Points Perspective on Sustainability’. People and Nature, 1, pp. 115–20. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13. Fortier, S., and Panda, R. (2020). ‘McGill’s Board of Governors Approves Action Plan to Reduce Carbon Footprint of Investments’. Statement made by McGill Office of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor, 23 April. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/princi​pal/com​muni​cati​ons/sta​teme​nts/board-appro​ves-act​ion-plan-red​ucecar​bon-footpr​int-inve​stme​nts. Accessed 14 June 2021. Geels, F. W. (2011). ‘The Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transitions: Responses to Seven Criticisms’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1 (1), pp. 24–40. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002. Geels, F. W. (2019). ‘Socio-Technical Transitions to Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, pp. 187–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cos​ust.2019.06.009.

239

240

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Giddings, B., Hopwood. B., and O’Brien, G. (2002). ‘Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting Them Together into Sustainable Development’. Sustainable Development, 10, pp. 187–96. doi: https://doi. org/10.1002/sd.199. Green Gown Awards. (2021). ‘Categories and Criteria 2021’. https://www.gree​ngow​nawa​rds.org/cat​egor​ ies-crite​ria-2021. Accessed 18 June 2021. Harvey, B., Chestnutt, H., and Essa, S. (2020). ‘Collaboration in Higher Education: Transdisciplinary Networks for Sustainability Researchers’. Paper Presented at the 2020 Comparative and International Education Society Conference, Miami, Florida, 22–26 March. https://cies2​020.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ ads/Har​vey-Chestn​utt-Essa-_Tr​ansd​isci​plin​ary-collab​orat​ion-on-sus​tain​abil​ity-chal​leng​es_.pdf. Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (n.d.). ‘Culture and History – Values’. www.haude​nosa​unee​conf​eder​acy. com/val​ues/. Accessed 15 June 2021. Hoinle, B., Roose, I., and Shekhar, H. (2021). ‘Creating Transdisciplinary Teaching Spaces: Cooperation of Universities and Non-University Partners to Design Higher Education for Regional Sustainable Transition’. Sustainability, 13 (7), p. 3680. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su1​3073​680. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). ‘Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis’. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Irwin, E. G., Culligan, P. J., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Law, K. L., Murtugudde, R., and Pfirman, S. (2018). ‘Bridging Barriers to Advance Global Sustainability’. Nature Sustainability, 1 (7), pp. 324–6. Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Millis, MA: Nelson Parker. Leuphana Universität Lüneburg (2015). ‘Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation: Project Overview’. https://lev​erag​epoi​nts.org/proj​ect-overv​iew/. Accessed 25 June 2021. Linnér, B. O., and Wibeck, V. (2021). ‘Drivers of Sustainability Transformations: Leverage Points, Contexts and Conjunctures’. Sustainability Science, 16, pp. 889–900. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11​ 625-021-00957-4. Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., and McGarry, D. (2015). ‘Transformative, Transgressive Social Learning: Rethinking Higher Education Pedagogy in Times of Systemic Global Dysfunction’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, pp. 73–80. Maina, N. M., Murray, J., and McKenzie, M. (2020). ‘Climate Change and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement in Canadian Higher Education: The Mobilities of Actions, Actors, and Tactics’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, pp. 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle​pro.2019.119​874. McGill Business Consulting Group (2017). ‘External Review of the Sustainability Projects Fund’. www. mcg​ill.ca/sus​tain​abil​ity/files/sus​tain​abil​ity/2017_i​ndep​ende​nt_s​pf_r​evie​w_fi​nal.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2021. McGill Office of the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) (2017). ‘McGill University Strategic Academic Plan 2017–2022’. www.mcg​ill.ca/prov​ost/files/prov​ost/20170509_final_provosts_s​trat​egic​ _aca​demi​c_pl​an_2​017-2022.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2021. McGill Office of Sustainability (2021). ‘McGill Named One of Canada’s Greenest Employers for Fourth Consecutive Year’. McGill Reporter, 19 April. https://repor​ter.mcg​ill.ca/mcg​ill-named-one-of-cana​dasgreen​est-employ​ers-for-fou​rth-cons​ecut​ive-year/. Accessed 15 June 2021. McGill University (n.d. a). ‘The Gault Nature Reserve’. https://gault.mcg​ill.ca/en/. Accessed 6 December 2021. McGill University (n.d. b). ‘Morgan Arboretum’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/morg​anar​bore​tum/. Accessed 6 December 2021. McGill University (n.d. c). ‘Bieler School of Environment: Future Students’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/mfsp/ about-us/miss​ion. Accessed 30 June 2021.

240

Sustainability Transformations at McGill

McGill University (n.d. d). ‘McGill Food Systems Project’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/envi​ronm​ent/fut​urestude​nts. Accessed 30 June 2021. McGill University (2012). ‘Vision 2020: Creating a Sustainable McGill – A Situational Analysis’. www. mcg​ill.ca/sus​tain​abil​ity/files/sus​tain​abil​ity/mcgi​ll_s​itua​tion​al_a​naly​sis.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2021. McGill University (2014). ‘Vision 2020 Sustainability Strategy’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/sus​tain​abil​ity/ files/sus​tain​abil​ity/v2020​_ss_​eng.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2021. McGill University (2020a). ‘2020 E-Factbook: Analysis, Planning and Budget: Analysis’. https://www. mcg​ill.ca/apb/analy​sis/e-factb​ook. Accessed 16 September 2021. McGill University (2020b). ‘Climate and Sustainability Strategy 2020–2025’. https://www.mcg​ill. ca/sus​tain​abil​ity/files/sus​tain​abil​ity/mcgil​lcli​mate​sust​aina​bili​ty20​25_-_redu​ced.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. McGill University (2020c). ‘Sustainability Projects Fund Annual Report FY2020’. https://ssmu.ca/ wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2020/10/Prese​ntat​ion-McG​ill-Off​ice-of-Sus​tain​abil​ity.pdf?x21​981. Accessed 21 June 2021. McGill University Analysis, Planning and Budget (2021). ‘Internal Factbook’ [online with Tableau license access]. Provided to the Authors in an Email on 14 September. Meadows, D. (1999). ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System’. Published by the Sustainability Institute. www.don​ella​mead​ows.org/wp-cont​ent/userfi​les/Leve​rage​_Poi​nts.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2021. Mezirow, J., and Taylor, E. W. (eds) (2009). Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. New Vic Project (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://new​vic.mcg​ill.ca/. Accessed 16 September 2021. O’Brien, K., and Sygna, L. (2013). ‘Responding to Climate Change: The Three Spheres of Transformation’. Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate International Conference, Oslo, 19–21 June 2013, pp. 16–23. Posner, S., and Stuart, R. (2013). ‘Understanding and Advancing Campus Sustainability using a Systems Framework’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14 (3), pp. 264–77. Purvis, B., Mao, Y., and Robinson, D. (2018). ‘Three Pillars of Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins’. Sustainability Science, 14, pp. 681–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11​625-018-0627-5. Ramsarup, P., Rosenberg, E., Lotz-Sisitka, H., and Jenkin, N. (2018). ‘Green Skills: Transformative Niches for Greening Work’, in N. Mohamed (ed.), Sustainability Transitions in South Africa. London: Routledge, pp. 145–65. Schneidewind, U., and Augenstein, K. (2012). ‘Analyzing a Transition to a Sustainability-Oriented Science system in Germany’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 3, pp. 16–28. Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., … Yang, L. (2020). ‘Transformations to Sustainability: Combining Structural, Systemic, and Enabling Approaches’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, pp. 65–75. Shalom, F. (2019). ‘Green Labs Initiative: An SPF Success Story’. McGill Reporter, 2 October. https:// repor​ter.mcg​ill.ca/64840-2/. Accessed 24 August 2021. Smith, A. (2007). ‘Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19 (4), pp. 427–50. Smith, A., Voß, J. P., and Grin, J. (2010). ‘Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges’. Research Policy, 39 (4), pp. 435–48. Sterling, S. (2004). ‘Higher Education, Sustainability, and the Role of Systemic Learning’, in P. B. Corcoran and A. E. J. Wals (eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 49–70. Taylor, H. (2016). ‘McGill Is so Much Better Than This’. The Tab. https://the​tab.com/ca/mcg​ ill/2016/04/02/mcg​ill-much-bet​ter-933. Accessed 13 June 2021. Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, I., and Jones, M. (2009). ‘Noisy and Definitely not Normal: Responding to Wicked Issues in the Environment, Energy and Health’. Environmental Science & Policy, 12 (3), pp. 347–58.

241

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., … Van der Leeuw, S. (2011). ‘Tipping toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation’. Ambio, 40 (7), pp. 762–80. Yona, L., and Lenferna, A. (2016). ‘The Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Within Universities’, in G. Sousa and E. Atkins (eds), Environment, Climate Change and International Relations. Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing.

242

243

13

Accelerating Response to a Changing Climate: Solutions across Scales JULIE NEWMAN AND SHANA WEBER

Introduction Since the ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’, also known as Brundtland Report (1987), was published, institutions of higher education have increasingly sought ways to tackle the broad range of global environmental challenges facing humanity. More than three decades later, the world is experiencing the impacts of climate change much more rapidly than forecasted, in the form of extreme heat waves, storms that are more intensive, increased flooding, extended drought, melting polar and glacial ice as well as rising sea levels (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021). These impacts disproportionately affect the already overburdened communities around the world, disrupt economies and influence all aspects of the human enterprise. The early convergence of the predicted environmental and linked social crises are spurring the need for emergency-level rapid response at all scales. College and university campuses, via the lessons learnt in applied sustainability over the past thirty-plus years, are particularly well suited for rapid response and demonstration of critical systemic change. The past decade, 2010–20, was the warmest on record. In August 2021, the IPCC released its fifth report stating that changes in the earth’s climate are now directly observable and measurable in every region of the world, demonstrating the systemic nature and impact of human induced warming (IPCC, 2021). According to the report, 45 per cent of emissions cuts must be in place by 2030 to keep warming below 1.5°C and the entire world must meet net-zero emissions by 2050. In addition, between 2020 and 2030, fossil fuel production must be reduced by at least 6 per cent (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2021). The evidence clearly indicates that achieving any of these goals requires a faster pace of both behavioural and infrastructural transitions, at all scales and across all sectors. Today’s actions define tomorrow’s successes or failures. In response to the recent scientific findings, a global coalition of 130 countries committed to, or are considering, a reduction in emissions to net-zero by 2050, accelerating the timeline from previous commitments to reach 80 per cent reductions by 2050 (Paris Agreement, 2015). The collective interest is to safeguard a liveable climate. Despite widely held views that colleges and universities move slowly, and relative to other community structures and those holding a political mandate, they can be relatively nimble given the comparatively high levels of control in many jurisdictions over their systems. As higher education institutions (HEIs) sit at the intersection of education, research, application 243

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and innovation, they are able to demonstrate at the local scale and influence up to the global scale. By developing and implementing hyper-local research-informed strategies concurrent with regional grid-scale policy and infrastructure investments and, in some cases, leveraging endowments to signal a shift in relationships with the fossil fuel sector, campuses have substantial policy, market, social norm and technological influence. The collective impact of higher education in demonstrating real-time the transition to renewable energy infrastructure, and as such setting the stage for the next generation of innovators and innovation, is well documented (Zahniser, 2020; Urbanski, 2020). However, the full potential of HEIs as proving grounds for local responses to a global crisis has not yet been realized. Relatively few institutions have made high-impact, problem-solving community-scale demonstrations a formal strategic priority, with organizational structures in place appropriate to the scale of the challenge. With some notable exceptions, a challenge to agility is that campusbased sustainability efforts remain largely compartmentalized rather than holistically strategic and explicitly mission-centric. Largely unrecognized is how informative local applied solutions are to larger-scale action, especially when recognized as on-the-ground manifestations of academic research-based frameworks such as the Net Zero America Report (Larson et al., 2021) and global campaigns such as the United Nations Race to Zero. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate a conceptual framework for how HEIs can reposition to leverage the role of the campus in regenerative change across multiple scales – namely in the United States at the levels of the individual, the campus, the city, the state, the country and the globe (see Figure 13.1). In this chapter, the focus is on illustrating the value proposition of a scales-of-impact framework as applied to universities’ roles in addressing climate change. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Princeton University and their energy planning contexts are referenced as case examples. It is recognized that many applied sustainability programmes in higher education are organized to activate only individuals or operational scales on campuses; this is a strategic shortcoming. The

FIGURE 13.1  Design of solutions at any scale, keeping in mind the interplay across scales, MIT/ Princeton. Source: Authors.

244

Climate Solutions across Scales

scale of the global crisis and its urgency calls for immediate action and a coordinated systemic response that activates all scales strategically and concurrently. It is suggested that the scaledinfluence approach presented here is applicable to sustainability-related topics. This chapter provides examples of how a university can inform and demonstrate impact at scale, paying particular attention to the organizational, demonstrational, convening, communicating and aligning roles a universitybased applied sustainability programme can play. The discussion is illustrated via two universities, both committed to and actively engaged in net-zero carbon emissions commitments. The chapter closes with a look to the future, with early insights into the challenges and opportunities ahead.

Scales of Impact At MIT, the strategies being considered and applied to solve for net-zero by 2026 and zero direct emissions by 2050, and zero direct emissions by 2046 at Princeton University, are informed by the interlinked and vertically integrated interventions needed across multiple scales of time and impact (Figure 13.1). Due to the limited time humanity has to reduce human-induced emissions by the required 45 per cent by 2030 and to net-zero by 2050, campuses can be the vanguard of evidence-based accelerated action and spur broad application of the most impactful solutions across all scales. It is clear that climate change is not going to be solved at any one of these scales independently. Climate scientists published data illustrating the highly varied nature of regional impacts of climate change (Melillo, 2014; Arnell et al., 2019), illustrating the value of locally and regionally tailored solutions (Weber et al., 2017). It is argued here that acceleration to a 2050 global target warrants deeper understanding of what needs to take place at each scale, recognizing that individual behavioural change without concurrent systemic improvements results in very slow transformation rather than the accelerated timeline required. Given the apparent activation of systemic scales today, both in the United States (Biden, 2021) and globally (UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow; COP26, 2021), the timing is ideal for higher education to help strengthen the feedback loops among scales (Figure 13.2) and to infuse the global system with lessons learnt from real-time testing of evidence-based, research-informed, scalable solutions.

Solving for Climate Change across Scales At this moment in history, there appears to be an unprecedented potential for alignment of climate action commitments and policies across scales, enabling the solutions-based demonstrations on college campuses to inform and accelerate successful strategies even more effectively. Climate commitments across sectors have gained momentum, despite organized efforts to curtail action. While outright denial of human-induced climate change is waning, former prominent sceptics are now appearing to use environmental degradation as a tool to play on emotions related to topics such as immigration and border protection (Turner and Balley, 2021). The need for level-headed, evidence-based demonstration and communication of effective strategies is evident in the face of misinformation and alarmist ‘greenwashing’. When multiple large scales are activated, individual actions and local demonstrations can serve as powerful cultural normative signals when ‘effective verbal practices’ are in place that help humans ‘analyze their problems in ways that guide effective action’ (Glenn, 2004). The fact is that 245

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

GLOBE NATION

Net-zero emissions by 2050

STATE CITY CAMPUS YOU

Net-zero emissions by or before 2050

FIGURE 13.2  Alignment of net-zero emission objectives across scales, MIT/Princeton. Source: Authors.

necessary actions, especially those driven by crises such as a pandemic or climate change, are, according to behavioural scientist Elke Weber (2020), ‘often inconvenient, unpopular, and initially expensive’. Humans will go to great lengths to avoid change that is uncomfortable. It is therefore essential that communication practices help people navigate and overcome those barriers. Two ways in which college campuses can position themselves as change management exemplars include (1) providing on-the-ground evidence-driven demonstrations that serve to stimulate future decision-makers (today’s students) and (2) empowering current decision-makers to exercise their influence. In this section, MIT and Princeton are used to illustrate a decision-making framework for aligning work across these scales, focusing on planning for net-zero carbon emissions. Net-zero pathways are explored at each institution, taking into consideration multiple scales of impact.

Regional Grid: ISO New England and PJM The US energy system is supported by three energy networks divided into electric grids – western, eastern and Texas. Each grid operates independently, with little to no exchange with the others. Though independent, each is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The regional grid context for MIT is ISO New England, while PJM serves Princeton. Though ISO New England and PJM operate as independent regional grids within the eastern zone and do not share electrons between them, both are subject to federal market rules and tariffs and therefore held to the same federal regulatory requirements. In 2019, renewable energy sources surpassed coal production in the United States for the first time since before 1885 (Francis, 2020); natural gas surpassed coal a few years prior (Hodge, 2016). Underlying each of these transitions remains an imperative to provide reliable energy twenty-four hours per day regardless of environmental and public health impacts. All grid 246

Climate Solutions across Scales

providers uniformly face the need to ensure reliability, while also adapting to a changing climate and responding to the demand for large-scale renewable energy. Reliability is also a foundational principle at the centre of both university’s net-zero plans. ISO New England: MIT Context In 1996, FERC called for a restructured market to reduce competition in the wholesale trade of electricity. Within a year, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL, established in 1971) commissioned ISO New England to operate and administer regional tariffs and market rules. Today, this regional energy system enables citizens of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont to access the electricity market. In 2000, ISO New England administered a Regional System Plan that articulated system needs and how to maintain the reliability of the New England power system; this plan was to be reviewed and updated annually. In 2020, ISO New England partnered with the Energy Futures Initiative (EFI) to study and analyse how to decarbonize the grid in the context of six different state decarbonization goals, with Massachusetts at the forefront with a net-zero by 2050 commitment. The other five states have committed to 80 per cent by 2050 at this time. The question that ISO New England set out to study was ‘How can New England provide affordable, reliable, electric power under future scenarios that achieve net-zero economywide greenhouse emissions by 2050?’ (Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. and the EFI (E3 and EFI), 2020). The outcomes of this study provide grid-scale clean energy guidance for the six states. The scenarios analysed range from broad to limited electrification at the level of the end user. MIT is now tracking the evolution of all resulting commitments to inform if and when to electrify the campus. As of 2021, MIT produced 100 per cent of its electricity from its central utilities plant, fuelled by natural gas, which is currently less carbon intensive than the grid portfolio. Tracking carbon intensity at the energy source now informs present and future energy solutions at MIT. PJM Grid: Princeton University Context In 1997, FERC approved PJM, established in 1927, as an independent system operator (ISO). Today, this interconnected regional energy system provides access to electricity for residents of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. In February 2021, PJM released an updated planning strategy to include facilitating the pursuit of policymaker and consumer decarbonization objectives, given their pivotal role in operating and administering a large grid (Asthana and Bresler, 2021). Across the PJM grid are a variety of state decarbonization goals, with New Jersey, Virginia and the District of Columbia at the forefront with 100 per cent decarbonization targets by or before 2050. The majority of other states in the PJM grid have established Renewable Portfolio Standards. Across the PJM footprint, carbon emissions rates fell 39 per cent between 2005 and 2020. PJM’s current planning effort mirrors the strategic question posed by ISO New England, including how to facilitate a reliable and cost-effective decarbonization transition and how to foster innovation that will influence not only the PJM grid but also all grids in the United States. Princeton University’s local electricity provider is PSEG, and through their decarbonization planning, strategies range from large-scale renewables to end-user incentives. As of June 2021, PSEG accelerated their net-zero target date, pledging 100 per cent greenhouse gas-free power generation by 2030. 247

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

States: Massachusetts and New Jersey Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies vary from state to state. In the United States, sixteen states plus Puerto Rico that have legislated greenhouse gas reduction protocols. An additional three states have enacted greenhouse gas reduction goals via executive action; however, they are currently non-binding. In the northeast and mid-Atlantic region, states including Massachusetts and New Jersey have joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is a binding cap-and-trade programme designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. California has a similar binding cap-and-trade programme, and others are emerging. Massachusetts In 2021, the Office of the Governor of Massachusetts signed off on both the 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2020) and the interim Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2021). Both plans build upon the foundation of the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act of Massachusetts (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2008) and detail the policies and strategies that seek to mitigate Massachusetts emissions in a cost-effective and equitable manner. The 2030 interim goal was set as a milestone target that calls for a 45 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels. The 2050 Roadmap outlines eight potential pathways to net-zero. These include an analysis of potential energy resources and the projected energy supply needed to meet demand in all sectors of the state economy. Key components of the plan rely on large-scale offshore wind – with an additional 2,400 MW in interstate transmission, broad-based electrification of the transportation sector coupled with electrified heating systems for buildings. The benefits of the published plan include a reduction in pollution, with a particular focus on marginalized communities that experience an overburden of pollution and poor air quality. The plan also projects a reduction in healthcare costs due to improved air quality and an increase in high-quality local jobs. At the building level, existing incentive programmes will be extended, and new ones put in place to target a reduction in fossil fuel heating systems, with a particular target for air source and ground source heat pumps. Preceding the endorsement of the 2030 and 2050 plans, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts teamed up with neighbouring states to seek reform at the electric grid scale to ensure a modern, transparent cost-effective regional power system. The refinement of the grid- and state-scale decarbonization plans impact and influence netzero plans at the municipal and institutional scale. The current governor of Massachusetts also embraces the need to plan across scales and is an active member of the United State Climate Alliance, a bipartisan group of twenty-four governors committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This Alliance is particularly focused on state-to-state cooperation that can lead to the acceleration of climate solutions which advance their state and collective climate goals. New Jersey In 2021, the governor of the state of New Jersey signed executive orders creating an Office of Climate Action and Green Economy. Goals include a 100 per cent clean energy economy and 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. In 2019, following Executive Order #89, New

248

Climate Solutions across Scales

Jersey released its Energy Master Plan (State of New Jersey, 2019), establishing goals, strategies and timelines for decarbonizing its energy, building, shipping and transportation sectors by 2050, with an emphasis on community-based planning and benefits to environmental justice communities. Multiple sectors and government agencies are responsible for its execution. In 2020, the state released both its Scientific Report on Climate Change (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2020), summarizing the findings from 480 scientific research papers about how climate change is affecting and will affect New Jersey, and New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act: 80 x 50 Report. In 2021, informed by the science, the governor’s office also released the state’s first comprehensive Climate Change Resilience Strategy. Key decarbonization strategies include vehicle electrification, offshore wind installation, land-based solar, energy storage, energy conservation, economic incentives, energy distribution upgrades, support for innovation and community engagement. The approach calls for Community Energy Plans that include fostering ‘economic and environmental benefits to underserved and environmental justice communities through expansion of community solar development and the training of the local workforce to build, maintain, and operate these facilities’ (State of New Jersey, 2019, p. 125). Environmental justice communities are identified in 331 municipalities across New Jersey. These legislative actions at the state scale are bolstering local planning for accelerated decarbonization timelines at HEIs, such as Princeton University, as well as municipalities and other entities. In both New Jersey and Massachusetts, a stated priority of current leadership is to ensure that marginalized communities no longer bear the overburden of pollution and poor air quality. At Princeton University, an early decision was to proceed with campus master planning assuming that the larger grid would ‘clean up’ and that fossil-free electricity would become more readily available. Similarly, at MIT, its greenhouse gas reduction strategy sought to invest in infrastructure for a new decarbonized energy era on campus that tracks and eventually integrates with the state systems. Both early assumptions called for electrification of campus systems, and today the grids are transitioning to cleaner power faster than expected. There was also an explicit acknowledgement at both institutions early in planning that isolated hyper-local action, while laudable, often has limited impact. Hyper-local, scalable demonstrations that inform larger scales of action, however, can be mutually amplifying across scales. Cities: Cambridge (Massachusetts) and Princeton (New Jersey) Today, many cities are already coping with the impacts of a changing climate, with economic impacts leading to previously unplanned expenditures from flooding, large-scale snow removal or extreme heat. While all communities are now affected to some degree, overburdened communities are experiencing inordinate impacts causing further inequities. Within the context of state support, local communities (town and cities) are the appropriate scale for mitigating and adaptive management strategies, potentially informed by demonstration-scale and well-studied efforts on campuses. City of Cambridge The City of Cambridge’s commitment to addressing climate change dates back to 2002 with the launch of the Climate Protection Action Plan (City of Cambridge, 2002). The committee 249

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

that authored this plan is considered to have been ahead of its time and called for a reduction in emissions of 80 per cent by 2050. A group of citizens that now identify as members of the Action Plan Committee continues to meet monthly. In 2013, Cambridge launched the ‘Getting to Net Zero Task Force’ in response to a citizen’s petition concerned with the rate and impact of growth in Cambridge and thus the increase in greenhouse gas emissions affiliated with the building sector; they produced a Net Zero Action Plan (City of Cambridge, 2015). The Task Force included Cambridge residents and also developers, individuals from universities, nonprofit organizations as well as from the business and affordable housing sectors within the city. The Task Force defined net-zero for the City as ‘a community of buildings for which annually all greenhouse gas emissions produced through building operations are offset by carbon-free energy’. The approved plan includes recommendations and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment, improve energy efficiency and conservation in existing buildings, support renewable energy generation on and off site, and establish best practices to engage and educate users and occupant behaviour. The members of the Task Force proposed a combination of near- and long-term targets and course corrections needed along the way to net-zero, including review and renewal every five years. The primary strategies included a Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance, update of a stretch code that drove towards net-zero, detailed LEED requirements outlined in a zoning ordinance as well as net-zero and solar-ready building requirements by sector and year. In 2020, a report released by the City of Cambridge demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector had increased by about 13 per cent for commercial and 34 per cent for residential buildings (City of Cambridge, 2020). In 2021, a new Net Zero Task Force was appointed to review progress and update recommendations to ensure Cambridge gets back on track to meet a net-zero goal by 2050. Town of Princeton The town of Princeton, via Sustainable Princeton (501c3), adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on 22 July 2019 at a Town Council meeting (Town of Princeton, 2019). In addition to a fifty-member Advisory Committee and Working Groups, more than 4,600 community members engaged in the planning process leading up to the adoption. The CAP focuses on five priority areas: energy, land use and transportation, natural resources, materials management and resiliency. In energy, the plan provides a community-based pathway to reduce emissions by 50 per cent (from 2010 levels) by 2030, by 65 per cent by 2040 and by 80 per cent by 2050. While achieving these goals, the plan strives to promote social equity, foster economic stability, improve local environmental quality as well as enhance public health and safety. The planning process involved a novel research phase informed by design thinking, sponsored by the Princeton University Keller Center Tiger Challenge programme (Makhijani, 2017). Students, faculty and administrative advisers, Sustainable Princeton, municipal representatives and community members participated in the process that focused on interweaving the objective of widespread community adoption in the early planning process. Ongoing research supporting CAP strategies is conducted by the Sustainable Princeton CAPERS group (Climate Action Plan Emissions Reduction Strategies), a volunteer research team made up of students from across New Jersey and experts across various disciplines, including undergraduate and graduate students from Princeton University, and academic advisers.

250

Climate Solutions across Scales

The municipal CAP calls for 50 per cent reduction in community-wide carbon emissions by 2030, 65 per cent by 2040 and 80 per cent by 2050. Progress is to be reported every three years, and the plan is to be updated every nine years. Since adoption, extensive inventorying and strategy analysis activities have been conducted. Princeton University is considered as part of the town of Princeton’s carbon footprint, with leadership by the campus considered an important supporting pillar for community-wide progress. Towns and cities, like Princeton and Cambridge, are necessary scales to activate to support individual and organizational scales of action and empower adoption among other towns and cities across regions. This local scale is where national and state policy structures are tested on the ground, new regulatory structures born and creative avenues in problem-solving honed and refined.

Universities: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Princeton University A university commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 or before, with absolute emissions reduction as the core principle, has resounding impact at the demonstration scale that grapples with the interplay between regulation and policy at the municipal, state and grid scale. Here, the net-zero strategies of MIT and Princeton are outlined. Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT’s first Plan for Climate Action was issued in the fall of 2015 (MIT, 2015). The plan was multifaceted, being organized around five areas of action, namely: improving understanding of climate change; accelerating progress towards low carbon technologies; educating a new generation of climate and energy leaders; engaging in thought leadership and partnership; and using its community as a test bed for change. At the release of its 2015 report, MIT’s goal was aligned with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a reduction of 32 per cent below 2014 levels by 2030. The reduction strategies were grounded in a commitment to reduce emissions onsite and in the world. This enabled MIT to establish a multi-decade campus-based investment and reduction plan, while also leveraging its economic standing to structure a renewable power purchase agreement. The agreement enabled the construction of a roughly 650 acre, 60 MV solar farm on farmland in North Carolina. This investment illustrates a two-scale approach – campus to national – to reduce emissions in two different grids – ISO New England and PJM. In 2021, MIT renewed its institutional commitment to climate change with the release of the ‘Fast Forward: MIT’s Climate Action Plan for the Decade’ (MIT, 2021). In this plan, MIT commits to mobilizing the collective strengths of the institute to address the accelerated climate crisis – spanning research, teaching, innovation, policy and the campus. MIT defines the challenge as follows: ‘Humanity must find affordable, equitable ways to bring the global economy to netzero carbon emissions no later than 2050. At the same time, as a species, we must adapt to effects of climate change we cannot prevent, taking particular care for those with the fewest resources, who have contributed least to the problem but are likely to be hurt first and worst’ (Reif, 2021). The climate plan commits MIT to net-zero by 2026 and zero direct emissions by 2050. The 2026 goal assumes that MIT will continue to reduce emissions on campus in the near term yet seek

251

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to reduce emissions at the grid scale via a large power purchase agreement or other large-scale carbon reduction or sequestration strategies offsite. The 2050 goal calls for major investments in the campus to reduce demand and determine how to provide electricity, heating and cooling to the campus resulting in zero emissions. Princeton University Princeton’s first commitment to greenhouse gas emissions reduction was adopted in 2008, setting the campus to achieve the emissions levels of 1990 by the year 2020 through direct campusbased emissions reductions rather than any purchase of voluntary offsets (Princeton University, 2008). In 2015, Princeton’s President appointed a cross-disciplinary faculty CO2 Task Force to develop decision-making criteria for campus emissions reductions, also proposing a net-zero carbon target. With the release of its 2019 Sustainability Action Plan (Princeton University, 2019), Princeton set a target for carbon neutrality in campus operations by 2046, the 300th anniversary of the institution. Again, this is to be achieved through direct campus infrastructure conversion from fossil-based (natural gas cogeneration) to fossil-free (heating hot water with geo-exchange), combined with renewable electricity generation and procurement. These commitments are all grounded on the principle of demonstrating and testing strategies that, based on the best science, promise to be effective, realistic, repeatable and scalable. Because infrastructure is long lasting and defines how heating, cooling and electrification are produced, its conversion to fossil-free or fossil-free ready is an immediate imperative at all scales. The campus-scale demonstration of that conversion serves as a demonstration of what is possible in New Jersey and elsewhere. Currently, Princeton University is investigating strategies to significantly accelerate its campus-based 2046 energy conservation and fossil-free energy infrastructure conversion target date. It is also investigating the most impactful ways to reduce absolute carbon emissions via off-campus partnerships, as a transitional strategy while infrastructure conversion takes place.

The Role of the Individual While systemic changes are essential in order to amplify the impact of today’s individual actions, the cumulative influence of individual actions of decades past have led to both the crises and positive innovations of today. What college and university campuses offer students now is exposure to the most creative research minds and hands-on demonstrations of what is needed for the world. Today’s students will make the critical decisions that, ten years from now, will shape our future, just as students of decades past made the decisions that shape conditions today. Therefore, it is our view that ignoring the individual scale at any time along the journey in favour of larger systemic scales alone is antithetical to the needs of the future. However, individuals have varying spheres of influence, from family-scale to heads of nations (Figure 13.3). All are important and collectively define culture and behaviour. The new field of behavioural science is poised to help apply behavioural tools that shift attention from individuals as lone actors to collective actions across scales that result in the desired outcome: that is, large-scale, worldsaving action (Nesterak, 2020; Hagmann et al., 2019). What is the role of the individual among systems of varying scale? There remains a strong perception in our communities that individual-scale behaviour change is irrelevant or of negligible 252

Climate Solutions across Scales

Personal sphere of influence Personal sphere of influence Personal sphere of influence Personal sphere of influence Personal sphere of influence

GLOBE NATION

Net-zero emissions by 2050

STATE CITY

CAMPUS YOU

Net-zero emissions by or before 2050

FIGURE 13.3  Relevance of individual action, depending on personal spheres of influence, at all scales, MIT/Princeton. Source: Authors.

impact. We strive to counter that perception. Every day individuals make choices that result in carbon emissions. These choices may be in the form of diet, energy use, materials use and disposal or travel. While actions to change the related habits and reduce negative impacts among individuals are worthwhile, isolated from the context of larger systems these changes are simply not enough to save us. While encouraging low-impact individual actions, using behavioural science and other tools to target the highest-impact individuals and human systems may be the only way to get us the sweeping adaptation and mitigation needed (Nesterak, 2020). When individuals with high-impact spheres of influence activate change at the systems scale, the outcomes define our social and cultural norms. For example, within HEIs some individuals can influence the trajectory of the organization far more than others can. These individuals are likely a combination of administrative and academic research leadership. Imagine the system that produces research laboratories and the associated energy usage, and then imagine the collaboration and shared vision it would require to change from the usual way of providing energy to those labs to something better for the planet, or even to change how the research itself is conducted. These are complex social, technological and behavioural systems that new behavioural science insights and tools are poised to help change.

Conclusions The scales of impact framework help identify where the failure points are that prevent system optimization to achieve a net-zero future. A fossil-free economy cannot be achieved via infrastructure and operations alone but must also engage the very human-scale cultural norms that individuals each help establish and reinforce every day. Relegating the fight for a transformed society to only a few disciplines or departments is, in our view, a critical roadblock 253

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to accelerating towards a fossil-free economy and culture. We posit that the failure occurs at the transition between scales, and between individuals and various spheres of influence. On our campuses, successful pilot endeavours to reduce the carbon footprint in one area often fail to scale up across the entire institution, because of the lack of structures in place to enable such scaling, including poor activation of individuals with the appropriate spheres of influence. That activation could manifest as cross-departmental accountability, via integration of systemic sustainability performance targets in departmental-scale strategic plans. For example, many millions are spent to transition campus energy infrastructures to a carbon neutral state. However, the responsibility to conserve energy, and make the best use of those new systems and the resources dedicated to building them, is not seen as an obligation that all department and campus community members share, much less those departments and individuals with the most influence. This represents a failure in the transition from a technical systems scale to a holistic social cultural scale. We propose that identifying a key moment when scaling of impact fails to be realized is a moment of transformative opportunity. What is the mechanism or process needed to allow the transition between scaling to occur more smoothly? What is the mechanism to identify the individuals of greatest influence, and how to activate them? In what situations are those transitions already happening smoothly, and why? At each scale, many carbon neutrality plans call for a periodic review, suggesting that new knowledge will be available – be it in the form of science, innovative solutions, impact data or behavioural science – that would then inform the policy, regulations and requirements moving forward. The scales of impact framework illustrates the interconnectedness of systems and individuals, and it offers a way to conceptualize the critical intersections to enable activation of high-impact individuals and systems. At the scale of a university campus, those charged with demonstrating what is required to reach carbon neutrality continue to seek an understanding of what the optimal organizational structures are to enable accelerated mitigation strategies. For example, there are failure points related to a lack of distributed accountability for the desired performance – this governance issue holds institutions back from a whole systems approach. At the most practical governance level, achieving the necessary shifts in behaviour to reach carbon neutrality will remain out of reach until built into departmental strategic plans and performance appraisals. Organizational structures on campus may mean that sustainability programmes remain focused largely on operational and capital projects rather than whole-campus engagement and galvanizing actions that truly accelerate the needed behavioural and performance changes at scale. It is probable that until campus climate and environmental justice action plans are the formal responsibility of all departments, colleges and universities will continue to fall short of rising to the global challenges. Universities, such as Princeton and MIT, recognize that they must work to reduce emissions beyond the boundaries of the campus in the near term while investing in net-zero infrastructure and future energy on campus for the long term. Off-campus actions that universities are investigating include voluntary market offsets, community-based offset programmes and purchasing renewable energy credits to spur an accelerated transition at other locales. However, these strategies must be scrutinized intensely to assure they have the intended impact, and they must not replace direct carbon-reducing actions. Concurrently, research and innovations developed by faculty are clearly a critical element within the framework proposed here, since it is their findings that are largely informing proposed 254

Climate Solutions across Scales

pathways to global decarbonization. Multidisciplinary research in the climate arena is burgeoning and will inform how the energy and climate challenges now and ahead are addressed.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT





1. Working across scales, universities are able to demonstrate at the local scale and influence up to the global scale connecting the academic mission to broader placebased agenda and national/international agendas as they relate to sustainability. 2. Climate action through energy transition can be a suitable shared agenda around which a university can convene stakeholders to accelerate progress towards climate targets such as net-zero and zero direct emissions. 3. University campuses can support major infrastructure projects at the city-regional scale that both influence student learning and decision-makers in the present as well as said learning becoming amplified as students assume positions of leadership in the future.

References Arnell, N. W., Lowe, J. A., Challinor, A. J., and Osborn, T. J. (2019). ‘Global and Regional Impacts of Climate Change at Different Levels of Global Temperature Increase’. Climatic Change, 155, pp. 377–91. Asthana, M., and Bresler, S. (2021). ‘PJM Strategy – Powering Our Future’. www.pjm.com. Accessed 16 September 2021. Biden, J. (2021). ‘The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice’. https://joebi​ den.com/clim​ate-plan/#. Accessed 16 September 2021. Brundtland, G. (1987). ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’. United Nations General Assembly Document A/42/427. http://www.un-docume​nts. net/our-com​mon-fut​ure.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. City of Cambridge (2002). ‘Climate Protection Plan, Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions’. https://www.camb​ridg​ema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Clim​ate/clima​tepl​ans/clima​te_p​lan.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. City of Cambridge (2015). ‘Net Zero Action Plan’. https://www.camb​ridg​ema.gov/CDD/Proje​cts/Clim​ate/ NetZe​roTa​skFo​rce’ Accessed 16 September 2021. City of Cambridge (2020). ‘Getting to Net Zero Action Plan, Fiscal Year 2020 Progress Report’. https:// www.camb​ridg​ema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Clim​ate/NetZ​ero/annual​repo​rts/cambridgenetzeroact​ionp​ lanf​y202​0pro​gres​srep​ort.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2008). ‘The Global Warming Solutions Act. The 192nd General Court, Session Laws, Acts (2008)’, Chapter 298. https://malegi​slat​ure.gov/laws/sess​ionl​aws/acts/2008/cha​pter​ 298. Accessed 16 September 2021. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2020). Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap. Boston, MA: Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-deca​ rbon​izat​ion-road​map/downl​oad. Accessed 16 September 2021. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2021). Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030. Boston, MA: Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. https://www.mass. gov/info-deta​ils/massac​huse​tts-clean-ene​rgy-and-clim​ate-plan-for-2025-and-2030. Accessed 16 September 2021.

255

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. and the Energy Futures Initiative (E3 and EFI) (2020). ‘NetZero New England: Ensuring Electric Reliability in a low-Carbon Future’. https://www.eth​ree.com/ wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2020/11/E3-EFI​_Rep​ort-New-Engl​and-Reli​abil​ity-Under-Deep-Decar​boni​zati​ on_F​ull-Repor​t_No​vemb​er_2​020.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. Francis, M. (2020). ‘U.S. Renewable Energy Surpasses Coal for the First Time in over 130 Years’. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/toda​yine​rgy/det​ail.php?id=43985. Accessed 16 September 2021. Glenn, S. S. (2004). ‘Individual Behavior, Culture, and Social Change’. Behavior Analyst, 27 (2), pp. 133–51. Hagmann, D., Ho, E. H., and Lowenstein, G. (2019). ‘Nudging out Support for a Carbon Tax’. Nature Climate Change, 9, pp. 484–89. Hodge, T. (2016). ‘Natural Gas Expected to Surpass Coal in Mix of Fuel Used for U.S. Power Generation in 2016’. U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayi​nene​rgy/det​ail. php?id=25392. Accessed 16 August 2022. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018). ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C’. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). ‘Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis’. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Larson, E., Greig, C., Jenkins, J., Mayfield, E., Pascale, A., Zhang, C., Drossman, J., Williams, R., Pacala, S., Socolow, R., Baik, E. J., Birdsey, R., Duke, R., Jones, R., Haley, B., Leslie, E., Paustian, K., and Swan, A. (2021). Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Makhijani, P. (2017). ‘Tiger Challenge Team Tackles Sustainability in Princeton’. Princeton University, Office of Communications. 28 September. https://www.prince​ton.edu/news/2017/09/28/tiger-challe​ nge-team-tack​les-sus​tain​abil​ity-prince​ton. Accessed 16 September 2021. Melillo, Jerry M., Terese T., Richmond, C., and Yohe, Gary W. (eds) (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. doi: 10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (2015). ‘A Plan for Action on Climate Change’. http://web. mit.edu/climat​eact​ion/Cli​mate​Chan​geSt​atem​ent-2015Oc​t21.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2022. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (2021). ‘Fast Forward: MIT’s Climate Action Plan for the Decade, A Commitment to Leadership in Solving the Climate Crisis’. https://clim​ate.mit.edu/sites/defa​ ult/files/2021-05/Fas​tFow​ard-Clim​ateA​ctio​nPla​n_3.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. Nesterak, E. (2020). ‘Imagining the Next Decade of Behavioral Science’. Behavioral Science, 20 January. Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 12 December 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104. Princeton University (2008). ‘A Sustainability Plan for Princeton’. The Trustees of Paris Agreement. https://sust​ain.prince​ton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf​176/files/2019-12/Sus​tain​abil​ity%20P​lan.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. Princeton University (2019). ‘Sustainability Action Plan’. The Trustees of Princeton University. https:// sust​ain.prince​ton.edu/sus​tain​abil​ity-act​ion-plan. Accessed 16 September 2021.

256

Climate Solutions across Scales

Reif, L. R. (2021). ‘Letter to the Community’ in Fast Forward: MIT’s Climate Action Plan for the Decade. https://clim​ate.mit.edu/sites/defa​ult/files/2021-05/Fas​tFow​ard-Clim​ateA​ctio​nPla​n_3.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. State of New Jersey (2019). ‘New Jersey Energy Master Plan, Pathway to 2050’. https://nj.gov/emp/docs/ pdf/202​0_NJ​BPU_​EMP.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2021. Town of Princeton (2019). ‘Unanimous Adoption of Climate Action Plan’. Mayor and Council of Princeton, Minutes of the Meeting, 22 July. https://www.prin​ceto​nnj.gov/Doc​umen​tCen​ter/ View/2059/07-22-2019-Coun​cil-Meet​ing-Minu​tes-PDF?bidId=. Accessed 16 September 2021. Turner, J., and Bailey, D. (2021). ‘Ecobordering’: Casting Immigration Control as Environmental Protection’. Environmental Politics, 31 (1), pp. 110–31. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2021.1916197. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2021). ‘Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement’. Synthesis Report by the Secretariat. 17 September. https://unf​ccc.int/ docume​nts/306​848. Accessed 16 September 2021. United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) (2021). United Nations Climate Summit, Glasgow, UK, 31 October–13 November. https://ukco​p26.org. Urbanski, M. (2020). Sustainable Campus Index. Philadelphia, PA: Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Weber, E. U. (2020). ‘Heads in the Sand: Why We Fail to Foresee and Contain Catastrophe’. Foreign Affairs, 99 (6) (November/December), pp. 20–6. Weber, S., Newman, J., and Hill, A. (2017). ‘Ecological Regional Analysis Applied to Campus Sustainability Performance’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (7), pp. 974–94. Zahniser, M. F. (2020). AASHE Annual Impact Report. Philadelphia, PA: Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education.

257

258

258

259

14

University Leadership and Governance Enabling Sustainability and the SDGs WENDY M. PURCELL

Introduction While it is widely held that universities play an important role in advancing sustainability and progressing delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015), it is clear they can (and indeed must) do so much more given the urgency of the climate crisis and growing social inequity. A statement at the 2019 High-level Political Forum, where some 2,000 global universities gathered, by the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative noted, ‘None of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals can be achieved without the contribution of higher education and research’ (Association of Commonwealth (ACU), 2019). This statement highlights the important contributions of universities across three domains, namely, research and innovation, to tackle global challenges and provide evidence to inform policy; teaching and learning, to develop leaders and professionals to drive social and economic development; and, community and stakeholder engagement, to enable working across private, public and plural sectors. Here, two essential enablers of university engagement in the global pursuit of sustainability and the SDGs, namely leadership and governance, are examined and illustrated with examples from the sector. The aim is to distil key learnings that might help accelerate the journey towards sustainability and deepen the commitment of universities to sustainable development and Agenda 2030 (United Nations, n.d.). Leadership is defined as the ability to mobilize people to face a new reality (Heifetz et al., 2009) – an adaptive practice that demands both learning and unlearning (Bell, 2018; O’Reilly, 2018).). Governance is held to be the system(s) through which an organization is controlled and operates, and the mechanisms by which it and its people are held to account (Governance Today, n.d.; Governance Institute, n.d.). Both leadership and governance are now at a premium in universities given the disruptive global megatrends affecting higher education, from technology through to the climate crisis, changing demographics and post-Covid-19 shifts to online learning (Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). Navigating these times, characterized by high degrees of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – so-called VUCA conditions (Bennis and Nanus, 1985) – relies on the ability and motivation of leaders at all levels to embrace change while honouring the heritage of their institution (Heifetz et al., 2009). In turn, the governance systems need to be able to support more agile working, while ensuring business continuity, risk mitigation and overall resilience.

259

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are struggling to varying degrees to achieve change at the scale and speed needed (Purcell et al., 2016; Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021), given their pluralistic nature and competing goals. However, the Covid-19 pandemic revealed enormous untapped change potential in HEIs (Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). This global crisis (since 2019) saw rapid adoption of new ways of working across the sector, from the swift deployment of online tools to support learning though the reallocation of budgets to enable new strategic investments, as well as the development of new leadership competencies and governance models (Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). While universities may have become more managerial and centrally managed (Deem et al., 2008), they remain organizations primarily led by faculty. As such, effective leadership in HEIs is enacted through persuasion and consensus over diktat, while governance typically reflects disciplinary communities (Shattock, 2002). However, the pursuit of sustainability and the SDGs demands a unique mix of faculty and professional staff skills, together with student engagement, and it spans disciplinary and institutional boundaries. It relies on clear strategic intent and the ability to harness the efforts of people working in teams and community-based settings. As an agenda, sustainability reflects both the fierce urgency of now as well as so-called cathedral thinking, that is, taking the long view and pursuing an ambitious goal or idea that might require several generations to complete, labouring in the present in service of the future (Mr. Sustainability, n.d.). With leadership held to be about making it better for others because of the leader’s presence in ways that last into their absence (John Murphy International (JMI), n.d.), leadership for sustainability in HEIs needs to extend beyond any one leader such that momentum is maintained. This presents an opportunity to explore new ways of working with consequent impacts on current leadership capacity, capability and frameworks as well as new governance models in HEIs. The Adaptive Leadership framework (Heifetz et al., 2009) is well suited to offer new insights for universities advancing their engagement with sustainability and the SDGs as well as the change management needed to get from here to there. Among the various facets of the model, two are worthy of further elaboration in this context. The first is to ensure that change honours the past – also considered an essential ingredient of trust building (Bligh, 2017; Frei and Morriss, 2020). Too often, leaders in pursuit of change do not pay due homage to acknowledging the important contributions of those who have gone before and the innovations of the past. Preparing the organization to accept the fact that change is indeed necessary does not mean diminishing in turn the dignity of those who served before or do so now (Heifetz et al., 2009; Hicks, 2011). Second, the adaptive model of leadership invites leaders to act with compassion, honouring the losses that often accompany change (Heifetz et al., 2009; Culture Amp, n.d.). These losses could be significant and obvious, like the loss of jobs or closure of programmes of study. Losses may also be small or appear trivial to some but can be hugely important to others. For example, loss of being the expert user when a new system is installed, loss of status through restructuring so a manager has fewer direct reports, loss of laboratory or other space and so on. Being able to navigate change also places a premium on organizational trust building before change management projects are enacted. Compassion serves to amplify leadership competencies and is considered a differentiator for success. It is about ‘feeling for’ someone and wanting to help, and it is different from empathy that involves feeling with another that may not be sustainable (Hougaard, 2020; Chatterjee et al., 2021). 260

University Leadership and Governance

In agreement with Heifetz et al. (2009), Fagan and Frei (2021) note the criticality of honouring the past for change management to work and add that leaders also need to articulate a clear and compelling change mandate and communicate a way forward that is optimistic. As ‘peddlers in hope’ (Owen, 2018), leaders need to be able to cultivate hope in a better tomorrow to encourage followership (Kellerman, 2008) and support people to invest now in the hope of betterment tomorrow. This is especially so given the very real fears of an unsustainable tomorrow, the impact already of the climate crisis on the under-resourced and a sense that individual actions are hopeless in the wake of the far-reaching threats represented by the global goals. Given the complexity of the sustainability challenge, change across the academic enterprise is potentially far-reaching, deeply affecting the teaching/learning, research/innovation and community/civic engagement domains as well as the broader management and governance systems. As such, leaders at all levels need to identify opportunities for where change is needed given that the sustainability change mandate reflects both externalities, for example, the climate emergency and internal drivers, such as wanting to engage in meaningful and impactful work. This complexity places greater emphasis on the ability of leaders to be able to simplify the ‘Why?’ of change against such a multifaceted change landscape. They also need the humility to build relationships and trust in the face of VUCA conditions. These two critical leadership competencies extends a leader’s remit beyond results and outcome measures to the very process of ‘How?’ change is enacted. Leaders need to expand their roles beyond striving for organizational results to engage deeply with the individual and collective experiences of employees. While it may be obvious, human-centred leadership is based on compassion and helps to enable people to thrive in the face of the many challenges that change brings. Given the nature of HEIs, staffed by knowledge workers and other experts and the multidimensionality of the sustainability agenda, the facets of leadership that come to the fore here are the uncompromising pursuit of equity across people, planet and prosperity for all. HEIs, as organizations of learning, may however not be learning organizations. Alongside the inherent inertia that all large or complex organizations appear to exhibit, universities in prizing dialogue and an uncompromising search for the truth may fail to act and conduct the learning experiments (pilots) that support change. Some of the change to advance sustainability simply needs to be learnt by doing and not through deliberation or the ‘vitae contemplative’ (Cirillo, 2014). This is relevant to new governance models in HEIs, where standing committees, boards and advisory groups abound but may not be best suited to the concept of failing fast so that success can come sooner. As such, new governance models are needed to unleash the inherent creativity locked into social networks as well as those groupings that convene around shared purpose (Holt-Lunstad, 2018; Purcell and Chahine, 2019; Gast et al., 2019). An enduring purpose unifies a dispersed workforce, even more important in these times of hybrid working, with leaders securing results through relationships – not rules. Representing an ideopolis, a university community with its students and other stakeholders should be inherently agile and adaptive (Purcell and Chahine, 2019). However, for sustainability and engagement with the SDGs to involve a university community, ideas need to be able to flow across and within the institution (Middlehurst, 2004; Cullen-Lester et al., 2016). Given institutions are held to be ‘at odds with the future’ (McCracken, 2013), burdensome hierarchical governance structures may present a barrier to co-creation (Kothari and Handscombe, 2007; Le Roux and Pretorius, 2016). As described elsewhere (Purcell et al., 2017; Purcell, 2019; Purcell 261

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and Chahine, 2019), the command-control senior management hierarchy (SMH) together with the more adaptive and agile community of social networks (CSN) were shown to be central to enabling a pan-university transformation. These studies revealed how the SMH defined and communicated a new strategic direction, giving ‘permission’ to its people to engage in innovation and value-creation activities in pursuit of delivering the new mission (Cullen-Lester et al., 2016; Purcell and Chahine, 2019). Governance as a risk mitigation approach in this context may not permit the risk adaptation fuelled by innovation needed to enact transformation – the latter being the very essence of advancing sustainability. Extending this a little further, the prized autonomy of HEIs with the limited reach of regulators and regulations may represent a governance landscape ill-suited to deliver at the speed and scale represented by the sustainability challenge and Agenda 2030. Generative leadership and governance are therefore the models needed to create organizational resilience and the adaptive capacity for HEIs to face into the new reality and play their fullest role in creating a world in which ‘no one will be left behind’ (United Nations, n.d.; ODI, 2021). The author (WMP) draws on their extensive experience as a leader, teacher, researcher and scholar in sustainability leadership and governance, which includes designing and delivering executive education (2012 to date) for the higher education sector, such as for university board chairs and trustees, as well as senior executive leaders across many different business sectors from travel and tourism, banking, aviation and health, to name but a few. They design and chair the Leadership Academy (2016–date) for the Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (EAUC), the alliance for sustainability leadership in education as well as coach and mentor senior leaders in higher education and other sectors in support of transformational change. They also draw on practical experience of being a university President (2007–15) and leading a whole institution transformation driven by a mission focused on enterprise and sustainability, being awarded the Queen’s Anniversary Prize for Higher Education for their efforts. They bring in insights at the national HEI sector level drawn from work with the UK government, being appointed by the prime minister as a non-executive board member of the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (2013–16) that oversaw all HEIs. In addition, they were a board member of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) Strategic Advisory Committee on Leadership, Governance and Management (LGM, 2005–10) and its LGM Fund Strategic Oversight and Assessment Group (2007–10) that supported LGM projects across England’s HEIs. They are now a governing board member of the European University, tasked to advance engagement of HEIs with the SDGs, and a member of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, having delivered a keynote in Washington, DC, in 2020 on how HEIs can deliver against the SDGs. This extensive practical and advisory experience enriches the theoretical frameworks used in their scholarly research in the fields of change and management (see, e.g., Purcell, 2019), and sustainability and the SDGs (see, e.g., Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). This chapter explores leadership and governance models in universities, with a focus on new frameworks that enable sustainability-led transformational change. It then examines in detail one university case study and highlights two others that are explored elsewhere in the handbook. The cases are used to draw out the leadership and/or governance constructs in an HEI that enable engagement with sustainability and/or the SDGs. Recognizing the importance of context, the exemplars highlighted are those considered transferable from one HEI to another. The term 262

University Leadership and Governance

‘leader’ is used to capture leaders at every level and includes leadership of self; it does not relate to senior leaders alone, unless specifically stated. The terms HEI and university are used interchangeably, but colleges of higher education and tertiary institutions that focus on higher levels skills, training and inquiry are also included. The term ‘governance’ is used to describe the structures and processes used for decision-making and stakeholder engagement.

Leadership for Sustainability within and by Higher Education Institutions Leadership of sustainability within and by an HEI needs to be integrated into the purpose of the organization; it is not a discretionary agenda or one that can be marginalized. Purpose is defined as the commitment to create value by contributing to the betterment of society, reflecting the reason for being as an organization (Leaders on Purpose (LOP) 2020). It is distinct from vision, mission and values (Kenny, 2014) and is realized by strategy, with organizational culture offering the guiderails and guardrails. Therefore, it follows that leaders need to be purpose-driven; with sustainability positioned as core to that purpose or the very purpose itself. As such, leaders set the tone and, as Collins (2005) posits, need to display personal humility alongside the will to succeed. From the Latin ‘humus’, meaning to have the earth under you or to be on the ground, leaders advancing sustainability in HEIs need to adopt ‘humble listening’ (Charan, 2012) – listening to hear rather than listening to fix. In this way, they honour the dignity of those around them and create inclusive and psychologically safe (Edmonson, 2019) environments thereby harnessing the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ (Surowiecki, 2005). Especially important in an HEI is the intellectual humility of leaders given they are surrounded by subject- and domain-level experts and world-leading scholars. Senior leaders in particular, and change agents at all levels, need to afford followers the psychological safety (Edmonson, 2019) to share ideas and feedback and ‘speak truth to power’ (Sinek, 2019). This in turn drives employee engagement, making people’s work more meaningful, shaping followers’ behaviours (Kellerman, 2008), creating empathy and gratitude as well as supporting ethical behaviours (Naseer and Khan, 2019). Given leadership is a social construct, being an outcome of social interactions with followers (Kellerman, 2008), transformation for sustainability reflects the need to engage people at all levels as agents of change. Paying close attention to managing their emotional tone, leaders recognize the shadow they cast and the influence they have on how people experience themselves around them. As such, being authentic, acting with integrity and seeking to build trust (Goleman, 2013; Bligh, 2017; Frei and Morriss, 2020) are all essential attributes of leading people on a sustainability journey – one that is urgent and important, for now and for the future. Leaders need the emotional intelligence of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management (Goleman and Boyatzis, 2017; Goleman and Nevarez, 2018) to allow the easy alignment of their personal values with organizational goals. However, sustainability as a catalyst for transformation in HEIs throws into sharp relief poor leadership and management practices, from short-termism to a wide gap between saying and doing. A sustainable HEI cannot operate on a dying planet, or one riddled with profound disparities and inequities. Modelling genuine care for people and planet, alongside healthy concern for the bottom line, means that leaders need to be able to navigate the inherent tensions, trade-offs and dilemmas in advancing a genuine sustainability agenda (Henderson, 2021). Sustainability, as a purpose, can 263

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

help people navigate these VUCA times, where profound change is happening simultaneously across many fronts, from demography to technology, social cohesion to the Covid-19 pandemic, all serving to exacerbate economic disparities and social unrest. Despite change coming at speed and from multiple directions, together with the change they are driving internally, sustainability-led leaders can navigate this complexity by a relentless pursuit on what really matters – recognizing there is a better way to be an HEI by viewing everything through the lens of sustainability and in ‘having new eyes’ (Proust in Jaakola, 2021). Asking, ‘What would sustainability and the SDGs invite us to do?’ may enable everyone to align their contribution towards this agenda, helping to navigate the disruption of these hyper-complex times. With a focus on advancing the academic mission, an HEI in this space can articulate a new societal contract based on creation of shared value (Porter and Kramer, 2011) for the institution and the society it serves. As such, sustainability and the sustainable development agenda reinforce academic excellence and impact; they are mutually reinforcing. Leaders involved with sustainability are operating in dynamic environments, and therefore need a high tolerance for uncertainty while engaging in uncertainty-reducing behaviours and actions with others (Deng et al., 2019) that permit change. Rather than Lewin’s (1947a, b) classical change model of ‘unfreeze–change–refreeze’, HEI leaders driving sustainability recognize the relentless pursuit of adaptive change such that the moments of ‘refreeze’ may only be fleeting. As such, a better description of the model needed is that of continuous improvement. This fits well with the adaptive leadership model, which invites leaders to ask, ‘Where are we now?’ and, then again on a regular basis, ‘So, where are we now?’ (Heifetz et al., 2009). This is not to say that we can change without a clear and compelling change mandate; rather it seeks to acknowledge the major change agenda inherent in the pursuit of sustainability and the SDGs is a continuous journey rather than a stop–start process. Leaders in HEIs engaged in advancing a transformational change journey driven by sustainability and/or the SDGs, may find it useful to reflect that: 1. To explore new horizons, it is necessary to honour the heritage of the HEI and the values underpinning the organization. 2. People flourish when connected to something greater than a job. Leaders can tap into the pursuit of sustainability as purpose and as a powerful human motivator. 3. Setting a direction rather than a narrow destination will enable an organization to move from trying to predict the future, to one where it prepares for an uncertain one. 4. Power is more diffuse and accountability more visible. Hence, leaders need to be more aware of building community at work and intentional about activating social networks convened around shared purpose, aligning creative outputs with the overall sustainability journey. 5. Investing in trust building is an ongoing process that relies on authenticity and compassion, as well as the compelling articulation of an optimistic change mandate. 6. A humble leader provides positive signals that lead to improved individual outcomes and group and organizational results. 7. Psychological safety is essential to inclusion and belonging, and key to advancing equity at the heart of the sustainability agenda. 8. Transformative change takes time. While change can of course take place in an instant, transformational change typically takes a long time. Therefore, leaders need to be both

264

University Leadership and Governance

urgent and patient (Haque et al., 2017), exercise curiosity and resist the human craving for certainty, understanding that value is held in the emergent outcomes of a complex system (Conte et al., 2007). 9. People need to make sense of the planned change on their own terms, described here as ‘corridor chat’, allowing people to discuss what was said and what they heard, and to begin exploring a key question in any change process – ‘Where am I in this?’ 10. Sustainability is a value driver and leaders need to understand both the cost of getting it wrong, and this includes embracing the status quo, and the benefits of getting it right. A focus just on the costs or investments needed to affect the transition can fail to articulate the returns on the change delivered – especially the social impacts that help create a world in which ‘no one will be left behind’ (United Nations, 2015).

Governance for Sustainability within and by Higher Education Institutions Governance of sustainability within and by an HEI can challenge the relatively siloed nature of a discipline-based organization, as well as the collegiate nature of a scholarly community. Defined as the system by which entities are directed and controlled (Governance Institute, n.d.), the very concept of governance of universities sits uncomfortably. Indeed, the idea that faculty can be either directed or controlled is an anathema to most, while institutional autonomy is deemed central to the pursuit of truth (Council of Europe, 2020). In addition, the so-called non-academic side of an HEI comprises professionals from a range of domain specialisms from finance to procurement, human resources to energy and waste management as well as student-facing services related to advising, housing and catering. Common among professional services staff is that they serve a one-institution model, more akin to the governance of a corporate entity – albeit that some HEIs have embedded business managers from these services within faculties or academic departments. Staff in professional services areas at HEIs are typically more comfortable than faculty with the governance structures and processes for decision-making, accountability, control, risk management and performance review. While the exploration of university governance systems is beyond the scope of this chapter, the focus is on the features of enabling governance models that lean into the innate curiosity of faculty, draw in the professional expertise of those in administrative support services and harness the creativity and innovation capacity of students to support a just transition. Suffice to say that bringing in a multidimensional dialectical construct, such as sustainability that relies upon inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary-based solutions, calls upon the expertise of faculty, professional staff and students to come together. This demands extraordinary creativity and innovation in terms of governance systems and processes. As such, governance for sustainability is a work in progress, and there is plenty of room for further innovation in the higher education sector. Common among the new models of governance enabling HEIs to engage with delivery of sustainability and/or the SDGs is the strategic flexibility that enables directed innovation and learning without straining the institution’s risk appetite. Governance that empowers an HEI to change enough but not so much that it loses its way or alienates its stakeholders is important here. Peeters’s (2021) work on strategic flexibility highlights the importance of an organization having an awareness of the many external factors that are there and that may impact on them – in this

265

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

case, the myriad of sustainable development challenges. They go on to highlight the importance of learning from planned experiments or pilots, and how collaboration and partnering with those outside the organization can be a source of value creation (Peeters, 2021). These are all important features of new governance models for HEIs. Ambidexterity, one facet of strategic flexibility, is worthy of further consideration (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2016). Used here, this term relates to how an HEI explores new horizons while building upon its heritage. This sits well with how a university might begin to examine its sustainability assets across its teaching and research programmes, for example by mapping them to the SDGs (International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), 2018). It can also develop a stakeholder map, identifying relationships with its city-region, other anchor institutions, from large employers to healthcare providers, and community partners (Work Foundation, 2010). Against this backdrop, it can then confidently set out on a new journey to prepare for an untried future. Therefore, new university governance models need to be able to hold the current as well as flex for the new. A way that many HEIs are operationalizing the ambidexterity needed to progress their sustainability journey is to create a ‘neutral’ convening vehicle. In this space, people inside and outside the institution and disciplines can collide easily and safely without disturbing the flows of organizational capitals (Forum for the Future, n.d.) or the form and function of the hierarchy as reflected by the organizational chart. Examples of these new constructs are highlighted in the cases used to illustrate this chapter and are also found elsewhere in this handbook. This convening space is akin to a ‘second operating system’ (Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2020) – one that exists within the university but that is designed to be more nimble, agile and permeable than the institution per se with its fixed hierarchy and bounded structures. Such models do not threaten the operations of the HEI or its established processes; they serve as vehicles for shared value creation (Porter and Kramer, 2011). The second operating system is conceived as ‘an agile, network-like structure and a very different set of processes’ (Kotter, 2012) that ‘complements, rather than overburdens the traditional hierarchy’ (Kotter, 2012; SDSN, 2020). The SDSN report on ‘Accelerating Education for the SDGs in Universities’ (SDSN, 2020), to which the author (WMP) contributed, identified the main features of a second operating system. These comprise a community convened around shared purpose (Purcell et al., 2019), the composition of the group and their scope, and the nature of the culture and ways of working. It is not about creating a new silo. Rather, it represents a new community that is more permeable and adaptive than its originating institution, comfortable with VUCA conditions and centred on the pursuit of solutions through radical collaboration. This may be articulated as a ‘living laboratory’ (Purcell et al., 2019) but goes beyond a focus on single or multiple projects, with its governance prizing the development of relationship and trust capital over simply operationalizing projects. At the SDSN 2020 Dialogue Series, the author (WMP), together with Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Otto Scharmer and other colleagues, discussed the SDSN report (SDSN, 2020) on education and second operating systems in detail. What emerged from that discussion was a recognition that universities know they need to do things differently, but despite some compelling examples of change very little real transformation is taking place. The change efforts to date were held to be inadequate against the quantum scale of disruption faced by humanity. University efforts appear to focus on optimizing the present rather than reimagining a path forward. Why so? The collective understanding of the panel assembled reinforced the importance of decision-makers at all levels and hence 266

University Leadership and Governance

the enabling roles of leadership and governance. The author (WMP) in examining the higher education sector’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic identified new leadership behaviours and governance processes that emerged as well as the enormous change capacity of HEIs when faced with a crisis (Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). This contrasts with the transformation needed in HEIs to address the climate crisis and the SDGs, with the study identifying innovations in the sector fuelled by the pandemic that might support its wider transformation towards sustainability (Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). Recent work by the author (WMP) and colleagues sought to codify the features of university second operating systems by reference to multi-stakeholder projects on climate neutrality (Moreno-Serna et al., 2022) and tackling the disruptions of the Covid-19 crisis (Moreno-Serna et al., 2020). What is clear from these studies is that universities underplay the unique assets they possess – that is, being able to convene people in a learning space and capture knowledge as they work together to co-create value that can be shared. Holding space in this way allows participants to collaborate and learn together as they tackle the pressing challenges of sustainable development. Governance models that situate purpose, in this case sustainability and the SDGs, rather than power at their core offer universities a way to convene stakeholders in inclusive learning communities in pursuit of solutions. Governance in HEIs involved in advancing a transformational change journey driven by sustainability and/or the SDGs may find it useful to reflect that: 1. Navigating established governance systems and processes to enable the pursuit of sustainability and delivery of the SDGs demands high levels of creativity and innovation. 2. New models of governance can be created to coexist with an HEI’s established governance systems and processes. 3. Universities possess a unique convening asset, that of enabling people to build learning communities and new ways of working through which an organization can operate in VUCA conditions. 4. Situating sustainability as a shared purpose can bring people together to co-create shared value. 5. Governance models need to facilitate the most promising opportunities to change while being sensitive to the systemic complexity and power dynamics of a university as a community of scholars, professionals and students. 6. Strategic flexibility and system-centred design allows governance models to adopt a holistic view of a dynamic situation.

Illustrative Cases Plymouth University, UK The case of Plymouth University (PU) and its mission-led transformation during the 2007– 15 period, fuelled by enterprise and sustainability, has been explored in detail (Purcell et al., 2017, 2019; Purcell, 2019; Purcell and Chahine, 2019). Here, the focus is on the leadership and governance enablers of that change. Specifically, a transformational leadership initiative, the Change Academy, and a transformational governance project, the Growth Acceleration Innovation Network (GAIN), as both can be contextualized to the local conditions of other HEIs. At the centre of each initiative is the way the university’s senior management worked with the 267

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

adaptive social networks within and beyond the institution to build value – brand and academic value for the university, and social and economic value for other stakeholders. The leadership model in place was adaptive, in that it centred on supporting the institution face a new reality – that of sustainable development, the innovation needed to get there, in addition to the new industries and new jobs that accompany a just transition. The leaders fully acknowledged the heritage of the institution, a modern university that traced its roots back to supporting professional education and applied research and orienting this in a contemporary context. Leaders at every level were activated through the Change Academy, extended to include a cadre of change champions with people invited to paint themselves into the change picture and imagine a radical new direction for the university – namely a mission to advance enterprise and sustainability. The governance model elaborated through GAIN reflected the university’s role as an anchor institution, that is, ‘civic, cultural, and intellectual institutions which contribute to the cultural, social, and economic vitality of cities’ (Work Foundation, 2010), ‘enabling infrastructure for technological and economic development’ (Florida, 1999). Rather than the ‘ivory tower’ model of a university, the distributed knowledge ecosystem of GAIN situated PU as a connected university – a value driver of social and economic impact. Instead of disparate knowledge assets operating across the city-region in silos, the GAIN governance architecture harnessed the shared purpose of transitioning the south-west to be a knowledge economy. The Change Academy The Change Academy describes a small group of some ten people, assembled by invitation of the university President, tasked to ‘think without borders’ and undertake ‘imagineering’ of a radical new direction for the university. The new academic mission to advance enterprise and sustainability was not a ‘third mission’ for social and economic development (Etzkowitz, 1998; Fusilier and Munro, 2013; Sam and van der Sijde, 2014). Rather, it was to be positioned as the lens through which teaching/learning and research/innovation were to be envisioned and not a strand of work running alongside these agendas. The university Change Academy was supported by the Leadership Foundation’s Change Academy project, an initiative of the Higher Education Academy funded by the HEFCE. In drawing the team together, the President decided not to be a member of the group to obviate actual power/authority barriers and selected its members to include other senior executive leaders, faculty and professional services staff, diverse in terms of gender, age, length of service with the university and professional experience. The group worked over the period a year to socialize the concept of the new mission, exploring the mandate for change and being invitational about how it might be realized. Their work and impact were amplified throughout the university by creating a social network of champions (around fifty people) – staff at all levels of the institution who acted as change agents. As mentioned, moving beyond the narrative of a ‘third mission’ was a difficult barrier to overcome, especially among faculty. This agrees with Nedeva’s (2008) opinion that these sorts of activities can be perceived as a distraction from undertaking research. However, the President and Change Academy drew on the findings of Vorley and Nelles (2008) in reconceptualizing the academy. In this way a ‘third mission’ became the mission of the university, and this was a key step in overcoming barriers and tensions.

268

University Leadership and Governance

Given the university’s remote geographical location, in the far south-west corner of England, and the depressed economic and social status of the area, the institution drew on its entrepreneurial and sustainability assets and capabilities to advance a stronger regional economy. In so doing, it helped sustain the conditions for talent acquisition and retention of staff as well as student recruitment and the creation of graduate-level jobs in a regional knowledge economy (Arbo and Benneworth, 2007). PU’s new mission materially advanced the status of the university, evidenced in terms of competition for places, research excellence and the award of national/international prizes – including the Queen’s Anniversary Prize for Higher Education (2012). Growth Acceleration and Investment Network The university’s senior management identified the opportunity to connect its academic mission, based on enterprise and sustainability, to build a knowledge economy in the city-region to help tackle the many societal and economic challenges in this geography while offering compelling academic opportunities for its students and faculty. It developed a new governance model – the Growth Acceleration and Investment Network (GAIN). This innovation ecosystem (GAIN, n.d.), though led by the university, was effectively a collaboration vehicle – a social network. Partners were drawn from the local City Council, regional science park and regional incubation and innovation centres (Formation Zones in Devon and Cornwall; Cornwall’s Unlocking Potential enterprise programme; Cornwall’s innovation centres and Beacon Southwest). It served to unify a £100 million (US$150 million) network of regional knowledge assets under one governance structure. In this way, GAIN was able to operate out with its partners but under their shared mandate to accelerate growth and investment in high-quality businesses and ideas to create wealth and jobs in the south-west of England and to bring together support services from across the region. Using GAIN as an innovation arm, the university successfully tendered for the contract to manage Cornwall’s Innovation Centres, operated by the university on behalf of Cornwall Council with centres in Pool, Tremough and a Health and Well-Being Centre on the Cornwall NHS Hospitals Trust site in Truro. It offered knowledge-based businesses a space to thrive and grow, with pre-start-ups or people with a small business supported through the pre-incubation Formation Zone based in each of the centres. Through the university, the centres provided extensive development and training support. A sign of the growing demand for their services, the Pool Centre reached a 50 per cent occupancy rate in less than six months – two and a half years ahead of schedule and added many hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds to the regional economy. The three Cornwall Innovation centres were ranked as among the best in the world by UK Business Incubation (UKBI), achieving INSPIRE accreditation. The university also had two Formation Zones on its main city-centre campus that offered supportive and collaborative environments for innovative start-ups in creative industries, hi-tech, marine, environmental, advanced engineering, and health and well-being sectors. To provide the full business support cycle, from start up to grow-on, businesses could also access support at the Tamar Science Park – renamed the Plymouth Science Park and set up as a joint venture between PU and the City Council and drawn into the GAIN ecosystem. Using the GAIN model, the university connected its research and innovation facilities with business, industry and entrepreneurs. For example, its new £19 million (US$30 million) Marine

269

270

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Building, housing the most advanced wave tank and testing facilities in Europe, was open to business across the world to access its facilities and work with faculty and students. The building hosted the Marine Innovation Centre (MARIC), established with funding from the European Regional Development Fund to support the south-west of England’s marine and maritime businesses to become globally competitive. Developed under GAIN, PU was at the forefront of accessing Regional Growth Funds (RGF), a national government fund designed to deliver sustainable jobs and economic growth. PU secured the first national RGF grant and was the first university to deliver such a programme; it went on to lead five of the six national rounds of the RGF. GAIN was a key part of the Plymouth and Southwest Peninsula City Growth Deal, led by the university in partnership with the City Council and national government to deliver economic growth in the region in exchange for devolved powers and funding. PU was key to securing the City Deal, which was aligned with the university’s research strengths, and which focused on boosting the area’s marine sector through job creation and an expansion of remediated dockyardbased workspace. The impacts of RGF included the creation of jobs for graduates as well as new research and innovation projects and funding. It is estimated that a further 1,440 jobs were created by the RGF grant programmes and over £37 million (US$56 million) of private-sector co-investment secured. This funding helped diversify the regional economy and address the cityregion’s historical dependence on the naval dockyard, Armed Services and the public sector for employment. The Higher Education Business and Community Information Survey highlighted that PU had attracted five times the sector average for Regeneration and Development Programme income. Indeed, GAIN was ranked as among the best in the world by UKBI, achieving INSPIRE accreditation. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain The Innovation and Technology for Development Centre (itdUPM, n.d.) of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM, n.d.) represents a novel governance model within the university staffed by leaders practicing adaptive leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009). Elsewhere in this handbook (Chapter 15), UPM describes its collaboration with the city of Madrid to advance sustainable urban transformation through knowledge-based collaboration on climate change and how itdUPM plays a key role in this sustainability transition. Here, the author (WMP) draws on their work with UPM and key learnings from events they moderated with members of the itdUPM. One such event was the 2021 University Global Coalition meeting (UGC, n.d.), with panel members drawn from the City Council of Madrid; UPM faculty in leadership of the itdUPM; and a representative of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Knowledge and Innovation Community (EIT Climate-KIC) (ClimateKIC, n.d.) addressing climate change. Together, at this meeting, they explored the leadership and governance lessons arising from this radical collaboration set up to deliver locally rooted, globally connected solutions. Central to the partnership was its members coming together around a shared purpose, namely climate action in the city of Madrid. Governance processes enabled by the alignment of incentives created an easy gateway through itdUPM into the university so that disparate knowledge resources can be marshalled easily around a problem. This is particularly important when working with external stakeholders who can find it difficult to navigate the often-labyrinthine centres, departments and units that

270

University Leadership and Governance

characterize most HEIs. The adaptive leadership practices supporting the venture include the importance of listening with humility and communicating with courage – both helping to build the trust needed to operate the partnership. From the city’s perspective, it already enjoyed a long history of successful collaboration with UPM. This involves the acquisition of university expertise and human capital (including students) to work on specific city-mandated projects. This created the trust capital to advance a new level of partnership working for the city with UPM, and for the university’s itdUPM governance model to support deeper collaboration with the city. The work now reflects a purpose-led partnership that is more flexible, carrying out pilots together, acting as a testbed for innovation – a co-creation space defined by learning together and creating shared value. Viewed by the university as a revolutionary way of collaborating with the city, itdUPM acts as the convening governance vehicle, with its leadership enabling faculty, students and officers in the City Council to come together to learn together. Rather than the transactional encounters of university and city that were typically contractual in nature, the work is now more holistic and focused on transformation – outcomes of the relationship ecosystem created to tackle the climate emergency and advance sustainability. Through the governance vehicle of itdUPM, faculty engagement is enabled through the social networks of the university rather than its formal hierarchy. This is especially important in supporting those faculty seeking to embrace a broader societal impact mission through their university efforts. The adaptive leaders at the heart of itdUPM are critical to its success, modelling the humility and trust-building practices needed for sustainability leadership. As the success of the governance model has become visible to the SMH of the university administration, the work of itdUPM receives support at the institutional level owing to the fact that it creates institutional value. Here, it is clear to see how a shared purpose, namely the Climate-KIC, has mobilized the capabilities of both the university and its city, with the partners intentional in their efforts to advance sustainable development through climate action. Therefore, itdUPM is a model to follow. McGill University, Canada The McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI, n.d.) of McGill University represents a research collective convened around sustainability. It focuses on mobilizing university research to tackle the challenges of sustainable development and help the next generation acquire the skills needed to thrive in an uncertain future. Elsewhere in this handbook (Chapter 12), McGill describes its sustainability journey and examines MSSI in more detail drawing out the strengths and opportunities of its current approach. Here, the author (WMP) draws on their work with McGill. The MSSI is more than a research grouping – rather, it is an academic expression of a powerful strategic intent. It could represent a putative governance vehicle in support of the university’s ambitious pursuit of sustainability. McGill’s New Vic project (n.d.) seeks within the university’s new academic plan (McGill, n.d.) to position sustainability at the centre of its operations, research and teaching. The New Vic Project is a physical expression of McGill’s intentions to ‘redefine what an open, connected and purposeful university can be’ (New Vic, n.d.) – a heritage project being reimagined to extend the reach of the university’s agenda to advance social and economic impact in the Quebec province

271

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and beyond. While planning for the project is underway, the approach described by the university seeks to harness the enabling capacity of new governance models fuelled by adaptive leaders working at all levels across the university and beyond among its stakeholder community. It is a model to watch.

Conclusions What universities do matters! And, never more so than in the global drive to address sustainability and delivery of the SDGs. To operate at the speed and scale needed to address the climate crisis and tackle abhorrent social injustices, universities need to adopt new leadership practices and governance models. Contemporary leadership needs to be able to harness the creativity of people convened around shared purpose in an inclusive way that feels safe – human-centred adaptive leadership. In turn, the governance systems and processes need to be more agile and open to working in partnership with those outside the university in pursuit of sustainability, while existing within established governance frameworks within the institution. The adaptive leadership model sits comfortably with the nature of the challenges ahead for universities and is proposed as a framework that enables leaders to address the fierce urgency of now as well as the cathedral thinking inherent to any sustainability agenda. It supports leaders at all levels face a new reality by drawing on the assets of the university and by honouring its heritage. It involves leaders working more deliberatively to harness the power of social networks and to create the conditions for people to flourish by securing the benefits realized through change management while respecting people’s dignity. As the sustainability agenda demands that universities both exploit their current knowledge assets as well as explore future opportunities, leadership practices that enable ambidexterity are well suited to advancing the change agenda. The adaptive leadership model can accommodate the inherent tensions of bounded disciplinebased scholarly communities, professional domain groupings and students from all fields facing a sustainability mission that is multifaceted, unbounded and emergent. For governance, new models need to respect the collegiate and consensual nature of a university community and the formal management hierarchies. Framed as second operating systems, these governance models can operate effectively inside an institution while connecting successfully with those outside the university to create shared value. Re-engineering governance processes in this way requires that a university and its stakeholders become more conscious of each other’s needs, investing in relationship and trust building to fuel success over the long-term. University governance models therefore need to be able to hold the current ways of working while also flexing to accommodate new requirements. Universities are invited to be more explicit in designing their governance processes in support of shared ventures and in line with SDG 17 call to action of ‘partnerships for the goals’. Universities are their people – faculty, staff and students. It is therefore fundamental that leadership and governance support people to flourish while stepping into a new reality; they must enable people to bring their full self to respond to the call to action presented by the SDGs and the sustainability agenda per se. As scholarly communities are pluralistic in nature with competing goals, leadership and governance models that enable transformation are essential ingredients to the pursuit of sustainability by universities and their engagement with Agenda 2030. Universities can be enabled to make their fullest impact in this regard by careful attention to human-centred 272

University Leadership and Governance

adaptive leadership, and inclusive second operating system governance models that serve to capture and create shared value. In this way, people can connect self with society by working with stakeholders around a shared purpose. As new models of leadership and governance enable HEIs to convene their knowledge and people assets with the society they serve, we can rightly be more confident about creating a world in which no one will be left behind.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. Leadership and governance are key enablers of university engagement in the global pursuit of sustainability and the SDGs when the command-control senior management hierarchy works in concert with the more adaptive and agile community of social networks in pursuit of a mission-led sustainability agenda. 2. New governance models need to harness the innate curiosity of faculty, draw in the professional expertise of those in administrative support services as well as harness the creativity and innovation capacity of students to support a just transition. 3. A focus on engaging people in the adaptive challenge of sustainability, rather than technical management-led interventions, better suits the needs of scholarly communities that are pluralistic in nature.

References Arbo, P., and Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions. Paris: OECD Publishing. Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) (2019). ‘Higher Education’s Essential Contribution to the SDGs’. https://www.acu.ac.uk/news/hig​her-educat​ion-s-essent​ial-contr​ibut​ion-to-the-sdgs/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Bell, G. (2018). Unlearning Leadership: Know Yourself – Grow Your Business. N.p.: Light Body. Bennis, W., and Nanus, B. (1985). The Strategies for Taking Charge. Leaders, NY: Harper Row. Bligh, M. C. (2017). ‘Leadership and Trust’, in J. Marques and S. Dhiman (eds), Leadership Today. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Cham: Springer. Charan, R. (2012). ‘The Discipline of Listening’. Harvard Business Review, 21 June. https://hbr. org/2012/06/the-dis​cipl​ine-of-listen​ing. Accessed 30 December 2021. Chatterjee, S., Chakraborty, S., Fulk, H. K., and Sarker, S. (2021). ‘Building a Compassionate Workplace Using Information Technology: Considerations for Information Systems Research’. International Journal of Information Management, 56, p. 102261. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102261. Cirillo, R. M. (2014). ‘Seeking Vita Contemplativa: A Search for Contemplation in a Secular World’. https://dig​ital​comm​ons.bard.edu/senpro​j_s2​014/13. Accessed 30 December 2021. Climate-KIC (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.clim​ate-kic.org/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Collins, J. (2005). ‘Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve’. Harvard Business Review, July–August, p. 640. Conte, R., Andrighetto, G., Campennì, M., and Paolucci, M. (2007). ‘Emergent and Immergent Effects in Complex Social Systems’. https://www.aaai.org/Pap​ers/Sympo​sia/Fall/2007/FS-07-04/FS07-04-007. pdf. Accessed 30 December 2021. Council of Europe (2020). Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy, and the Future of Democracy. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. http://book.coe.int, ISBN 978-92-871-9018-5.

273

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

https://rm.coe.int/prems-025​620-eng-2508-hig​her-educat​ion-ser​ies-no-24/168​0a19​fdf. Accessed 30 December 2021. Cullen-Lester, K. L., Maupin, C. K., and Carter, D. R. (2017). ‘Incorporating Social Networks into Leadership Development: A Conceptual Model and Evaluation of Research and Practice’. Leadership Quarterly, 28 (1), pp. 130–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lea​qua.2016.10.005. Culture Amp (n.d.) ‘How Understanding Loss Helps You Manage Culture through Change’. https://www. cul​ture​amp.com/blog/nobl-manag​ing-cult​ure-thro​ugh-cha​nge. Accessed 30 December 2021. Deem, R., Hillvard, S., and Reed, M. (2008). Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deng, X., Gao, B., and Li, G. (2019). ‘The Effects of Dynamic Work Environments on Entrepreneurs’ Humble Leader Behaviors: Based on 636 Uncertainty Reduction Theory’. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02732. Edmonson, A. C. (2019). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). ‘The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University– Industry Linkages’. Research Policy, 27 (8), pp. 823–33. Fagen, M., and Frei, F. (2021). ‘Organizational Trust and Honesty’. YouTube Video. https://www.yout​ube. com/watch?v=ASse​rrop​Ubw. Accessed 30 December 2021. Florida, R. (1999). ‘Engine or Infrastructure? The University Role in Economic Development’, in L. Branscomb and F. Kodama (eds), Industrializing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 589–610. Forum for the Future (n.d.). ‘The Five Capitals – A Framework for Sustainability’. https://www.forumf​ orth​efut​ure.org/the-five-capit​als. Accessed 30 December 2021. Frei, F., and Morriss, A. (2020). ‘Begin with Trust’. Harvard Business Review, 1 May. https://hbr. org/2020/05/begin-with-trust. Accessed 30 December 2021. Fusilier, M., and Munro, D. (2013). ‘Enterprising versus Traditional Change Management in a For-Profit University’. Universal Journal of Management, 1 (2), pp. 54–62. Gast, A., Illanes, P., Probst, N., Schaninger, B., and Simpson, B. (2020). ‘Purpose: Shifting from Why to How’. McKinsey Quarterly, April 2020. https://www.mckin​sey.com/busin​ess-functi​ons/organ​izat​ion/ our-insig​hts/purp​ose-shift​ing-from-why-to-how. Accessed 30 December 2021. Goleman, D. (2013). ‘The Focused Leader: How Executives Direct Their Own and Their Organizations’ Attention’. Harvard Business Review, December. https://hbr.org/2013/12/the-focu​sed-lea​der. Accessed 30 December 2021. Goleman, D., and Boyatzis, R. E. (2017). ‘Emotional Intelligence Has 12 Elements. Which Do You Need to Work on?’ Harvard Business Review, 6 February. https://hbr.org/2017/02/emotio​nal-intel​lige​ nce-has-12-eleme​nts-which-do-you-need-to-work-on. Accessed 16 August 2022. Goleman, D., and Nevarez, M. (2018). ‘Boost Your Emotional Intelligence with These 3 Questions’. Harvard Business Review, 16 August. https://hbr.org/2018/08/boost-your-emotio​nal-intel​lige​ nce-with-these-3-questi​ons. Accessed 30 December 2021. Governance Institute (n.d.). ‘What Is Governance?’ https://www.gove​rnan​cein​stit​ute.com.au/resour​ces/ what-is-gov​erna​nce/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Governance Today (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.gove​rnan​ceto​day.com/GT/Mater​ial/Governance__ what_is_​it_a​nd_w​hy_i​s_it​_imp​orta​nt_.aspx. Accessed 30 December 2021. Growth Acceleration Innovation Network (GAIN) (n.d.). ‘GAIN Hunts Down South West’s 20 Hottest Businesses for Exclusive Network’. https://www.plymo​uth.ac.uk/news/ gain-hunts-down-south-wests-20-hott​est-bus​ines​ses-for-exclus​ive-netw​ork. Accessed 30 December 2021. Haque, M. D., Liu, L., and TitiAmayah, A. (2017). ‘The Role of Patience as a Decision-Making Heuristic in Leadership’. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 12 (2), pp. 111–29. doi: https://doi-org.lud​wig.lub.lu.se/10.1108/QROM-01-2015-643 1263. Accessed 30 December 2021.

274

University Leadership and Governance

Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., and Grashow, A. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press. Henderson, R. (2021). Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hicks, D. (2011). Dignity: It’s Essential Role in Resolving Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Holt-Lunstad, J. (2018). ‘Fostering Social Connection in the Workplace’. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32 (5), pp. 1307–12. Hougaard, R. (2020). ‘Four Reasons Why Compassion Is Better for Humanity Than Empathy’. Forbes. com. https://www.for​bes.com/sites/ras​mush​ouga​ard/2020/07/08/four-reas​ons-why-com​pass​ion-is-bet​ ter-for-human​ity-than-empa​thy/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Innovation and Technology for Development Centre (itdUPM) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. http://www.itd.upm. es/. Accessed 30 December 2021. International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) (2018). ‘Global Priorities, Educated Solutions: The Role of Academic in Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals’. http://www.iar​ uni.org/ima​ges/stor​ies/Sus​tain​abil​ity/IARU-SDG-Rep​ort-final-v4.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2021. Jaakola, J. (2021). ‘Remembrance of Things Past (In Search of Lost Time)’. Cross Currents, 71 (3), pp. 308–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/cro.2021.0030. John Murphy International (JMI) (n.d.). ‘Leaders Influence by Their Presence Which Endures in Their Absence’. https://john​murp​hyin​tern​atio​nal.com/blog/lead​ers-influe​nce-by-their-prese​nce-which-endu​ res-in-their-abse​nce/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kenny, G. (2014). ‘Your Company’s Purpose It Not Its Vision, Mission or Values’. Harvard Business Review, 3 September. https://hbr.org/2014/09/your-compa​nys-purp​ose-is-not-its-vis​ion-miss​ion-or-val​ ues. Accessed 30 December 2021. Kothari, S., and Handscombe, R. D. (2007). ‘Sweep or Seep? Structure, Culture, Enterprise and Universities’. Management Decision, 45 (1), pp. 43–61. Kotter, J. P. (2012). ‘Accelerate!’ Harvard Business Review, November. https://hbr.org/2012/11/acc​eler​ate. Accessed 30 December 2021. Leaders on Purpose (LOP) (2020). ‘Leaders on Purpose CEO 2020 Study: Purpose Driven Leadership for the 21st Century’. https://www.leade​rson​purp​ose.com/2020-ceo-study. Accessed 30 December 2021. Le Roux, C., and Pretorius, M. (2016). ‘Conceptualizing the Limiting Issues Inhibiting Sustainability Embeddedness’. Sustainability, 8 (4), pp. 364–86. Lewin, K. (1947a). ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Equilibrium and Social Change’. Human Relations, 1 (1), pp. 5–41. Lewin, K. (1947b). ‘Group Decision and Social Change’, in T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley (eds), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt, pp. 330–44. McCracken, G. (2013). ‘The Corporation Is at Odds with the Future’. Harvard Business Review Blog Network, 29 May. https://hbr.org/2013/05/the-corp-is-odds-fut​ure. McGill (n.d.). ‘McGill University Strategic Academic Plan 2017-2022’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/prov​ost/ arti​cle/mcg​ill-uni​vers​ity-strate​gic-acade​mic-plan-2017-2022. Accessed 30 December 2021. Middlehurst, R. (2004). ‘Changing Internal Governance: A Discussion of Leadership Roles and Management Structures in UK Universities’. Higher Education Quarterly, 58 (4), pp. 258–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2004.00273.x. Moreno-Serna, J., Purcell, W. M., Sanchez-Chaparro, T., Soberon, M., Lumbreras, J., and Mataix, C. (2020). ‘Catalyzing Transformational Partnerships for the SDGs: Effectiveness and Impact of the Multi-Stakeholder Initiative El día después’. Sustainability, 12 (17), p. 7189. doi: https://doi. org/10.3390/su1​2177​189. Moreno-Serna, J., Sanchez-Chaparro, T., Purcell, W. M., Kordas, O., Lumbreras, J., and Mataix, C. (2022). ‘Systemic Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration as an Enabler of the Transition towards Climate

275

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Neutral Cities in Europe: The Case of the Madrid Deep Demonstration Project’. Business & Society Journal (in press). McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative (MSSI) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.mcg​ill.ca/mssi/ about-us. Accessed 30 December 2021. Mr. Sustainability (n.d.). ‘Cathedral Thinking’. https://www.mr-sus​tain​abil​ity.com/stor​ies/2021/cathed​ralthink​ing. Accessed 30 December 2021. Naseer, A. K., and Khan, A. N. (2019). ‘What Followers Are Saying About Transformational Leaders Fostering Employee Innovation via Organizational Learning, Knowledge Sharing and Social Media Use in Public Organizations?’ Government Information Quarterly, 36 (4). doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.003. Accessed 30 December 2021. Nedeva, M. (2008). ‘New Tricks and Old Dogs? The “Third Mission” and the Re-Production of the University’, in D. Epsten et al. (eds), World Yearbook of Education: Geographies of Knowledge/ Geometries of Power: Framing the Future of Higher Education London: Routledge, pp. 85–105. New Vic (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://new​vic.mcg​ill.ca/the-new-vic-proj​ect/. Accessed 30 December 2021. ODI (2021). ‘Leave No One Behind – Five Years Into Agenda 2030L Guidelines for Turning the Concept into Action’. https://odi.org/en/publi​cati​ons/leave-no-one-beh​ind-five-years-into-age​nda-2030-gui​deli​ nes-for-turn​ing-the-conc​ept-into-act​ion/. Accessed 30 December 2021. O’Reilly, B. (2018). Unlearn: Let Go of Past Success to Achieve Extraordinary Results. New York: McGraw Hill Professional. O’Reilly III, C. A., and Tushman, M. L. (2016). Lead and Disrupt: How to Solve the Innovator’s Dilemma Hardcover. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Owen, J. (2018). Myths of Leadership – Banish the Misconceptions and Become a Great Leader. London: Kogan Page. Peeters, C. (2021). ‘The Five Keys to Strategic Flexibility’. https://www.vler​ick.com/en/insig​hts/ the-five-keys-to-strate​gic-flex​ibil​ity/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Porter, M. E., and Kramer, M. R. (2011). ‘Creating Shared Value’. Harvard Business Review, January– February. https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creat​ing-sha​red-value. Accessed 30 December 2021. Purcell, W. M. (2019). ‘A Conceptual Framework of Leadership and Governance in Sustaining Entrepreneurial Universities Illustrated with Case Material from a Retrospective Review of a University’s Strategic Transformation: The Enterprise University’, in T. Kliewe, T. Kesting, C. Plewa and T. Baaken (eds), Developing Engaged and Entrepreneurial Universities, Theories, Concepts and Empirical Findings, Singapore: Springer, pp. 243–60. Purcell, W. M., and Chahine, T. (2019). ‘Leadership and Governance Frameworks Driving Transformational Change in an Entrepreneurial UK University’. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40 (5), pp. 612–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2018-0280. Purcell, W. M., and Lumbreras, J. (2021). ‘Higher Education and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating Disruption Using the Sustainable Development Goals’. Discover Sustainability, 2 (1), pp. 1–16. Purcell, W. M., Beer, J., and Southern, R. (2016). ‘Differentiation of English University: The Impact of Policy Reforms in Driving a More Diverse Higher Education Landscape’. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 20 (1), pp. 24–33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603​ 108.2015.1062​059. Purcell, W. M., Sharp, L., and Chahine, T. (2017). ‘New Governance Models for Entrepreneurial Universities: A Conceptual Framework’, in Academic Proceedings of the 2017 University-Industry Engagement Conference: From Best Practice to Next Practice – Asia-Pacific Opportunities and Perspectives. Amsterdam: University Industry Innovation Network, pp. 19–29. Purcell, W. M., Hendriksen, H. A., and Spengler, J. D. (2019). ‘Universities as the Engine of Transformational Sustainability toward Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals: ‘Living Labs’ for Sustainability’. International Journal of Sustainability Education, 20 (8), pp. 1343–57. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-02-2019-0103. Sam, C., and Van Der Sijde, P. (2014). ‘Understanding the Concept of the Entrepreneurial University from the Perspective of Higher Education Models’. Higher Education, 68 (6), pp. 891–908.

276

University Leadership and Governance

Shattock, M. (2002). ‘Re-Balancing Modern Concepts of University Governance’. Higher Education Quarterly, 56 (3), pp. 235–44. Sinek, S. (2019). ‘How Do You Speak Truth to Power?’ YouTube Video. https://www.yout​ube.com/ watch?v=0MCP​Lor4​CvM. Accessed 30 December 2021. Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2020). ‘Accelerating Education for the SDGs in Universities: A Guide for Universities, Colleges, and Tertiary and Higher Education Institutions’. https://resour​ces.uns​dsn.org/accel​erat​ing-educat​ion-for-the-sdgs-in-unive​rsit​ies-a-guide-for-unive​rsit​ ies-colle​ges-and-terti​ary-and-hig​her-educat​ion-insti​tuti​ons. Accessed 30 December 2021. United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 30 December 2021. United Nations (n.d.). ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. https:// sdgs.un.org/203​0age​nda. Accessed 30 December 2021. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.upm.es/. Accessed 30 December 2021. University Global Coalition (UGC) (n.d.). ‘Annual Gathering’. https://univer​sity​glob​alco​alit​ion.org/ann​ ual-gather​ing/. Accessed 30 December 2021. Vorley, T., and Nelles, J. (2008). ‘(Re)-Conceptualising the Academy’. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20 (3), pp. 1–17. Work Foundation (2010). ‘Anchoring Growth: The Role of “Anchor Institutions” in the Regeneration of UK Cities’. https://www.resea​rchg​ate.net/ publication/303751278_Anchoring_Growth_The_role_ of_’Anchor_Institutions’_in_the_ regeneration_of_UK_cities. Accessed 30 December 2021.

277

278

278

279

15

University–City Partnerships for Sustainable Urban Transformations JULIO LUMBRERAS, JAIME MORENO-SERNA, GUILLERMO PALAU, JORDI PERIS, VALENTINA OQUENDO-DI COSOLA, TERESA SÁNCHEZ-CHAPARRO AND CARLOS MATAIX

Introduction There is a global consensus about the main challenges society is currently facing. They include climate change, population ageing, global inequalities and governance issues. In 2015, most of the global leaders agreed on a new social contract to face these wicked problems: the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that configure the 2030 Agenda (United Nations, 2015). Universities and other higher education institutions (HEIs) have a critical role in helping society achieve the SDGs through their research, learning and teaching, campus operations and leadership (Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2020). During recent years, many universities and colleges have been engaged in this urgent and relevant work (Purcell et al., 2019). Moreover, there are extensive efforts undertaken by HEIs to promote the implementation of the SDGs. However, if they are not tackled in a systematic way, they will not serve to foster sustainability at the scale and pace needed to tackle these wicked problems in a timely manner. Therefore, some universities are embarking on profound transformations to drive systemic change (Flynn et al., 2017; Haertle et al., 2017; Leal Filho et al., 2017; Lozano et al., 2017; Opoku and Guthrie, 2018). The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs have fast become a point of reference, a shared narrative and a catalyst for this work, leading to the emergence of new initiatives and discussions across the global higher education sector (Kang and Xu, 2018; Owens, 2017). In particular, HEIs are able to educate sustainability-aware people and offer research-led insights to policymakers to foster the implementation of the SDGs. Beyond SDG Goal 4, ‘Quality Education’, universities and colleges can exercise influence across all seventeen SDGs and their underlying targets, from poverty reduction to health and environmental sustainability. HEIs are particularly well placed to convene other actors involved in sustainable development, as well as enable the conscious collision of disciplines in pursuit of solutions. These are both essential to supporting transformation and are explicitly referenced by SDG 17 ‘partnerships for the goals’ (Hansen and Lehmann, 2006; Mataix et al., 2017; Moreno-Serna et al., 2020b).

279

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

As more than 56 per cent of the global population live in cities (World Bank, 2021), the aforementioned challenges will be won or lost at the urban level. Therefore, it is essential to engage HEIs in implementing the SDGs at this level. Moreover, most universities are placed in cities, where they constitute an anchor institution to implement the SDGs through urban actions. This chapter presents a framework to foster radical collaboration between universities and cities towards pursuing sustainability, and it highlights its implementation in two cities in Spain: Madrid and Valencia. The next section shows the main initiatives developed in Europe that can help massive urban transformation with the engagement of HEIs. Then, the framework to boost transformational systemic collaborations between universities and cities is presented. Two case studies are then presented, before summarizing the main conclusions and future lines of work.

European Opportunities for a Massive Urban Transformation European New Green Deal The European Commission (EC) embraced the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations SDGs as its framework for action and has specified it in the European Green Deal that proposes having a climate-neutral continent before 2050 (EC, 2019). While this aim may seem to tackle only the climate change problem, this is not the case. It is in fact the roadmap to ‘transform the EU into an equitable and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, in which there will be no net greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 and economic growth will be dissociated from the use of resources’ (EC, 2019, p. 2). The Green Deal also aims to protect, maintain and enhance the natural capital of the European Union (EU), as well as to protect the health and well-being of citizens against environmental risks and effects. The Green Deal has already been materialized in several actions, such as the proposal for a European Climate Law and the ‘Mechanism for a Just Transition’, a financial and technical assistance instrument to support companies, regions and people most affected by the transition that will mobilize more than 100,000 million euros in 2021–27. In addition, specific actions are being defined in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

environmentally-friendly technologies industrial innovation cleaner, cheaper and healthier public and private transport systems decarbonization of the power sector more energy efficient buildings international collaboration to improve global environmental standards European Mission on Climate-Neutral Cities

The EC adopted a missions-approach within its research, development and innovation programme for 2021–27 (Horizon Europe). Thus, it aims to achieve three objectives that have not been completed in previous EU programmes: (1) to respond to the most relevant societal challenges; (2) to have a greater impact on solving these challenges and (3) to involve non-conventional research actors (mainly citizens, but also small- and medium-sized enterprise (SMEs), civic 280

University–City Partnerships

associations, start-ups and cities). The EC defined five mission areas for this decade dealing with the following issues: (1) cancer; (2) healthy oceans, seas and coastal and inland waters; (3) healthy soil and food; (4) adaptation to climate change including social transformation and (5) climateneutral and smart cities. Each mission area has established specific aims that should meet three characteristics: (1) to have great visibility and impact; (2) to achieve an ambitious, inspiring and measurable goal in a given time period and (3) to find solutions to the main challenges faced by European citizens. To define the specific missions and establish the implementation instruments, mission boards were formed in each of the areas with independent experts from all sectors. In the area of climateneutral and smart cities, the proposed mission is: ‘100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030’. This mission aims to support and promote urban transformation to accelerate compliance with the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda as well as to become both a catalyst and an example of the European Green Deal. In addition, the mission shows the relevance of the co-benefits associated with urban decarbonization: improvement of air quality, improvement of the health and well-being of citizens, job creation and increase of social cohesion. The independent experts report (EC, 2020) offers some insights on the changes needed to successfully address mission challenges. It invites the parties to adopt a framework based on problems and multi-stakeholder collaboration, placing local public policies at the centre of the strategy for climate neutrality. It also calls for more flexible and evolutionary approaches based on distributed governance and the promotion of shared visions, in which citizens play an essential role. Moreover, it suggests a transdisciplinary innovation model that goes beyond conventional practices, considering city innovation ‘as something that belongs not only to technology-based innovation, but also to social, creative, organizational and financial innovations. necessary to transform cities’ (EC, 2020, p.19). In summary, there is an urgent need for new models of efficient, effective and impactful collaboration to achieve the objectives of this mission. In 2021, the EC developed a mission implementation plan, including the development of innovative activities such as design of demand-driven climate city contracts, development of a mission platform or coining of a mission label to unlock synergies with other programmes and instruments (EC, 2021). The case of the ‘cities mission’ is a paradigm of how a mission can and should be able to accelerate systemic transformation. Indeed, in order to transform a city towards climate neutrality, it is necessary to act simultaneously in all urban subsystems; this is possible only through a collaborative approach among agents as well as coordinating and aligning all available instruments. Therefore, the mission can be the integrating and aligning element of initiatives by proposing an ambitious and inspiring purpose that is superior to the specific objectives of each initiative. Even more, the mission can become the unifying element to develop platforms for systemic innovation where local, regional and national governments, private companies, civil organizations, research centres and organizations as well as citizens experiment together in portfolios of projects that activate the levers of urban transformation and direct economic demand towards decarbonization. The mission can nurture a radical collaboration between actors that enables transformation and can facilitate the connection among existing initiatives that, when coordinated, can significantly increase their impact (e.g. EIT Climate-KIC, Eurocities, Covenant of Majors, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, Global Compact Cities, Lighthouse Network, etc.). 281

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Transformational Systemic Collaborations Ingredients for Transformational Collaborations Transformational collaborations are essential to implement the mission approach and achieve the goals established by the EC. The following summarizes the main ingredients needed to build these collaborations through transformational collaborative arrangements. 1. They are linked to public policies: the purpose to which the collaboration aims to contribute is defined among the partners, but it is aligned with a roadmap that aims to develop a public policy connected with the SDGs (Horan, 2019), integrating the public administration responsible for it (Moreno-Serna et al., 2020a, 2021a). 2. The aspiration of a diverse set of partners for transformational change is articulated: the collaborative value created in the initial stages is generally based on philanthropic or transactional approaches. Austin and Seitanidi (2012) identified several critical factors (such as the level of commitment of the partners, the scope of their activities, trust or the generation of synergistic value) for an alliance to evolve to a transformative state (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a, b). A wide diversity of participants is also essential to maximize the amount of resources, ideas and experiences that interact (Moreno-Serna et al., 2021a). 3. They address problems that have no a priori solution: transformative multi-stakeholder alliances address ‘wicked problems’ (Churchman, 1967; Mayne et al., 2020; Rittel and Webber, 1973), complex problems that do not have a defined solution, are affected by high levels of uncertainty and cannot be addressed from a single organization or by a specific policy. The course of action is usually to move the problem to another state. 4. A facilitating function is developed to generate homogeneity and conditions of symmetry: to help face the difficulties and challenges of collaborative work between very different organizational cultures, the figure of the facilitator (normally performed by an individual or organization) is created, which contributes to the evaluation of incentives, the creation of consensus, of a distributed governance. That is, to generate a comfortable space for all the organizations involved (Hamann and April, 2013; Manning and Roessler, 2013; Stott, 2018; Zak, 2017). 5. They affect singular points of a system: under the premise that when certain windows of opportunity are opened, there are ‘transformation levers’ through which it is possible to influence from certain niches the conditions in which systems operate with processes of prototyping-scaling (Geels, 2004; Köhler et al., 2019). Articulation of a Collaborative Shared Ambition To sustain and root the systemic effects of a set of connected cross-sectoral urban experiments, some authors point to the need for innovative governance mechanisms (Ehnert et al., 2018) at different and complementary levels: strategic (policy development), tactical (partnering, funding), operational (action plans) and reflexive (assessing) (Loorbach, 2010). The difficulties that complex meta-governance arrangements face to trigger systemic change at a large scale have been examined (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014; Hamann and April, 2013). The creation of a shared vision among a wide set of stakeholders (Mitchell, 2005), articulated through a clear common roadmap (Horan, 2019) where local governments may play a dual role of managing directly municipal activities and participating as other stakeholders in the vision framing and roadmap 282

University–City Partnerships

implementation (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014), is key to success. Mediation and facilitation emerge as essential functions to sustain a comfortable collaborative structure devoted to coordinating the different governance processes, ‘setting the scene for self-organization and emergence of solutions’ (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014) and promoting a transformative conception of stakeholder relationships (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a) – for example, to perceive donors as real partners, not just as funders (Ehnert et al., 2018). Likewise, collaborative leadership results are an important factor in the facilitation endeavour (Hamann and April, 2013), contributing to align visions, foster stakeholder diversity and share responsibility and power (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, 2005). Delivering Cross-Sectoral Action Quick action-oriented experimental activities are proposed as a critical factor to unlock a systemic change process and consolidate a shared vision in urban transitions (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014), also contributing to refinement of goals, implementation of new practices (Seitanidi and Crane, 2009) and creation of collaborative momentum (Fawcett et al., 2012; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). However, some scholars highlight the need to develop connecting vehicles that help to transcend seeding initiatives, consolidating scale (Frantzeskaki et al., 2017), reinforcing effectiveness (Horan, 2019) and increasing the chances of systemic impact (Ehnert et al., 2018). Such arrangements, materialized for example through connected portfolios, may also foster crossdepartmental and policy synergies in local governments (Coaffee and Deas, 2008; Hastings, 1996). A balance between bottom–up and top–down approaches is suggested to fully unlock the transformational potential of such vehicles (Horan, 2019). Unlocking Internal Change When an organization embarks on a sustainability transition, internal organizational changes – both structural and behavioural – are necessary (Bögel et al., 2019; Peters, 1998; Roberts, 2000; Soberón et al., 2020), and specific actions may be devoted to creating an internal climate of readiness for change (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). Public institutions, particularly influenced by specialization and fragmentation in the last decades (Kavanagh and Richards, 2001; Ryan and Walsh, 2004; Verhoest and Lægreid, 2010), require an accompaniment in this endeavour (Soberón et al., 2020) that may be provided by facilitating and intermediary vehicles (Kivimaa et al., 2019; Manning and Roessler, 2013; Moreno-Serna et al., 2020a). Hodson and Marvin (2010) identify several critical factors in this regard: the promotion of a shared organizational culture, the establishment of continuous learning mechanisms, and the development of diverse communication fora to cultivate local presence and to help align interests (Hodson and Marvin, 2010). An agile management based on shared values, such as generosity, commitment, agility, flexibility, attention to incentives and details, may also contribute to spreading internal and external collaboration in a particular environment (Moreno-Serna et al., 2020a). The Barriers at Higher Education Institutions Although there is a clear understanding about the role the HEIs can play in the urban transformation, policy and practical barriers appear to hinder the transformational potential of HEIs to effect change at the urban level. 283

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

In relation to their mission as educators, HEIs offer academic programmes focused on sustainability, but they are generally too narrow in scope and there is a risk that they pay attention only to environmental issues, neglecting essential social, economic and ethical dimensions (Ramos et al., 2015; Cottafava et al., 2019). As for research efforts, university structures and incentives rarely integrate interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder collaboration efforts in any R&D project or programme (Bursztyn and Drummond, 2014; Mataix et al., 2017). In addition, many HEIs, including Spanish public universities such as those used here as case studies, are typically conservative in nature and can present resistance to change related to leadership, management or governance that hinders the development of levers for achieving transformational change … As such, new models that combine the entrepreneurial capability of a network with the organizational efficiency of a traditional hierarchy are more and more needed. (Moreno-Serna et al., 2021b, p. 3). Throughout the next section, the cases of the Spanish cities of Madrid and Valencia, and the bonds they have built with public universities to accelerate their climate neutrality roadmaps, are explored to illustrate from the practice the aforementioned theoretical and policy frameworks.

The Case of Madrid: Deep Demonstration Programme In 2017, the Department of the Environment at Madrid City Council (MCC) and the Innovation and Technology for Development Centre at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (itdUPM) launched an innovation programme that was intended to explore the possibilities of systemic innovation – technological, organizational, regulatory, fiscal, social – to strengthen municipal public policy on climate change, complementing the instruments that were already in place. This experience, based on the previous collaboration between the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) and the City Council in areas such as air quality, urban planning or sustainable mobility, is based on the capacities (tangible and intangible) that a university can mobilize in collaboration with the city that hosts it, such as specialized knowledge, possibilities for experimentation on university campuses, connection with youth, neutrality, legitimacy and the ability to attract other public, private and social actors. Thanks to this university–City Council collaboration, Madrid joined the Deep Demonstrations in Healthy and Clean Cities programme, an initiative funded by the EC (through the climate branch of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, EIT Climate-KIC) to accelerate climate neutrality in some demonstrative territories serving as a pilot experience of the European Mission on Climate-Neutral Cities. The design principles are based on the need to connect existing initiatives (usually isolated by the silo effect), foster learning among different sectors and organizations, and develop demand-driven innovation programmes, in this case, local climate neutrality public policies (‘challenge owner’ approach). The Madrid Deep Demonstration (MDD) arose in 2019 as a partnership promoted by MCC, UPM, Ferrovial (a large Spanish infrastructure company) and EIT Climate-KIC, with the aim of accelerating the achievement of Madrid’s Climate Neutrality Roadmap (see Figure 15.1). The facilitation function assumed by all partners (jointly evaluating incentives, promoting consensus building or distributed governance) allows the mobilization of a large number of actors through deep and stable public–private– social collaboration. 284

University–City Partnerships

FIGURE 15.1  Madrid Deep Demonstration organizational ecosystem, 2021. Note: The authors confirm that they have permission to replicate the figures for this book. Icons from the figures made by Freepik from www.flati​con.com.

MDD’s cross-sectoral action is fostered through its ‘Experimentation Portfolio’, a set of connected initiatives of sufficient scale in areas such as mobility, building retrofit or nature-based solutions, designed and implemented in a multi-stakeholder manner following ‘systemic principles’: 1. It acts simultaneously in different points of the city system through the connection of levers of change, innovating in areas such as finance and technology, culture and participation, community initiatives, governance, policies or regulation, linking these levers with an economic analysis of the decarbonization process that illustrates the most profitable measures in the short and medium term. 2. It combines the redesign of existing municipal initiatives using transformative ingredients such as a multi-stakeholder approach, regulatory innovation or inter-sectoral connections, with the design, fundraising and execution of ex-novo projects. 3. It promotes a continuous learning process among the initiatives of the Experimentation Portfolio and strengthens trust and capacity building for collaborative work among the main urban actors. The Experimentation Portfolio of the MDD includes a set of more than twenty projects combining large municipal projects, such as the Metropolitan Forest where public–private collaboration is fundamental, with bottom–up initiatives such as, for example, citizen science projects in elementary schools of the south of the city. It also supports pre-existing actions such as the UPM start-up accelerator, which by entering the portfolio aligns with the great challenges of climate neutrality in Madrid and connects with accelerators in other cities in Europe. Other projects are also found 285

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

that promote regulatory innovation in Madrid Nuevo Norte, the largest urban development in Europe: for example, ‘Madrid Compensa 2.0’, a public–private municipal emissions compensation mechanism; art and culture programmes promoted by the Center of Arte Matadero, as the ‘Mutant Institute of Environmental Narratives’; or a project to create the first municipal ‘demonstrative area of climate action’ (a new local regulatory figure) around UPM’s southern campus. A multi-stakeholder partnership like MDD represents a remarkable opportunity to reinforce the creation of synergistic value among partners. For MCC, sustained interaction with a diverse ecosystem of practitioners and academics represents a continuous learning process for city officials and a safe space that allows a bolder position to implement the transformation policies of the city. In addition, MDD connects Madrid with the most advanced climate neutrality experiences in Europe and strengthens cohesion among different government areas. For EIT Climate-KIC, MDD constitutes a vehicle to connect its other climate innovation programmes with a real and continuous urban transformation. For private companies, MDD is an opportunity to establish collaborations with unlikely actors, enriching their innovation policies and connecting them with social needs such as the climate neutrality of cities. For an HEI, MDD is an opportunity to connect its research, teaching, innovation and campus management policies with the needs of society, linking them to a European research priority and preparing its structures for the novelties of Horizon Europe (EU Research Program 2021–2027). To conclude this section, some of the lessons learnt with the case of the MDD are summarized below: 1. The innovation concept based on the challenge owner approach increases the effectiveness and efficiency in this multi-stakeholder partnership since the detailed knowledge of the local reality provided by the City Council facilitates a more precise identification of the problems and the potential levers of change, which is enriched with the perspective of the other partners. MDD also enables the alignment of previously disconnected public resources, facilitates the incorporation of private capital in actions with high transformational potential and attracts resources from European sources of financing. 2. The facilitation role assumed by all partners enables the increment of impact by promoting internal change and an organizational culture that breaks down silos and barriers to internal and external collaboration. 3. Distributed leadership is a necessary condition to generate a shared vision among a wide group of practitioners with heterogenous organizational values and cultures, and a comfortable collaborative environment compatible with the functions that each individual performs in their organization. 4. A university–City Council collaboration may provide city transformation with a transversal organizational vehicle that brings together bottom–up and top–down approaches.

The Case of the City of Valencia València 2030 Urban Strategy/Missions Valencia 2030 The València 2030 Urban Strategy is a process aimed at rethinking the city model, a need that has been highlighted by different political, social and economic stakeholders for various reasons. In the first place, this kind of reflection had not been carried out in Valencia for a long time; second, 286

University–City Partnerships

when it had been done, it had been from limited and sectorial perspectives without a global and systemic vision; and third, current social, economic, climatic and technological changes have forced us to rethink the city from its different perspectives to identify the challenges that the city and its governance must confront. In this sense, the creation of a space for strategic reflection and an organizational structure to define and promote the ‘model of the city we want’ becomes a key issue for the future of the city. For this reason, the development of the València 2030 Urban Strategy is articulated through three fundamental vectors. In the first place, the SDGs and the Urban Agenda provide a framework of widely agreed objectives at the international, state and regional levels to guide urban transformations and guarantee a dignified and healthy life for future generations. Second, the mission-oriented innovation developed through Missions Valencia 2030 recognizes that cities are in an increasingly complex, uncertain and dynamic ecosystem in which research and innovation must be incorporated to develop new and creative solutions to problems that are also new, such as the pandemic, climate change or growing social inequality. Third, the extraordinary context of the post-Covid-19 era that, on the one hand, puts at the centre key concepts to rethink the city model (such as the idea of a healthy city), and on the other, the financial instruments linked to the Next Generation EU that can play a key role in mobilizing public resources for the transformation of the city. Furthermore, the unique element of the València 2030 Urban Strategy is defining the Urban Agenda as a single strategic framework with the missions of innovation through six perspectives to rethink the city: sustainable, healthy, shared, prosperous and entrepreneurial, creative and Mediterranean. In this way, the strategic vision of Valencia incorporates the vector of science, research and innovation as a key element to develop a way of working based on experimentation, planning and action, evaluation and continuous learning in the process of transformation of the city. Thus, it aims to strengthen institutions, governments, public policies and regulatory frameworks by providing, from practice, demonstrators of how to address the great challenges of the city. At the same time, it is recognized that the success of innovation missions in cities will not only come from innovation, but from the full set of public policies and instruments, as well as private, social and academic initiatives. The València 2030 Missions Framework was approved in the plenary session in May 2020 and incorporated into the València 2030 Urban Strategy Framework in April 2021 – in both cases with a broad political consensus, both from the government parties and from the opposition. Within the vision of Valencia as a sustainable city and in tune with the mission areas formulated by the EC, the first mission to make Valencia a climate-neutral city in 2030 was formulated and approved in the municipal plenary session. Formally and in accordance with the guidelines expressed by the commission at that time, the mission was formulated as achieving at least three climate-neutral neighborhoods/towns in the city of Valencia by 2030 for and by the citizens and involves an institutional appeal to all actors in the civil society, the world of academia and research, the economic sectors with activity in the city and its surroundings and the rest of the public institutions of the Valencian Community, the Government of Spain and the European Union to join this Climate mission of the city of València redirecting its efforts and its R&D&I processes to help in the success of the València Ciudad Neutra mission (Missions València, n.d.). To form this alliance for the city’s climate transition, the figure of the mission’s ambassador was important, as it implied a voluntary adherence by companies, organizations and institutions to the 287

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

mission’s objectives. Specifically, they committed themselves through a letter of adherence to the mission to ‘support within their scope of action and activity, the processes and transformations that are within their reach to positively impact the missions of the city of Valencia seeking the improvement of people’s lives’, Moreover, the city of Valencia launched the Roundtable for the Energy Transition in July 2020, formed by relevant stakeholders from the penta-helix approach, and this defined six pilot projects to advance the energy transition of the city. All of them are fully aligned with the València Ciudad Neutra mission, a project that aims to develop climate-neutral districts to serve as examples and demonstrations for their scaling to the city. The group was coordinated by the Climate and Energy Foundation of the city of Valencia and, through the Tomorrow project financed by the Horizon 2020 programme, has had direct support from two research institutes, INGENIO CSIC-UPV and DRIFT, for a methodological development of its work based on systemic innovation and multistakeholder collaboration. This collaboration between Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) and the City Council created an open channel to foster transformation in both the city and the university. Universitat Politècnica de València Responds to the Climatic Mission The university ecosystem of the UPV follows the structure of most universities, namely a Rector’s (University President/Vice-Chancellor/Principal) office that governs the different transversal university services, such as the environment unit or the international cooperation centre and by the specific teaching and research services, such as the departments, schools and institutes. However, the idiosyncrasy of the UPV means that other relevant stakeholders have appeared on the transition to sustainability, including different non-governmental development organizations (NGDOs) such as CERAI (Center for International Agricultural Rural Studies) or ISF (Engineers without Borders) or various university chairs created to promote and raise awareness on issues related to climate change and sustainability. The main purpose of a chair is to develop activities of general interest to the university community, offering students extra-academic training. Activities of general interest are those that benefit the university community and the company without generating results owned by the latter. For the company it means the possibility of (1) sharing academic knowledge and getting in touch with the innovative, scientific-technical environment; (2) associating the name of the company with that of the university through a qualified, long-lasting and prestigious relationship; (3) maintaining a relationship with students, teachers and researchers who are at the forefront of research; (4) carrying out activities in the area of knowledge and interest of the company and the university jointly. Among the sixty-seven business chairs at the UPV, not all of them are subsidized by private companies, and several are funded by town or regional councils; one chair (Cátedra de Dades obertes) is financed by two NGDOs (ACICOM and MESURA). Until April 2021, the actions carried out by these chairs were independent and there was no common strategy to work on the climate mission at the UPV. A first joint act consisted of a document on ecological transition at the university agreed by twelve chairs and sent to all the candidates standing for rector position in the May 2021 elections at the UPV. This exercise served to identify those chairs who wanted to join an alliance to establish a climate roadmap at

288

University–City Partnerships

TABLE 15.1  List of Chairs, Part of the UPV’s Alliance for Ecological Transition, UPM, Spain

Chair

Area

Funder

AVANT UPV Agencia Valenciana Antidespoblament

Rural depopulation

Regional government

Dades Obertes

Data science

ONGDs (ACICOM and MESURA)

Cambio Climático

Climate change

Regional government

Economia Valenciana

Sustainable economy

Regional government

Aguas de Valencia

Water

Aguas de Valencia (private company)

Gobernanza ciudad de Valencia

ICTs

City Council of Valencia

Nueva Transición Verde

Ecological transition

Regional government

Transición Energética CV

Energy transition

Regional government

Transición Energética Urbana

Energy transition

City Council of Valencia

Innovación en Vivienda

Town planning

Regional government

Planeta y Desarrollo Sostenible

Ecological transition

Regional government

Tierra Ciudadana

Agri-food

City Council of Valencia

Source: Authors.

the university. These twelve chairs, presented in Table 15.1, work in very different areas, from agri-food to open data science. The first collective workshop was carried out in June 2021 with a mapping of initiatives following the methodology of Matti et al. (2020) in which the transformative initiatives, the stakeholders involved and the barriers and opportunities that appeared in their execution were analysed (Matti et al., 2020). Figure 15.2 captures the main results of this mapping, noting that most of the initiatives are related to municipal policies, formation and sensitization, and the stakeholders involved are mainly students and the City Council. Among the mapped initiatives, an activity that was a catalyst for the alliance that subsequently took place was identified. It was the hackathon for the decarbonization of the UPV campus de Vera held in October 2020. Around thirty students participated and proposed five solutions for the decarbonization of the campus, generating synergies with other UPV services, with other chairs and with the innovation centre ‘Las Naves’ part of the Valencia City Council. The momentum continued and, in October 2021, a conference was held at the UPV to present the alliance of chairs and the proposal that the Vera campus be a ‘living lab’ for the climate mission of the city of Valencia. The event ended with a participatory workshop where the participants reflected on how this living lab should be and with what objectives. It is worth highlighting the importance of the society–university relationship and the alignment with the main objectives of the climate mission. Reflecting on this process, key learnings can be extracted relevant both internally and to scale, and the experience can be recreated in other universities. In the first place, it should be noted that this alliance of chairs, also supported by other stakeholders such as researchers, professors,

289

290

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

FIGURE 15.2  Main results of the mapping of initiatives at UPV during a collective workshop.

students and NGDOs based on the campus, has been forged with a spirit of social innovation and in a participatory and collective perspective. This has led to an atmosphere of great enthusiasm and with great participation from the university community, but which has also faced bureaucratic and institutional limitations when launching different actions and initiatives, such as reducing food waste on campus or modifying the procurements for cafeterias and restaurants to make them greener. However, these niches have been able to create a dialogue between institutions and is being negotiated as a formal agreement for the collaboration of this binomial. It is important to highlight that even though it is a bottom–up strategy, the commitment of public institutions in funding chairs has been fundamental to bringing the debate on sustainability and the climate mission to the university. This element appears clearly in the Urban Energy Transition Chair, financed by the Valencia City Council and which has become the promoter of this alliance of chairs and the proposal for the living lab on the de Vera campus. Not only that, but this pressure from the chairs and other stakeholders has allowed the importance of aligning with the València 2030 Urban Strategy to be included on the political agenda of the rector’s office and creating the space for efficient and collective work of the university and city binomial. Finally, it is important to emphasize the importance of including innovative and creative methodologies based on design and systems thinking (De Vicente and Matti, 2016) that have been tested in different hackathons and other academic proposals. The main results of using these methodologies have been analysed (Aránguiz et al., 2020), reflecting the impact on the critical thinking of the participants. Ahead, UPV has many challenges, including creating a space for innovation and creativity that allows the university community to participate, influence and co-create a more sustainable city in line with the climate mission, which is the great commitment of the city of Valencia to 2030 and engaging with the entire university community in the process.

290

University–City Partnerships

Conclusions Previous sections showed how a stable bond between a city and a university can underpin a local sustainability transformation policy. Thanks to intangible assets, such as legitimacy or neutrality, the combination of expert knowledge, independence and capacity for developing their own strategic mission-oriented programmes, universities can develop a strong convening capacity and constitute a synergistic partner for a City Council in pursuit of sustainable development. The cases of Madrid and Valencia have illustrated the main attributes of transformational and systemic collaborations towards the achievement of sustainability-oriented missions, including: 1. Articulation of a shared vision through a clear common roadmap that grounds an international policy: In both cases, the adaptation to the local context of international policies such as the European New Green Deal or the European Mission on Climate-Neutral Cities resulted in specific instruments, for example, the Missions València Urban Strategy and Madrid’s Climate Neutrality Roadmap. These instruments have enabled the creation of a shared vision among a wide set of stakeholders, a transformational understanding of the needed local transition, and it has also reinforced the creation of hybrid municipal-university vehicles such as the MDD or the UPV chairs. 2. Cross-sectoral action to affect singular points of a system: The organizational vehicles to reinforce the urban transformation have been designed with a holistic approach and scale. The UPV chairs encompass areas such as water, energy, housing or governance and the MDD Portfolio is precisely an instrument to foster the systemic understanding of the projects that constitute the operational side of the Climate Neutrality Roadmap. 3. Facilitating function as an essential component: The design and implementation of sustainability mission-oriented programmes such as those described here are complex processes where many different stakeholders have their own visions, languages and incentives. Thus, a facilitation function oriented to create a meaningful experience for the individuals and organizations involved resulted in a fundamental piece of the work to create the UPV twelve chairs partnership or the MDD. Indeed, a group of specialists usually conducted this function, or it was undertaken by an organization and then progressively transferred to all the partners, as done so at MDD. This reinforces the capacity to attract stakeholders and resources to the city transformation process and to create a platform for long-lasting systematic change. 4. Unlocking internal change at universities: Universities have a lot to contribute to the urban transformations towards climate neutrality. However, they cannot participate in these processes without also being transformed themselves. Internal partnerships such as the UPV chairs may help to break down silos and foster the creation of interdisciplinary collaboration culture. Besides, university campuses such as the de Vera campus at UPV or the southern campus at UPM may constitute front-runner city areas to achieve climate neutrality. In addition, the needed cross-organizational learning mechanisms may help to develop novel public policydriven multi-stakeholder training programmes that may in turn enrich educational offers and contribute to create a new generation of collaboration practitioners. Finally, we want to highlight that it is our considered opinion that the EU’s current local transformation policies should place more attention on building trust and synergies among cities at a member state level to sustain and spread them along the regions. For this reason, this chapter

291

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

shows the emergent connections among cities, universities and other actors in Spain that will act as a precursor of the Spanish platform for the implementation of the EU Cities Mission.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT



1. Given the global move towards urbanization, it is essential for HEIs –especially those in city-regional contexts as anchor institutions – to foster radical collaboration among key stakeholders. 2. The convening power of universities is a powerful and often underutilized asset that can be harnessed in pursuit of sustainability. 3. Climate action connects local and global actors, and the university–city axis in this agenda offers a test bed for learning, research and innovation the results of which can be scaled where appropriate.

References Aránguiz, P., Palau-Salvador, G., Belda, A., and Peris, J. (2020). ‘Critical Thinking Using Project-Based Learning: The Case of the Agroecological Market at the “Universitat Politècnica de València” ’. Sustainability, 12 (9), p. 3553. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su1​2093​553. Armenakis, A. A., and Harris, S. G. (2002). ‘Crafting a Change Message to Create Transformational Readiness’. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, pp. 169–83. doi: https://doi. org/10.1108/095348​1021​0423​080. Austin, J. E., and Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). ‘Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of Partnering between Nonprofits and Businesses: Part I. Value Creation Spectrum and Collaboration Stages’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, pp. 726–58. Austin, J. E., and Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). ‘Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of Partnering between Nonprofits and Businesses. Part 2: Partnership Processes and Outcomes’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, pp. 929–68. Bögel, P., Pereverza, K., Upham, P., and Kordas, O. (2019). ‘Linking Socio-Technical Transition Studies and Organizational Change Management: Steps towards an Integrative, Multi-Scale Heuristic’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, pp. 359–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle​pro.2019.05.286. Bursztyn, M., and Drummond, J. (2014). ‘Sustainability Science and the University: Pitfalls and Bridges to Interdisciplinarity’. Environmental Education Research, 20, pp. 313–32. Churchman, C. W. (1967). ‘Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems’. Management Science, 14 (4), pp. B141–6. Coaffee, J., and Deas, I. (2008). ‘The Search for Policy Innovation in Urban Governance: Lessons from Community-Led Regeneration Partnerships’. Public Policy and Administration, 23, pp. 167–87. Cottafava, D., Cavaglià, G., and Corazza, L. (2019). ‘Education of Sustainable Development Goals through Students’ Active Engagement: A Transformative Learning Experience’. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10 (3), 521–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ SAMPJ-05-2018-0152. Accessed 16 August 2022. Crosby, B. C., and Bryson, J. M. (2005). ‘A Leadership Framework for Cross-Sector Collaboration’. Public Management Review, 7, pp. 177–201. Crosby, B. C., and Bryson, J. M. (2010). ‘Integrative Leadership and the Creation and Maintenance of Cross-Sector Collaborations’. Leadership Quarterly, 21, pp. 211–30. De Vicente Lopez, J., and Matti, C. (2016). Visual Toolbox for System Innovation. A Resource Book for Practitioners to Map, Analyse and Facilitate Sustainability Transitions. Transitions Hub Series. Brussels: Climate-KIC.

292

University–City Partnerships

Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Barnes, J., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Kern, F., Strenchock, L., and Egermann, M. (2018). ‘The Acceleration of Urban Sustainability Transitions: A Comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm’. Sustainability, 10, p. 612. European Commission (EC) (2019). ‘A European Green Deal’. https://ec.eur​opa.eu/info/strat​egy/pri​orit​ ies-2019-2024/europ​ean-green-deal​_en. Accessed 11 February 2021. European Commission (EC) (2020). ‘100 Climate-Neutral Cities by 2030 – by and for the Citizens: Report of the Mission Board for Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities’. http://op.eur​opa.eu/en/ publ​icat​ion-det​ail/-/publ​icat​ion/bc7e4​6c2-fed6-11ea-b44f-01aa7​5ed7​1a1. Accessed 11 February 2021. European Commission (EC) (2021). ‘Implementation Plans for the EU Missions’. https://resea​rch-and-inn​ ovat​ion.ec.eur​opa.eu/knowle​dge-publi​cati​ons-tools-and-data/publi​cati​ons/all-publi​cati​ons/imp​leme​ntat​ ion-plans-eu-miss​ions​_en. Accessed 16 August 2022. Fawcett, S. E., Fawcett, A. M., Watson, B. J., and Magnan, G. M. (2012). ‘Peeking Inside the Black Box: Toward an Understanding of Supply Chain Collaboration Dynamics’. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48, pp. 44–72. Flynn, P. M., Tan, T. K., and Gudić, M. (2017). Redefining Success: Integrating Sustainability into Management Education. New York: Routledge. Frantzeskaki, N., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Egermann, M., and Ehnert, F. (2017). ‘Nature-Based Solutions Accelerating Urban Sustainability Transitions in Cities: Lessons from Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm Cities’, in N. Kabisch et al. (eds), Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Cham: Springer, pp. 65–88. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., and Loorbach, D. (2014). ‘The Role of Partnerships in “Realising” Urban Sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, The Netherlands’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, pp. 406–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle​pro.2013.09.023. Geels, F. W. (2004). ‘From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems: Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory’. Research Policy, 33, pp. 897–920. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.res​pol.2004.01.015. Haertle, J., Parkes, C., Murray, A., and Hayes, R. (2017). ‘PRME: Building a Global Movement on Responsible Management Education’. International Journal of Management Education, 15, pp. 66–72. Hamann, R., and April, K. (2013). ‘On the Role and Capabilities of Collaborative Intermediary Organizations in Urban Sustainability Transitions’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, pp. 12–21. Hansen, J. A., and Lehmann, M. (2006). ‘Agents of Change: Universities as Development Hubs’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, pp. 820–9. Hastings, A. (1996). ‘Unravelling the Process of “Partnership” in Urban Regeneration policy’. Urban Studies, 33, pp. 253–68. Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010). ‘Can Cities Shape Socio-Technical Transitions and How Would We Know If They Were?’ Research Policy, 39, pp. 477–85. Horan, D., 2019. ‘A New Approach to Partnerships for SDG Transformations’. Sustainability, 11, p. 4947. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su1​1184​947. Kang, L., and Xu, L. (2018). ‘Creating Sustainable Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation’. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7, 339. Kavanagh, D., and Richards, D. (2001). ‘Departmentalism and Joined-Up Government’. Parliamentary Affairs, 54, pp. 1–18. Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., and Klerkx, L. (2019). ‘Towards a Typology of Intermediaries in Sustainability Transitions: A Systematic Review and a Research Agenda’. Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology, and Innovation Research from SPRU’s 50th Anniversary Conference, 48, pp. 1062–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.res​pol.2018.10.006. Köhler, J., Geels, F., Kern, F., Markard, J., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fuenfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Sampsa, H., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, S., Nykvist, B., and Wells, P. (2019). ‘An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, pp. 1–32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

293

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L., Castro, P., and Newman, J. (2017). Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Cham: Springer. Loorbach, D. (2010). ‘Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, ComplexityBased Governance Framework’. Governance, 23, pp. 161–83. Lozano, R., Merrill, M. Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., and Lozano, F. J. (2017). ‘Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework proposal’. Sustainability, 9, p. 1889. Manning, S., and Roessler, D. (2013). ‘The Formation of Cross-Sector Development Partnerships: How Bridging Agents Shape Project Agendas and Longer-Term Alliances’. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, pp. 527–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10​551-013-1853-5. Mataix, C., Romero, S., Mazorra, J., Moreno, J., Ramil, X., Stott, L., Carrasco, J., Lumbreras, J., and Borrela, I. (2017). ‘Working for Sustainability Transformation in an Academic Environment: The Case of itdUPM’, in W. Leal Filho, M. Mifsud, C. Shiel and R. Pretorius (eds), Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Cham: Springer International, pp. 391–408. Matti, C., Martín Corvillo, J. M., Vivas Lalinde, I., Juan Agulló, B., Stamate, E., Avella, G., and Bauer A. (2020). Challenge-Led System Mapping. A Knowledge Management Approach. Transitions Hub series. Brussels: EIT Climate-KIC. Mayne, Q., De Jong, J., and Fernandez-Monge, F. (2020). ‘State Capabilities for Problem-Oriented Governance’. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3, pp. 33–44. doi: https://doi. org/10.1093/ppm​gov/gvz​023. Missions València (n.d.). ‘Valencia Greenlights Its First Mission to Achieve Climate Neutrality by 2030’. https://www.missi​onsv​alen​cia.eu/prim​era-mis​ion-ciu​dad-neu​tra/?lang=en. Accessed 16 August 2022. Mitchell, B. (2005). ‘Participatory Partnerships: Engaging and Empowering to Enhance Environmental Management and Quality of Life?’, in D. T. L. Shek et al. (eds) Quality-of-Life Research in Chinese, Western and Global Contexts. Cham: Springer, pp. 123–44. Moreno-Serna, J., Purcell, W. M., Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Soberón, M., Lumbreras, J., and Mataix, C. (2020a). ‘Catalyzing Transformational Partnerships for the SDGs: Effectiveness and Impact of the Multi-Stakeholder Initiative El día después’. Sustainability, 12, p. 7189. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ su1​2177​189. Moreno-Serna, J., Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Mazorra, J., Arzamendi, A., Stott, L., and Mataix, C. (2020b). ‘Transformational Collaboration for the SDGs: The Alianza Shire’s Work to Provide Energy Access in Refugee Camps and Host Communities’. Sustainability, 12, p. 539. Moreno-Serna, J., Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Stott, L., Mazorra, J., Carrasco-Gallego, R., and Mataix, C. (2021a). ‘Feedback Loops and Facilitation: Catalyzing Transformational Multi-Stakeholder Refugee Response Partnerships’. Sustainability, 13, p. 11705. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13​2111​705. Moreno-Serna, J., Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Purcell, W. M., and Mataix, C. (2021b). ‘Driving Transformational Sustainability in a University Through Structural and Academic Innovation: A Case Study of a Public University in Spain’. Advances in Engineering Education, 10 (1), 1–34. . https:// drive.goo​gle.com/file/d/1kES-vRvmt​TVeP​WCXs​Pr0E​5_59​pO9F​86d/view. Accessed 16 August 2022. Opoku, A., and Guthrie, P. (2018). ‘Education for Sustainable Development in the Built Environment’. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 14 (1), pp. 1–3. doi: https://doi. org/10.1080/15578​771.2018.1418​614. Owens, T. L. (2017). ‘Higher Education in the Sustainable Development Goals Framework’. European Journal of Education, 52, pp. 414–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12237. Peters, B. G. (1998). ‘Managing Horizontal Government. The Politics of Coordination’. Public Administration, 76 (2), pp. 295–311. Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., and Spengler, J. D. (2019). ‘Universities as the Engine of Transformational Sustainability Toward Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals: “Living labs” for Sustainability’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20, pp. 1343–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0103.

294

University–City Partnerships

Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., van Hoof, B., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., and Ceulemans, K. (2015). ‘Experiences from the Implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 3–10. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle​pro.2015.05.110. Accessed 16 August 2022. Ring, P. S., and Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). ‘Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships’. Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 90–118. Rittel, H. W., and Webber, M. M. (1973). ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’. Policy Sciences, 4, pp. 155–69. Roberts, N. (2000). ‘Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution’. International Public Management Review, 1, pp. 1–19. Ryan, C., and Walsh, P. (2004). ‘Collaboration of Public Sector Agencies: Reporting and Accountability Challenges’. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17 (7), pp. 621–31. Seitanidi, M. M., and Crane, A. (2009). ‘Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships’. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, pp. 413–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10​551-008-9743-y. Accessed 16 August 2022. Soberón, M., Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Urquijo, J., and Pereira, D. (2020). ‘Introducing an Organizational Perspective in SDG Implementation in the Public Sector in Spain: The Case of the Former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Environment’. Sustainability, 12, p. 9959. Stott, L. (2018). Shaping Sustainable Change: The Role of Partnership Brokering in Optimising Collaborative Action. New York: Routledge. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2020). ‘Accelerating Education for the SDGs in Universities: A Guide for Universities, Colleges, and Tertiary and Higher Education Institutions’. https://resour​ces.uns​dsn.org/accel​erat​ing-educat​ion-for-the-sdgs-in-unive​rsit​ies-a-guide-for-unive​rsit​ ies-colle​ges-and-terti​ary-and-hig​her-educat​ion-insti​tuti​ons. Accessed 11 February 2021. United Nations (2015). ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. Resolution 70/1 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September. https://sus​tain​ able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/post2​015/trans​form​ingo​urwo​rld. Accessed 11 February 2021. Verhoest, K., and Lægreid, P. (2010). ‘Organizing Public Sector Agencies: Challenges and Reflections’, in P. Lægreid and K. Verhoest (eds), Governance of Public Sector Organizations. Cham: Springer, pp. 276–97. World Bank (2021). ‘Urban Population’. https://data.worldb​ank.org/indica​tor/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS. Accessed 11 February 2021. Zak, P. J. (2017). ‘The Neuroscience of Trust’. Harvard Business Review, 95, pp. 84–90.

295

296

296

297

16

Transformational Change: Lessons from the University of Edinburgh DAVE GORMAN AND MICHELLE BROWN

The System We Are in: Leadership and Change for Sustainability and Social Responsibility Leadership for sustainability in universities matters, but that leadership can look different in different contexts and at different times. To analyse one university’s experience, this chapter first looks at the frameworks for organizational social responsibility and sustainability (SRS) and leadership. This provides a context and theoretical underpinning within which to critically examine and illustrate the authors’ experience at the University of Edinburgh. Organizational Frameworks for Social Responsibility and Sustainability The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015a) and the Paris Agreement on climate change (United Nations, 2015b) were both finalized in 2015. These international goals can provide the context and a framework for organizations in relation to SRS. Achieving the goals requires deep transformations in every country that will require complementary actions by governments, civil society, science and business (Sachs et al., 2019). To avoid the worst climate impacts, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to drop by half by 2030 and reach netzero by around mid-century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021) while protecting and enhancing biodiversity, nature and human rights – the right to be free from poverty, the right to clean water, the right to an education, the right to equality and diversity – locally and globally. This will require research, innovation, collaboration and partnership. Universities have critical roles to play in addressing these complex, interlocking agendas. Purcell (2021) highlights how universities’ endeavours on sustainable development should not be a ‘third mission’ of universities but ‘the’ mission and a lens through which we can view research, learning and teaching and all the other work universities are involved with. Universities as large employers and purchasers of goods and services have an important role as ‘anchor institutions’ (Ehlenz, 2018) and as sites of ‘sticky capital’ that make a significant contribution to the local economy as employers and holders of land and property assets (Mosavi, 2015). In The New Power University, Grant (2021) analyses the evolution of the public purpose of the university over time and the changing purposes for social responsibility and impact. Barnett (2018) proposes the ‘ecological university’ with a mission to protect and develop an interlocking

297

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

pattern of seven systems, all of which are in some senses under threat. An ecological university would act as a conscious agent for change and challenge several existing paradigms and models of what a university is. Overall, there is a growing body of research which points to the fact that leadership for sustainability in universities matters. While universities will have unique contexts, the frameworks for SRS in the private sector can help us examine issues around leadership on these issues. For the private sector, companies have approached their SRS efforts in a variety of ways ranging from philanthropic approaches to community investment, corporate social responsibility, environmental sustainability, creating shared value and critically examining the societal impact of the goods and services provided. A myriad of standards, frameworks, and guidelines and international ‘norms’ exist to support businesses working across borders to act and demonstrate leadership for sustainability which practitioners can draw upon. Responding to the global call for a standard international definition and guidance for organizations in relation to social responsibility, the International Standards Organization published guidance in 2010 (ISO 26000) which was intended to be appropriate for any organization. The ISO guidance covers key principles such as governance, transparency and stakeholder engagement and key issues such as the environment and climate change, human rights and local community impacts and investments – emphasizing that the social responsibility of business is to contribute to sustainable development (ISO, 2010). Some companies are looking to communicate their impacts in relation to the SDGs, but specific areas of the business will have standards which contribute to define what good performance or practice on a particular issue may look like. Private-sector approaches to SRS have long faced criticism for their inability to clarify the real benefits for people and the environment (Blowfield and Frynas, 2005; Tsang et al., 2009 Elkington, 2018) and lack of impact in a systems-based approach (Bjørn et al., 2016). In terms of company examples, while we know something of the business benefits of SRS, little attention has been paid to understanding the real impact for people, natural environments and communities more generally. Research highlights that companies’ analysis of the societal benefits has tended to focus on valuing company inputs as opposed to looking at the overall outcomes and impact (Tsang et al., 2009). Business indicators for sustainability performance have focused on the relative performance or being ‘less bad’ in relation to impacts on nature or communities rather than the whole system. For example, in the 2010s, companies with commitments to climate change would communicate their relative reductions rather than looking at their footprint within planetary boundaries and using, for example, science-based targets (Bjørn et al., 2016). In looking at this ‘whole system’ issue, Bjørn et al. (2016) found that less than 5 per cent of companies publishing SRS reports mentioned ecological limits. Research shows that despite an increased focus over the past twenty years on measurement and reporting of business approaches to SRS, this has not had a commensurate systemic impact with carbon emissions continuing to rise, ongoing environmental damage and increasing social inequity (Pucker, 2021). In the context of universities, a wide range of principles, charters and commitments exist for SRS such as the Universities for Social Responsibility (USR) framework (European Students Sustainability Auditing (ESSA), 2019), the principles of the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN, 2018), the Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment for Scotland (UCCCfS, 2014) and the SDG accord (Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (EAUC), 2017). In addition, assessment tools such as the EAUC’s Sustainability Leadership 298

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

Scorecard (EAUC, n.d.) and the Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE, 2019) are available to support universities to analyse the cross-cutting nature of sustainability linked to the SDGs. Organizations committed to SRS need to think about a whole systems approach. There are likely lessons learnt from the private sector, whereby organizations with commitments to SRS have focused too much on doing ‘less bad’ and focusing on measuring the inputs rather than the real impacts for nature, people and communities in a whole systems perspective. Leadership Frameworks for Social Responsibility and Sustainability Given the challenges around sustainability and social responsibility, do traditional models of leadership and perceptions of leadership get us to the impact and scale required? Addressing the SRS challenges of our time requires new forms of leadership. Traditional leadership discourse ranges from trait to contingency theories. An abundance of literature can be found on the strengths and weaknesses of different theories and theories into practice (Heifetz et al., 2009; Visser and Courtice, 2011; Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018). It leads us to a question, in the context of sustainability, which leadership approach is most relevant? Visser and Courtice (2011, p. 28) note that ‘leadership for sustainability – is not a separate school of leadership, but a particular blend of leadership characteristics applied within a definitive context’. They observe that if one is looking for alignment with a mainstream school of leadership, then the closest fit would be the Contingency/ Interactionist school (Visser and Courtice, 2011 referencing Fiedler, 1971 and De Vries, 2001) where it is the context and adaptation that matters. Organizations are made up of people. Therefore, delivering and sustaining change requires action to guide, equip and support individuals to make the changes required. In the context of a university, Odiaga et al. (2021) found that Kotter’s eight-step change model (Kotter, 1996) can be effective in removing barriers to educational cultural change as it can help to address and break down silos. A widely referenced model, Kotter’s eight-step change model involves creating urgency; building a coalition; forming vision and initiatives; enlisting volunteers; enabling action by removing barriers; generating short-term wins; sustaining acceleration; and instituting change (Kotter, 1996). Kotter emphasizes on preparing and building acceptance for change and on the role of the leader at the centre of the process. Change management theories help understand the practice of leadership in organizational change. While universities are sometimes perceived as being averse to change, research by Fullan and Scott (2009) shows how universities instead can be very good at adapting. As complex organizations, adaptive leadership can provide a lens for understanding change and leadership for sustainability in the context of universities. Dreier et al. (2019) challenge traditional leadership models and propose a new definition of Systems Leadership, recognizing that tackling sustainability challenges requires different ways of thinking and acting from traditional models. As defined by Drier et al. (2019, p. 6) systems leadership ‘involves building and mobilising alliances of diverse stakeholders around a shared vision for systemic change, empowering widespread collaboration, innovation and action; and enabling mutual accountability for progress to shift systems towards sustainability’. This also takes an adaptive approach, requiring practical skills ranging from ‘facilitation, strategy development and communication to personal and behavioural qualities such as humility, listening skills and resourcefulness’ (Drier et al., p. 36). Given the complexity 299

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

of universities as organizations and the adaptive leadership for sustainability required, this model can help us to understand leadership and change for sustainability in the context of universities. A requirement for systems thinking and stakeholder engagement is highlighted in the ‘think like a system, act like an entrepreneur’ summary of design thinking contained in a report by Conway et al. (2017) published by the UK Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). Similarly, the term ‘social intrapreneur’ has been used to describe changemakers in large organizations (SustainAbility, 2008; Grayson, 2011) whereby people leading change for sustainability apply entrepreneurial techniques. A documented challenge with many sustainability initiatives in universities is the scaling up of solutions (Sharp, 2002). In examining the same in a corporate setting, Birrell Ivory and Mackay (2020) explored what sustainability managers do in practice when attempting to take sustainability to a strategic level in their organizations and identified three distinct ‘micro-strategies’: 1. Conforming, which has cost and profit as the focus, with efforts on environmental strategies aiming at providing organizational savings. 2. Leveraging, where the focus is on the more receptive organizational groups with a ‘case-bycase’ approach. 3. Shaping, where policies, processes and attitudes are targeted for change at scale. The University of Edinburgh has strong commitments to SRS leadership. This chapter seeks to take a critical evaluative approach to discuss the university’s development in the context of leadership and change management for sustainability. The SDGs and the transformation required to meet the Paris Agreement targets provide a backdrop. Based on the literature, leadership for sustainability requires adaptation and a systems view, and this – in addition to our experience as Director (DG) and Deputy Director of the Department (MB) for Social Responsibility and Sustainability – informs our analysis to provide further thoughts on the University of Edinburgh as a case study. The authors’ experience of over seven years at the University of Edinburgh and collectively of over forty years across sectors in the UK and around the world, working on SRS in one way, shape or form has helped form our observations. We have approached this as action researchers, recognizing that perceptions drive behaviour (Perry and Rao, 2007), but that we can test our own learning against reality in the process. We seek to use the case study of the University of Edinburgh to explore and interrogate the theories of change and leadership being applied, and the potential for that model to scale (locally and globally). It is hoped that looking at the change through a lens of time periods and different theoretical models will help provide a critical review.

University of Edinburgh: Timeline and Overview of Key Developments In this section, we introduce the University of Edinburgh case study by setting out the authors’ understanding of a brief history of the development of concepts of SRS action at the university. This forms a timeline and context for the discussion. Table 16.1 shows the key time periods and some headlines from the authors’ perspectives in relation to governance and leadership; signs of impact; and embedding across the organization. Following an overview of activities in this section, these three areas are then used to analyse the case study of the University of Edinburgh. In the following section, we consider how the models, concepts and tools discussed have been applied in practice to our activities. 300

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

TABLE 16.1  Overview of Key Developments in SRS, University of Edinburgh

Timeframe

Headlines

Headlines and Observations Sustainability Governance, Management-Making and Decision-Making

Signs of Impact and Value Creation

Embedding across the Organization

Early context and pre-2010

- Long-standing commitment to social responsibility. - Developing SRS Strategy. - Opportunistic approaches. - Energy management. - Waste, water and travel.

- Committee set up to guide and support strategy and action. - Historical commitments of university.

- Not measurable. - SRS highlights documented from 2008. - Some qualitative information in annual report and accounts.

- Pockets of excellence.

2010–14

- Student climate action. - SRS Strategy. - Climate action plan.

- Committee in place. - Court duties updated to include SRS. - SRS important (but not defined) and priority issues not defined. - Strategy but not resourced/embedded.

- Disparate initiatives. - Energy saving business case. - Carbon measurement. - Information in annual report and accounts.

- Network of champions and committed individuals. - Funding opportunities identified. - Lack of embedding in core areas affecting delivery.

2014–16

- Recruitment of Director and staff. - Providing order and focus and early wins.

- SRS defined. - Priority issues for SRS programmes defined. - More structure. - Systematic stakeholder engagement through annual surveys, events, communications, etc. - Net-zero climate strategy. - Student and future student protests helping to influence decision-making.

- Some quick wins and building evidence. - Some monitoring and evaluation of SRS programmes in place.

- Emerging understanding of strategic risk and opportunities. - Risk of centralizing action in one team versus embedding across the organization. - Change management, but not in context of higher education or university’s cultural context. (continued)

301

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Table 16.1 (continued)

Timeframe

2016–20

2020 and beyond

Headlines

- New Principal. - Getting the ‘fly wheel’ turning. - University Strategy 2030 and commitment to the SDGs.

Headlines and Observations Sustainability Governance, Management-Making and Decision-Making

Signs of Impact and Value Creation

Embedding across the Organization

- Integration in university executive and strategic planning. - Resources versus many priorities. - Declaration of climate emergency. - Community engagement strategy.

- Beginning dialogue on whole institution value creation. - Integrated reporting. - SDG impact ranking.

- Design thinking. - Social intrapreneurship. - Strategic planning. - Importance of staff learning and development.

- Integration and lens for decision-making.

- Social impact evaluation.

- Design thinking and more structured approach to embedding SRS.

Background Established in 1583, the University of Edinburgh is the largest university in Scotland with over 43,000 students and 12,000 staff. Ranked by QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) as a top twenty global university, the university student population is highly international with around 45 per cent of students from outside the UK. The university is a globally respected research-intensive university with over £300 m1 of research income. It is also a substantial organization in its own right, with a turnover of £1.2 billion, spending over £350 million per annum on goods and services, owning over 550 buildings with a gross internal area of 900,000 square meters, net assets of over £2.5bn and investments and treasury funds of over £1.1bn making it the third largest UK endowment after Oxford and Cambridge. The university is also the third largest employer in the city of Edinburgh and has offices in the United States, China, India, Chilé and Singapore. Early Context and pre-2010 The university was established in 1583 as the ‘Townis college’ and from the outset has had an orientation towards the city it is located within. It is beyond the scope of this case study to do a historical analysis of the early commitments to civic and social responsibility. The Edinburgh University Settlement (EUS, 2021) set up in the early 1900s is an often-cited example of a timeand context-specific community ethos where students lived and worked in poorer parts of the city to support social and community projects. In the 1980s and 1990s, as awareness of the emerging environmental movement and concerns over species loss and pollution began to translate in the UK to policies and programmes, the 302

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

university established functions and offices for energy management and waste that slowly developed towards an operational model of sustainability management during the early part of this century. It established a Sustainability Office, which was charged with attempting to influence a broad range of university activities. In 2008, with support from the Scottish Government’s Climate Challenge Fund and influenced by the Transition Towns model of grassroots organizations, Transition Edinburgh University (Transition Edinburgh, 2008) was established with programmes focused on energy use, leisure travel, food and waste. With over a thousand students signing up to take part in activities, this approach helped galvanize action and further interest across the university. The Period of Establishment, 2010–14 SRS was included in the university’s strategic plan in 2010 and an ‘SRS Strategy’ was published (University of Edinburgh, 2021). A new committee (Sustainability and Environmental Advisory Group, SEAG) brought together different staff and student representatives from across the university to plan and discuss priorities. By 2013, the university had begun to integrate previously disparate thinking on matters such as operational sustainability impact, community engagement, and the social and environmental contribution of research, learning and teaching into the concept of ‘social responsibility and sustainability’: A socially responsible university holds itself accountable for the effect of its activities and influence on its immediate community of students and staff, wider society both near and far, and on the rest of the natural world. A socially responsible university contributes to understanding the current state of the world, and the reasons for it, and helps inform developments through knowledge, skills, influence, actions, and example. Social Responsibility and Sustainability are essentially contested concepts … A socially responsible university welcomes this process: it helps ensure it reflects fully on what it does and how it engages with others to inform its decisions. (University of Edinburgh’s internal definition of SRS, unpublished) With these ambitions in mind, the senior team took a decision to establish a Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability (DSRS) in 2012, based within the professionally services-focused Corporate Services Group. The DSRS was created to enable the university to understand, explain and deliver on its ambition to be a leading socially responsible and sustainable university. It would merge remaining Transition Edinburgh University team members with a small sustainability office that was based in the university’s Estates team. A Director of SRS was appointed in mid-2013, followed by the Head of SRS Programmes in early 2014. Already in the DSRS was a Senior Sustainability Advisory (later Head of SRS Futures) and approximately fourteen staff. The Early Years, 2014–16 During this period, the DSRS was asked by senior leaders in the university to advise on a wide range of topics with a focus on climate and energy, resource efficiency, social responsibility in supply chains, responsible investment, and community engagement. Beyond the scope of the DSRS’ work, the university’s concept of SRS went further to include fair work, diversity 303

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and inclusion and scope for modern apprenticeships and youth employment. A high-level SRS Committee was created, chaired by the Senior Vice-Principal, to provide governance that included connections to these wider issues in its remit. In addition to working on an area directly, or in partnership with other functions, the DSRS maintained an overview of university-wide progress and created a central narrative on these issues that allowed for celebration of success but also pinpointing emerging issues and opportunities, and areas that required greater focus. The DSRS is now a relatively large team compared to others in the sector, with between eighteen and twenty-four staff members, and a budget of around £1.45 million. Much of the early period of the DSRS was spent on five types of activity: 1. Broadening and widening its understanding of the university and key allies within it, and the broader university sector. 2. Clarifying roles and legitimacy to act within agreed areas to avoid duplication and ensure alignment. 3. Seeking to deliver swiftly against a limited number of key projects that were (relatively) high profile, linked to organizational priorities and would allow the DSRS to build credibility. 4. Broadening and deepening technical capacity to allow for engagement on a wider range of issues more visibly linked to core goals (such as research, teaching, widening participation, etc.). 5. Beginning to try to extract lessons on change management and leadership from activities, both to help build further buy-in and to develop some forms of underpinning intellectual models and approaches. Raising the Ambition, 2016–20 The DSRS developed a strategy for 2016–19 to set out the priority issues, programmes and projects it would deliver over the period. The DSRS was asked by the university’s senior leadership to clarify the services it would provide to the institution, along with indicators of success. In setting out the strategy, it was recognized that the university had a broad definition for SRS. However, within that broader understanding of SRS, the department recognized there were areas it needed to lead work on and areas which would be led from elsewhere in the university. It grouped objectives for the period under the priority areas set for the department which were linked to delivering key aspects of the university’s strategic plan (University of Edinburgh, 2016a) and associated Corporate Service Group (CSG)’s business plans. A commitment to treating the university as a ‘Living Laboratory’, whereby research opportunities for students and researchers connect to provide recommendations for operational staff on SRS, was a key part of the approach and cuts across programme areas. Table 16.2 shows the priority DSRS themes over that time. In 2019, the groundwork for an updated DSRS Strategy was laid. The Director of SRS met with senior leaders across the organization in one-to-one meetings and team meetings were held in the department. Out of those discussions, and in discussion with the then Director of CSG, six priorities were identified as shown in Figure 16.1. At the same time, in 2019, the university launched Strategy 2030 (University of Edinburgh, 2020a) that set out a firm commitment to the SDGs with key focus areas on research, people, students and social and civic responsibility. The DSRS worked with the members of the SRS Committee to develop and finalize a university-wide ‘Social and Civic Responsibility Plan’ (University of Edinburgh, 2020b). In 2020, the DSRS 304

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

TABLE 16.2  Priority SRS Themes and Programmes, University of Edinburgh, 2016–19

Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability (2016–19) Theme 1 Climate and Energy SWITCH energy engagement & communications programme Sustainable labs programme and sustainable travel programme Theme 2 Resource Efficiency Resource efficiency and circular economy programme Theme 3 Supply Chain SRS Fairness in trade and sustainable procurement programme Theme 4 Responsible Investment Theme 5 Awards, Recognition, Staff Learning and Development Sustainability awards programme and be sustainable resources Theme 6 Community and Public Engagement and Links to Learning and Teaching Events, student engagement, academic engagement Strategy, governance, planning and reporting People, systems and processes Thought leadership and partnerships Source: Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability Strategy (2016–19), unpublished.

also set out new programme plans to focus on staff, students and wider community engagement for SRS with a vision of embedding SRS across the organization. Key programme areas were defined and developed for: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Sustainability Leadership and Innovation Student Leadership for Sustainability Sustainable Business and Fair Trade Community Engagement

The vision for the programmes was that, by 2025, SRS would be embedded across the university.

Discussion and Analysis This section seeks to analyse the key developments through three lenses of governance, management and decision=making; impact; and embedding change and linking back to the theoretical frameworks earlier in the chapter. Sustainability Governance, Management and Decision-Making: The Period of Establishment, 2010–14 In 2010, the university’s governing body (the Court) adopted a revised Statement of Primary Responsibilities, which included ‘To ensure that the University acts ethically, responsibly and with respect for society at large and the sustainability of the environment’ (University 305

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

FIGURE 16.1  Priorities of the DSRS, Edinburgh, 2020. Source: Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability.

of Edinburgh, 2010, p. 15). Based on conversations with a few individuals, it seems that the inclusion of SRS in the strategic plan of the university at that time was a combined effort from the then Sustainability Manager, two of the Vice-Principals and student leaders. In 2009–10, when an accompanying overall SRS Strategy was adopted, the newly created SEAG was charged with a high-level role in bringing together students, research and teaching staff as well as professional services to promote change, to enhance community engagement and to promote sustainability and social responsibility (University of Edinburgh, 2010, p. 4). This early phase had strategic commitments and some dedicated resources but not necessarily the structures, institutional support or legitimacy to drive change. The creation of the DSRS in 2013 was to help deliver on ambitions and provide a focal point for change. A Director of SRS may have provided what Kotter describes as a ‘leader at the centre’ (Kotter, 1996), able to link previous disparate initiatives together. Appointment of a Director and two senior managers and investment in a well-resourced department showed a clear commitment to support change across the university. A new Senior Vice-Principal was appointed in 2014 and tasked with chairing the newly formed SRS Committee, created out of the former SEAG group. Whereas the previous SEAG had a ‘coalition of the willing’ as per Kotter’s model (Kotter, 1996) and sat out with formal governance structures, the new SRS Committee was designed to include senior leaders with relevant functional responsibility and was incorporated in formal governance committees.

306

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

The SRS Strategy was approved in 2010 which set out a commitment to SRS across the organization and a set of high-level objectives. However, as noted, SRS can mean different things to different people, and there was a need to narrow in on the specific issues which the DSRS and its programmes would focus on, thus building understanding and a recognition of the areas the DSRS had a ‘right’ to focus on – in other words its ‘legitimacy’. Dealing with Complexity, Understanding Context, Advancing on Multiple Fronts: The Early Years, 2014–16 The finalization of a five-year DSRS plan and a wider university climate strategy in 2016 (University of Edinburgh, 2016b) helped to provide focus. During this period, the DSRS also began to develop systematic internal stakeholder engagement through annual surveys of staff and students, engagement tracking and analytics, newsletters and communication programmes to drive engagement and a commitment to quintupling of its social media outputs and engagement (targets were met in 2017) and worked closely with the university’s Students Association on a range of projects. The DSRS also worked with the SRS Committee to begin to map out a coherent narrative for the SRS Strategy and created new metrics for reporting, new reporting systems, and new ‘value for money’ and output measures nested within broader corporate reporting initiatives. Despite, by this point, a long history of commitment from the university to sustainability and the decision to establish the DSRS by senior leaders, the first few years of the DSRS were not without challenge. Both the new Director and subsequently the new Deputy Director (the authors DG and MB, respectively) were new to the sector in the UK and new to the university – and within twelve months of joining, the Director found that the two leaders responsible for recruiting the Director had moved on. New leaders arrived with new priorities and new questions on what the DSRS was for, how it should operate and what role it should play in which areas. The question of the legitimate role and purpose of the DSRS was a frequent early point of focus and the need, therefore, to build understanding of the organizational context an urgent priority (Visser and Courtice, 2011; Conway et al., 2017). Establishing early priorities across a range of possibilities and urgent issues presented a real challenge – with a wide range of voices offering advice and criticism over which path to take – a challenge recognized in Haddock-Fraser and Gorman (2020). Early in the life of the DSRS, the contentious and difficult issue of divestment arose, with the 2013–15 period often dominated by challenging discussions on what it meant to be a responsible investor, the merits or otherwise of divestment, and whether this was the right question to even focus on. A steep learning curve, under public scrutiny and pressure, was necessary for all involved and eventually an updated Responsible Investment Policy was agreed (University of Edinburgh, 2016c). However, this was at the expense of the ability to focus on other issues at the outset and to take a more measured approach to priority setting. Nonetheless, this work increased both the profile of the DSRS and its credibility. The university also lacked both a systematic definition of what the concept of ‘SRS’ included and indeed what was considered best practice elsewhere that the university could draw upon. There was a clear desire to be ‘world leading’ in ambition and action, but time and energy was needed to build up contacts and shared networks for learning – starting at UK level but broadening to include Europe and later global connections. The Director, having previously

307

308

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

been Director of Strategy for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, was able to bring substantial experience of government and public policy, Scottish environmental priorities and real-world environmental issues. The Deputy Director, who joined the DSRS from working with companies on SRS Strategies as a practitioner and researcher, while realizing that the tools and approaches for business would not entirely fit within a university, was also able to draw on a deep understanding of organizational guidance and standards. The call to action for all organizations in relation to the Paris Agreement and the global SDGs also helped to garner wider organizational support. Recognizing the internal debate around what the definition of SRS was, the DSRS was able to highlight the SDGs as an interconnected lens requiring action from all parts of society. In the early years, the DSRS was sometimes called on to be a contact point for the university’s response to the SDGs. In thinking about this period with its intensive stakeholder engagement and progress towards a shared vision, we see evidence of what Dreier et al. (2019) define as systems leadership requiring innovative and adaptive approaches which engage broad networks of stakeholders to advance progress towards a shared vision. The DSRS deployed and engaged skills such as subject expertise, strategy development, programme management, coalition building and collaboration ‘in a new way with the explicit goal of creating change on complex, systemic issues’ (Dreier et al., p. 7), drawing on systems theory and design thinking. The DSRS consciously built up its facilitation and communications abilities and developed values of ‘creative collaboration’ and a conscious leadership style aimed at humility, mutual support and listening. From Doing to Embedding? Avoiding Silos, Raising the Ambition 2016–20 As the actions and activities of the DSRS became better known, the space opened for more action, greater ambition and further linkage to core objectives, building on perceived advantages over some other functions both inside and outside the university. These advantages might be said to include scale (of the university and the department); a culture of challenge, innovation and ‘learning by doing’ in the professional services group the department was based in; a wideranging skill set within the DSRS, including those with academic training, practical experience of energy, estates and waste, professional communications skills; and a relatively internationally sourced team with experience of East Asia, Europe, the United States as well as skills in and knowledge of, business and human rights, sustainable business, enterprise, biodiversity and regulation. The emerging model of a central DSRS with a range, remit and a recognized legitimacy allowed for the ‘joining up’ of issues normally separate, for example, sustainability and widening participation, or investments and climate change. Within its capabilities, the DSRS was able to deploy specialist communications resources to assist with key messaging and raise awareness; to use the fact that the Director/Deputy Director were relatively senior to access a wider range of activities than might be possible for many sustainability leaders; and to use the breadth of issues covered by SRS to ‘knit together’ and add value to activities that might otherwise remain separate (see ‘challenge 5’ in Haddock-Fraser and Gorman (2020, pp. 6–7)). The DSRS was able to move through a range of activity frames – from saving money via sustainability actions, to enhancing the university’s reputation via clearly articulated ambitions and professionally developed communications material, to identifying and proactively managing risks. Eventually this widened towards frames that included value-added

308

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

support for research applications, where operational activities showed the university living the values of the research topic in question, opportunities to develop entirely new avenues of research along with associated income opportunities and new partners, and ultimately to seeking to fully embed SRS issues across the value proposition and business model of the university. Thus, the DSRS in partnership with the university’s commercial arm, Edinburgh Innovations, submitted or supported over £30 million of research/commercial bids between 2016 and 2020. The DSRS was also encouraged and able to develop co-curricular pathways for students to assist with university-wide courses on SRS issues including a course available to all students in all departments on sustainability and social responsibility, as well as to link study, volunteering, community support and social innovation and enterprise in innovative, creative ways supporting hundreds of students each year in the process. As awareness of SRS/DSRS rose, new demands for information and mutual support emerged. Through communications and engagement, a network of champions across the university, composed of both students and staff, were engaged and supported (and which now totals 500 – approximately half staff and half students). Working with academic allies, a learning and development course for staff as well as an online induction for both students and staff were created by the department. A systematic approach to staff and students and later community engagement was put in place. Working initially with a few academic schools (faculties), the university started to develop an integrated framework across operations, learning and teaching and to provide support for sustainability committees within schools. Actions of students and staff were recognized and formally celebrated via annual awards such as the EAUC Green Gown Awards.2 During this period, as the set of concerns defined as SRS/DSRS issues were increasingly discussed, supported and funded, a new risk arose. This might be defined as the danger of an ‘allaction’ approach where the increasing reputation of the DSRS for delivery created a tendency for the department to be expected to deliver increasingly large aspects of the agenda, as a ‘safe pair of hands’ and with an attendant risk of ‘ghettoization’ – that is the tendency to confine discussion, analysis and delivery of SRS issues to a smaller, ‘professional’ group of staff centred around the DSRS and the SRS Committee. Two examples may suffice to illustrate the point. First, hitherto excellent attendance at the SRS Committee events began to decline somewhat as it seemed colleagues felt ‘DSRS would take care of it’ with no especial need for other colleagues to engage. Second, as the DSRS reached a point of maximum staffing size, demands for advice/ co-delivery/action/more topics continued to rise and attendance at DSRS events continue to rise. It became clear that the previous approach of delivering more and more by innovating to find efficiencies in delivery of outputs would need a fundamental rethink for two reasons: To ensure that (1) the department was not overwhelmed and (2) a more systematic, ambitious ‘embedding’ agenda would need to be pursued. Embedding By 2020, it became increasingly clear there was both a need, represented by the climate emergency, and an opportunity to go further and attempt to fully embed these issues as far as possible across the core set of university activities, namely: teaching, research, commercialization, planning and resourcing, capital plans, academic travel, the student experience, relations to the city and so on.

309

310

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

This was reinforced by a recognition that the model of 2013–20 – namely, building alliances, co-delivery of projects, growing outputs with an efficiency-led approach – was no longer appropriate or sustainable for the long erm. The department needed to reconsider its overall approach and to work smarter, not harder. In 2020, the university’s Strategy 2030 had included a strong commitment to the SDGs with ‘Social and Civic Responsibility’ as a key focus area along with commitments to be on track to be net-zero carbon by 2040 (University of Edinburgh, 2020a, p. 31). In April 2020, the University Executive, which oversees the implementation and delivery of the university’s strategic objectives, approved the Social and Civic Responsibility Plan (University of Edinburgh, 2020b) which set out strategic objectives in relation to the climate and ecological emergency; inclusion and participation; community engagement, along with a cross-cutting theme to engage critically with and contribute to the SDGs in our operations, research, learning and teaching. A range of factors contributed to a new approach to DSRS from 2020. These include: 1. Influencing and being influenced by the process of the production of a new strategic plan in 2030. 2. A new Principal committed to a values-led approach. 3. Clear commitments in the strategic plan to embed the SDGs. 4. Fresh request from the governing body to ensure full integration. The approach to embedding SRS sought to not only maintain understanding of the university, key allies, key objectives and so on, but also consciously reverse polarity to avoid the danger of the all-action approach and the ghettoization effect. In other words, the DSRS has reached its maximum extent in terms of resourcing, and instead of arguably being seen as the centre for delivery, it would seek to raise awareness of the issues and the need for embedding, but support schools, colleges and professional groups to take up the challenge – equipping them with the data, knowledge and tools to make their own assessments as well as to choose their own path to embedding. Not so much ‘all action’ as the ‘oil in the wheels’ or the catalyst. Signs of Impact Early on, the DSRS sought to ensure that its work was ultimately bringing benefits and trying to frame those benefits for the organization and in the context of benefits for society and the environment. In looking at professional practice and the work of the DSRS, the SRS programmes unit would meet each quarter to critically analyse and discuss the impact and potential impact of its work. The teams would be encouraged to engage in questions such as ‘So what?’ and asked to think about the real changes and benefits that have happened because of this work and investment. One newly joined participant from another part of the university commented that this was the first time they had encountered such discussions at the university. Hence, there was some evidence that our approach to critically evaluate our work in an ongoing way was unique for a professional services department. This was at a time when there were also wider discussions on measuring and evaluating impact for society. Understanding impact on society goes to the core of the mission of many organizations. For universities in the UK, some of the impacts of universities in research are captured through the Research Evaluation Framework (REF, 2021) and in England through the Teaching Excellence

310

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) (Office for Students, 2021). Universities are of course ranked and rated on a wide range of issues. With the launching of the SDGs, organizations around the world are working to contextualize the myriad of ways that they contribute towards addressing poverty and wider social and environmental impacts. For universities, in 2019, the Times Higher Education (THE) established a new ranking to recognize the impact of universities on society (THE World University Rankings, 2021). THE Impact Rankings look at universities across research, learning, teaching and operations, and the links to the global SDGs. At the University of Edinburgh, strategic plans in 2010, 2016 and 2020 have all highlighted the connection of the mission to benefitting society (University of Edinburgh, 2010, 2016, 2020). In September 2019, the university launched Strategy 2030 (University of Edinburgh, 2020a) with a vision that ‘our graduates, and the knowledge we discover with our partners, make the world a better place’ with a commitment to the SDGs. While the most significant benefits and positive impacts of the university will be through the learning, teaching and research which is carried out, it is also recognized that, as a large organization with hundreds of buildings, over 43,000 students, nearly 12,000 staff and supply chains reaching across the world, the university also impacts society through the way in which it operates. The university’s annual report and accounts tell the story of value and progress in relation to the university’s strategy. The University of Edinburgh has pioneered the integrated reporting approach for universities in the UK and has been recognized for its efforts, winning various awards.3 In addition, it has published ‘standalone’ SRS reports since 2008. Early versions of these reports were ways to showcase some case studies and build a corporate narrative. Since 2014, the university has sought to align with good practice for organizational sustainability reporting and to be transparent and report back to stakeholders on the issues that matter to them on progress in relation to commitments and strategy. Similarly, since joining the Principles for Responsible Investment4 (PRI) in 2013, the university has published information on its performance in relation to responsible investment. The DSRS contributed to the approaches being looked at for university reporting and put in place some systems for programme monitoring and evaluation. As a department, the DSRS’s programmes needed to connect directly with the achievement of the university’s goals, objectives and targets – but of course this involves many other departments as well. The DSRS reviews programme outcomes, outputs and inputs on a quarterly basis and also publishes quarterly highlights. Since 2015, the DSRS has been involved in discussions with other departments at the university on ways and approaches to better understand and communicate social impact. As we look to the next stage of development, this will likely be a key area of focus. Embedding across the Organization A challenge for sustainability at universities is around scaling change. The work of Birrell Ivory and Mackay (2020) proposed a practice-based framework for scaling sustainability across large corporate businesses. While their substantial research is based on for-profit companies, it has merit for universities. This section considers and reflects on the Birrell Ivory and MacKay (2020) framework and its applicability to our own experience. Importantly for our purposes, the authors (Birrell Ivory and MacKay, 2020, p. 16) suggest that there is a progression over time of successful embedding/scaling strategies. Strategies that merely adopt the conforming/assimilation micro-strategies tend to have a limited integration of

311

312

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Leadership Internal policies Leadership

Peripheral scale

Leveraging Conforming

Shaping Internal environment Monetization Internal policies Internal resourcing

Conforming

ION IZAT

IL MOB

Leveraging Conforming

• • • •

A

N ATIO

IL SSIM

• Leadership • Internal environment

External environment

ON

SITI

TRAN

Intermediate scale

Strategic scale

FIGURE 16.2  Birrell Ivory and Mackay’s model for scaling sustainability. Source: Birrell Ivory and Mackay (2020, p. 16, reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons).

sustainability into the organization. The research finds that most organizations at intermediate levels of integration had adopted both leveraging and conforming micro-strategies into a ‘mobilization’ approach. However, the organizations most successful in scaling/integrating /embedding had adopted a transition approach, with elements of all three approaches clearly present (Figure 16.2). We contend that this empirically based but conceptually useful approach fits very well with our experience as practitioners. During the early stages of our development of SRS/DSRS at the university, we sought to understand the organizational context and attempt to fit within it while seeking to understand the organizations norms and ways of working. Those early approaches often focused on visibly adopting the expected language and norms of certain parts the university; we used cost-saving opportunities and efficiency improvements that a ‘narrow’ approach to sustainability allowed. This is essentially a similar approach to the conforming/assimilation microstrategies. A key difference from our approach to those who adopt only the assimilation approach is that we had a conscious theory of change and were building outwards from a relatively narrow tool kit initially. This reflected our judgement that to succeed we needed to establish a series of baseline competencies and successes from defining what SRS was to achieving early wins (cost savings, income, metrics, pilot projects) before we could proceed to more fundamental changes. During the period labelled as ‘From Doing to Embedding? Avoiding Silos, Raising the Ambition 2016–2020’, our strategy broadened and deepened to include a wider range of key projects, alliances and ambitions. This stage moved beyond a narrow focus on confirming, and we began to seek and build alliances with a range of interested parties, informed by an intelligent, analytical approach to marketing, communications and visible project delivery. This is like the concept in Good to Great (Collins, 1991) of ‘turning the flywheel’, that is, starting slow (and sometimes with difficulty!) but building a sense of momentum as a movement for change builds across the organization. This fits well with the ‘mobilization’ approach that Birrell Ivory and MacKay (2020) set out, retaining the narrower ‘conforming’ strategy but consciously adding a ‘leveraging’ strategy.

312

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

Increasing success in terms of turning the ‘flywheel’ and getting more and more projects and partnerships working and delivering brought its own challenges – a greater and greater draw on the resources of the department and increasing workloads and stresses. By 2019–20 and emboldened by the clear strategic and governing body commitments to embed SRS issues across all its activities, we made a conscious shift to ‘embedding’. This meant moving from the direct completion of multiple projects in partnership with others, to developing tools, frameworks and approaches that allow others to take on these tasks. More fundamentally, the ‘embedding’ approach seeks to fundamentally enmesh SRS issues into core policies, activities, culture, assumptions and business models which supports the delivery of the university’s Strategy 2030. We are in effect, attempting to deliver on the Birrell Ivory and Mackay (2020) ‘transition’ approach.

Conclusions Looking back through our own experience, there is always a risk of rose-tinted glasses and ‘fitting the story to the model’. We have shared our reflections through the analysis of frameworks for leadership and sustainability, key timelines in the DSRS and our analysis of the governance, leadership, impact and embedding taking place. We offer ten lessons from our journey to date, building on the wisdom and insights of others. 1. Leadership for sustainability in universities matters. The climate and ecological emergency and achieving the SDGs requires transformational changes across all parts of society. Universities as places of research and innovation, of learning and with a range of assets to deploy, have unique and important roles to play. 2. Adaptive leadership and systems approaches are helpful. Framing our own work within a wider system, that is, the system of the University of Edinburgh, of higher education more broadly as well as the systemic nature of the challenges we are seeking to address, was important. Hence the framing of ‘think like a system, act like an entrepreneur’ by Conway et al. (2017) is a useful lesson. There was and is no route or predefined roadmap for much of what we have sought to tackle. We have needed to be entrepreneurial in our approach but to be thinking about the wider system, context and intellectual models that drive programmes. To try, test, sometimes fail but always learn. To have plans and be ready to activate them when the societal or organizational moment is propitious is smart tactics. Understanding the organization you are trying to change and its ambitions, governance, hidden wiring and unspoken assumptions is essential. 3. ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast.’ Strategy is important but not sufficient for change. When reflecting on our experiences, the above statement (widely attributed to management guru Peter Drucker; Guley and Reznick, 2019) comes to mind. As noted in the overview of the literature and in our experience, organizations are made up of people, and change becomes possible and apparent through the big and small decisions that we all make. Specific policies, objectives and agreements with senior leadership did not necessarily deliver the required changes in certain areas. Communication and engagement at all levels of the organization was and is important.

313

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

4. Living and working with ambiguity. Despite an eleven-year commitment to SRS enshrined in the university’s strategy, there is still no single agreed definition of what we mean by ‘sustainability’. In recognizing that this could mean different things to different people, we have drawn on widely agreed definitions but, in some ways, accepted this ambiguity, and sought agreement on the importance of different issues. The adoption of the SDGs in the university’s new strategic plan provides a framing useful for engagement with parts of the university recognizing that it is not just the ‘green stuff’, and that sustainability is about the environment, about people, about prosperity and about peace. 5. Different framing for different audiences with smart communications required. Universities are complex in their governance, form, variety of activities and intellectual breadth. Seeking buy-in and agreement at certain phases has required different framing and communications. Where some parts of the university will be most interested in costs and efficiencies, others will be more interested in reputation and still others in the links to research or learning and teaching. In addition to working to understand the benefits for people and planet, we have had to understand the multifaceted benefits (or risks) to different parts of the organization. 6. Embedding sustainability is key. We recognize that the aim must be to adopt a much broader range of tools and strategies and seek to ‘embed’ or otherwise risk failure. To apply this lens of embedding, it may be useful for practitioners to try to use the lens of ‘working themselves out of a job’ to try to integrate actions across the organization. This may be easier to say than to do in practice. 7. Measuring real impact is a challenge but the pursuit is important. A challenge we face is that it is easier to report on our activities and outputs. We have evidence of outcomes, but it has been difficult to systematically measure the impact of the investment in SRS to the benefits for society and the environment. This challenge is not unique to our DSRS or to the University of Edinburgh. 8. ‘Third-space’ professionals. In delivering the change required, we see a need for ‘third-space’ sustainability professionals who can work across the traditional boundaries of ‘academic’ and ‘professional services’. Here we follow the definition from Whitechurch (2015) quoted in Grant (2021, p. 116): ‘Groups of staff in higher education who do not fit conventional binary descriptions such as those enshrined in “academic” or “non-academic” employment categories.’ It is beyond the scope of this chapter to present a fuller discussion here, but we argue that the changes we want to see to deliver this transformation will precisely require such a shift away from traditional thinking about ‘binary’ roles. We hope this chapter is an example of the sort of blending of knowledges we hope and expect to see in future. 9. A need for continuous reinvention. It is a truism of business strategy that the most successful companies will seek to explore new innovations, new business models and new markets to continue to succeed. We would contend that the same applies to sustainability leadership in universities. The range of issues ‘in scope’, the increasing expectations of stakeholders and especially younger people as well as the rapidly evolving external landscape means that to stand still is to go backwards. We recognize our model has evolved over time and will need to keep doing so. 314

315

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

10. It takes time but requires urgent action. We realize embedding sustainability takes time, and it requires increasing understanding of the university, its priorities and people, its culture, combined with a track record of success and a burgeoning range of internal allies and partners. At the same time, in the words of Shakespeare, ‘Action is eloquence’ (Shakespeare, n.d.). As society is faced with a climate and ecological emergency and a range of social and economic challenges, it is our actions that matter. Through our own research and practice, the evidence points to the fact that leadership for sustainability in universities matters. Delivering change in practice is never easy but action is required. Our review of the leadership literature, combined with our experience, suggests that a conscious change management approach that builds on the insights of adaptive leadership and approaches to systems leadership is needed. The objective of this chapter has been to share the reflections of two senior professionals working on sustainability in a large, research-intensive university. It is hoped that these honest reflections and critical analysis can help other practitioners along on their journeys. While each organization will be working in their own context, there are lessons to share and reflect upon, and with collaboration and shared learning, we can have greater impact.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT 1. Flexibility and adaptability of plans and approach are essential to moving a sustainability agenda forward as priorities, knowledge creation and opportunities shift. 2. Development of ‘third-space’ professionals (working as a bridge between academics and professional service staff) could provide substantial and catalytic challenge and change to a university’s sustainability agenda, but development of such roles requires major organizational cultural shifts. 3. Building on the above, there is a need to ‘think like a system and act like an entrepreneur’.5 Systems thinking enables appreciation of the holistic, entangled nature of sustainability, but adaptability, risk-taking and opportunity assessment within university cultural norms are needed to create and deliver change.

Notes 1 Approximately US$400 million. 2 For example, https://www.ed.ac.uk/sus​tain​abil​ity/news/2019/gga-2019 or https://www.sus​tain​abil​itye​xcha​ nge.ac.uk/green_gown_awards_201​8_un​iver​sity​_of_​edin​burg​h_1, 3 See, for example, https://www.ed.ac.uk/sus​tain​abil​ity/news/2019/gga-2019 4 See https://www.unpri.org. 5 Derived from the RSA ‘Form Design Thinking to Systems Change’. https://www.the​rsa.org/blog/2017/07/ from-des​ign-think​ing-to-sys​tem-cha​nge#:~:text=By%20a​pply​ing%20the%20th​ink%20l​ike,effo​rts%20 to%20g​row%20and%20in​flue​nce.

315

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

References Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) (2019). ‘Technical Manual’. https://stars.aashe.org/resour​ces-supp​ort/techni​cal-man​ual/. Accessed 1 November 2021. Barnett, R. (2018). The Ecological University: A Feasible Utopia. Oxon: Routledge. Birrell Ivory, S., and MacKay, R. B. (2020). ‘Scaling Sustainability from the Organizational Periphery to the Strategic Core: Towards a Practice-Based Framework of What Practitioners “Do” ’. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29 (5), pp. 2058–77. Bjørn, A., Bey, N., Georg, S., Røpke, I., and Hauschild, M. Z. (2016). ‘Is Earth Recognized as a Finite System in Corporate Responsibility Reporting’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, pp. 106–17. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.095. Accessed 5 October 2021. Blowfield, M., and Frynas, G. (2005). ‘Setting New Agendas: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Developing World’. International Affairs, 81 (3), pp. 499–513. Collins, J. (1991). Good to Great. London: Random House Business Books. Conway, R., Masters, J., and Thorold, J. (2017). ‘From Design Thinking to Systems Change: How to Invest in Innovation for Social Impact’. July 2017. RSA Action and Research Centre Report. https:// www.the​rsa.org/globa​lass​ets/pdfs/repo​rts/rsa_f​rom-des​ign-think​ing-to-sys​tem-cha​nge-rep​ort.pdf. Accessed 5 October 2021. De Vries, M. K. (2001). The Leadership Mystique: Leading Behavior in the Human Enterprise. Harlow, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Dreier, L., Nabarro, D., and Nelson, J. (2019). Systems Leadership for Sustainable Development: Strategies for Achieving Systemic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.hks.harv​ard.edu/sites/defa​ult/files/cent​ers/mrcbg/files/Syst​ems%20Lea​ders​hip.pdf. Accessed 5 October 2021. Edinburgh University Settlement (EUS) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://en.wikipe​dia.org/wiki/Edin​burg​ h_Un​iver​sity​_Set​tlem​ent. Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (EAUC) (2017). ‘SDG Accord’. https://www. eauc.org.uk/the​_sdg​_acc​ord. Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (EAUC) (n.d.). ‘Sustainability Leadership Scorecard’. https://www.eauc.org.uk/sustaina​bili​ty_l​eade​rshi​p_sc​orec​ard. Accessed 5 October 2021. Ehlenz, M. M. (2018). ‘Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies: Comparing Theory to Practice’, Planning Theory & Practice, 19 (1), pp. 74–92. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1406980. Elkington, J. (2018). ‘25 Years Ago, I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line”. Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It’. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coi​ned-the-phr​ase-tri​ ple-bot​tom-line-heres-why-im-giv​ing-up-on-it. Accessed 4 October 2021. European Students Sustainability Auditing (ESSA) (2019). ‘Home Page’. https://www.essa​proj​ect.eu/. Accessed 6 December 2021. Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Leadership. Morris Town, NJ: General Learning Press. Fullan, M., and Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround Leadership for Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grant, J. (2021). The New Power University: The Social Purpose of Higher Education in the 21st Century. Harlow: Pearson. Grayson, D. M., Mclaren, R., and Spitzeck, H. (2011). ‘Social Intrapreneurs – An Extra Force for Sustainability’. A Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility Occasional Paper, Cranfield University School of Management. https://www.resea​rchg​ate.net/publ​icat​ion/229​0085​98_S​OCIA​L_IN​TRAP​ RENE​URS-AN_EXT​RA_F​ORCE​_FOR​_SUS​TAIN​ABIL​ITY. Accessed 5 October 2021. Guley, G., and Reznick, T. (2019). ‘Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast and Transformation for Lunch’. Jabian Journal, Fall. https://jour​nal.jab​ian.com/cult​ure-eats-strat​egy-for-breakf​ast-and-tra​nsfo​rmat​ ion-for-lunch/. Accessed 5 October 2021. Haddock-Fraser, J., and Gorman, D. (2020). ‘Building Your Influence: The Role of the Smart Sustainability Leader”. Emerald Open Research, 2, p. 53. doi: https://doi.org/10.35241/eme​rald​open​ res.13819.1.

316

Transformational Change at Edinburgh

Haddock-Fraser, J., Rands, P., and Scoffham, S. (2018). Leadership for Sustainability in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury. Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., and Grashow, A. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). ‘Climate Change 2020: The Physical Science Basis’. Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/rep​ort/ sixth-ass​essm​ent-rep​ort-work​ing-group-i/. Accessed 5 October 2021 International Standards Organization (2010). 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility. Geneva: International Standards Organization. International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) (2018). ‘Home Page’. https://intern​atio​nal-sust​aina​ ble-cam​pus-netw​ork.org/char​ter-gui​deli​nes/. Accessed 15 Nobember 2021. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Mosavi, S. (2015). ‘UKCES Explains: What Is an Anchor Institution?’. https://ukces.blog.gov. uk/2015/03/19/ukces-expla​ins-what-is-an-anc​hor-inst​itut​ion/. Accessed 5 October 2021. Odiaga, J., Guglielmo, M., Catrambone, C., Gierlowski, T., Bruti, C., Richter, L., and Miller, J. (2021). ‘Kotter’s Change Model in Higher Education: Transforming Siloed Education to a Culture of Interprofessionalism’. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 25 (2), pp. 1–7. Office for Students (2021). ‘Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework’. https://www.office​ fors​tude​nts.org.uk/adv​ice-and-guida​nce/teach​ing/about-the-tef/. Accessed 6 December 2021. Perry, C., and Rao Hill, S. (2007). ‘Action Research for Enterprise Research’ in D. Hine and D. Carson (eds), Innovative Methodologies in Enterprise Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 124–36. Pucker, K. (2021). ‘Overselling Sustainability Reporting: We’re Confusing Output with Impact’. Harvard Business Review, May–June. Purcell, W. M. (2021). ‘Sustainability in Higher Education: An Agenda for Transformational Change: A Manifesto for Change and “Third-Way” People’. Presentation at the International Sustainable Campus Network, June. https://intern​atio​nal-sust​aina​ble-cam​pus-netw​ork.org/conf​eren​ces/iscn-cop26/ iscn-2021-prel​imin​ary-progra​mme/. Accessed 20 November 2021. Research Excellence Framework (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://www.ref.ac.uk/. Accessed 6 December 2021. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., and Rockström, J. (2019). ‘Six Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals’. Nature Sustainability, 2, pp. 805–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41​893-019-0352-9. Accessed 5 October 2021. Shakespeare (n.d.). ‘Coriolanus Act 3 Scene 2’. https://shak​espe​are.mit.edu/index.html. Accessed 17 December 2021. Sharpe, L. (2002). ‘Green Campuses: The Road from Little Victories to Systemic Leadership’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3 (2), pp. 128–45. SustainAbility (2008). ‘The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers’. https://instit​ ute.iixfou​ndat​ion.org/downl​oad/sus​tain​abil​ity-2008-the-soc​ial-intra​pren​eur-a-field-guide-for-corpor​ ate-chang​emak​ers-pp-8-51/. Accessed 5 October 2021. Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings (2021). ‘Impact Rankings’. https://www.times​ high​ered​ucat​ion.com/imp​actr​anki​ngs. Accessed 30 November. 2021 Transition Edinburgh (2008). ‘Home Page’. https://tran​siti​oned​inbu​rgh.org.uk/who-we-are/. Accessed 13 December 2021. Tsang, S., Welford, R., and Brown, M. (2009). ‘Reporting on Community Investment’. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, pp. 123–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.178. Accessed 5 October 2021. United Nations (2015a). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Accessed 6 December 2021. United Nations (2015b). ‘Paris Agreement on Climate Change’. https://unf​ccc.int/proc​ess-and-meeti​ngs/ the-paris-agreem​ent/the-paris-agreem​ent. Accessed 6 December 2021.

317

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Universities and Colleges Climate Commitment (UCCCfS) (2014). ‘Home Page’. https://www.eauc.org. uk/universities_and_coll​eges​_cli​mate​_com​mitm​ent_​fo2. University of Edinburgh (2010). ‘Reports and Financial Statements 2009–10’. https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/ atoms/files/uoe_annu​al_r​epor​t_an​d_ac​coun​ts_2​009-10.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2021. University of Edinburgh (2016a). ‘Delivering Impact for Society: Strategic Plan 2016’. https://www.ed.ac. uk/files/atoms/files/stra​tegi​c_pl​an_2​016.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2021. University of Edinburgh (2016b). ‘Climate Strategy’. https://www.ed.ac.uk/sus​tain​abil​ity/what-we-do/ clim​ate-cha​nge/init​iati​ves/zero-by-2040/read. Accessed 12 October 2021. University of Edinburgh (2016c). ‘Responsible Investment Policy’/ https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/ responsible_​inve​stme​nt_p​olic​y_st​atem​ent.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2021. University of Edinburgh (2020a). ‘Strategy 2030’. https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/strat​egy-2030. pdf. Accessed 12 October 2021. University of Edinburgh (2020b). ‘Social and Civic Responsibility Plan’. https://www.ed.ac.uk/sus​tain​abil​ ity/gov​erna​nce-publi​cati​ons-repo​rts. Accessed 12 October 2021. University of Edinburgh (2021). ‘Social Responsibility & Sustainability Strategy 2010-2020: Looking to 2020 and Beyond’. http://www.fossil​fuel​srev​iew.ed.ac.uk/resour​ces/Evide​nce%20-%20Uni​vers​ity%20 val​ues/Uni​vers​ity%20of%20Ed​inbu​rgh%20SRS%20S​trat​egy.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021. Visser, W., and Courtice, P. (2011). ‘Sustainability Leadership: Linking Theory and Practice’. SSRN Working Paper Series, 21 October. Whitchurch, C. (2015). ‘The Rise of Third Space Professionals: Paradoxes and Dilemmas’, in U. Teichler and W. C. Cummings (eds), Forming, Recruiting and Managing the Academic Profession. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 79–99.

318

319

17

SISSTEM: Sustainable Development on the Small Island State of Aruba ANOUK MERTENS, NADINE BUYS, PATRICK ARENS, GEORGES GIELEN AND ERIC MIJTS

Introduction On the 2 September 2019, thirteen Aruban students began a new chapter in their lives and started their education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) at the University of Aruba (UA). In other countries, such an event might have passed unnoticed. However, not in Aruba, as these students are the first to follow a STEM bachelor programme on the island itself. The Sustainable Island Solutions through STEM (SISSTEM) programme started with the first bachelor year in fall 2019 and is a partnership between UA and the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium. It aims to educate locally a new generation of engineers and scientists, policymakers and entrepreneurs. It seeks to develop graduates with a profound knowledge of STEM subjects in a sustainability context and, who at the same time, can apply this knowledge in the setting of a small island state (SIS) like Aruba. The goal is to further strengthen the country’s sustainable growth and development beyond today’s main source of income, that being tourism. General Characteristics of Small Island States Before detailing the SISSTEM programme, it is essential to outline the setting of an SIS, like Aruba. SIS are defined by the World Bank as island states with a population of 1.5 million or fewer (World Bank, 2020). Due to their specific geographical context, they come with a collection of distinct characteristics that together make them complex entities. Others have discussed these distinct characteristics: for example, Briguglio (1995), United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS, 2009) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2014). SIS are characterized by their small size, remoteness and insularity (Briguglio, 1995; UN-OHRLLS, 2009; Gomes, 2014; Connell and Lowitt, 2020). As a direct consequence of their small size, natural resources, including land area (Gomes, 2014; Connell and Lowitt, 2020), are available in a limited way (Briguglio, 1995; Kerr, 2005; UN-OHRLLS, 2009). This results in a high competition for land use among the different needs of the population living on these islands, such as housing and infrastructure, agriculture, recreation and nature, and so on (UNEP, 2014). At the same time, unique biodiversity and ecosystems can often be found on SIS,

319

320

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

including coral reefs and mangroves (UN-OHRLLS, 2009), which are under pressure due to land competition and other human influences (UNEP, 2014). In addition, these unique ecosystems are usually very fragile (Gomes, 2014) and are characterized by tight feedback loops between the environmental stressors, such as cyclones and human influences, and their impacts (Kerr, 2005). The vulnerability of SIS’ ecosystems and biodiversity is further increased by climate change (Briguglio, 1995; Kerr, 2005; UN-OHRLLS, 2009; Gomes, 2014; Connell and Lowitt, 2020). Indeed, SIS, being faced with ‘more extreme weather events, sea level rise, stressed water resources due to changes in rainfall patterns, intermittent droughts and acidification of the oceans’, are considered to be among the places most susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Connell and Lowitt, 2020, p. 3). Given their small size, SIS cannot profit from economies of scale (Briguglio, 1995; Kerr, 2005; UN-OHRLLS, 2009; Guillaumont, 2010; Gomes, 2014; Centrale Bank van Aruba (CBA), 2019; Connell and Lowitt, 2020), and are characterized by an easily saturated internal market (Briguglio, 1995; Gomes, 2014; Connell and Lowitt, 2020) and limited internal market competition (Briguglio, 1995; Connell and Lowitt, 2020). Their remoteness and smallness lead to large transaction costs when trading as well as limited negotiation powers. Further, these features also lead to high costs related to transportation (Briguglio, 1995; Kerr, 2005; UN-OHRLLS, 2009; Gomes, 2014; Connell and Lowitt, 2020), communication and energy (UN-OHRLLS, 2009; Gomes, 2014; Connell and Lowitt, 2020). Indeed, while the costs of infrastructure and installation are expensive, like in any other country, these costs can only be divided across a limited tax base (Kerr, 2005; Connell and Lowitt, 2020). The same is true for public administration (Briguglio, 1995; Kerr, 2005; UN-OHRLLS, 2009; Guillaumont, 2010; Gomes, 2014), which according to Connell and Lowitt (2020) is disproportionally expensive. It comes as no surprise then that the combination of the challenges described makes SIS economically vulnerable to external shocks (Briguglio, 1995; Gomes, 2014). Economic vulnerability in this context has been defined by Briguglio et al. (2009) as ‘the exposure of an economy to exogenous shocks, arising out of economic openness’ (p. 229). On the other hand, while it is widely acknowledged that SIS are highly economically vulnerable, it is generally agreed that their economic resilience is relatively high (Briguglio et al., 2009). Economic resilience is defined by Briguglio et al. (2009) as ‘the policy-induced ability of an economy to withstand or recover from the effects of such shocks’ (p. 229). Measures to increase economic resilience, for example in Aruba, are to diversify the economy, to rethink and redesign the educational systems and values, targeting more highly-skilled work and seeking to ‘identify, integrate, and incubate 21st century innovation skills in their programs’ (CBA, 2019, p. 74). Aruba: A Small Island State in the Caribbean Aruba is a small island of about 180 km² (Derix, 2016) with about 112,000 inhabitants (Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2020). With more than 1 million stay-over tourists, and over 800,000 incoming cruise ship passengers per year (CBS, 2015; Aruba Ports Authority (APA), 2019), Aruba’s economy is hugely dependent on tourism. Indeed, it has been estimated that 87 per cent of the Aruban economy depends directly or indirectly on tourism (International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2019; Peterson, 2020). This enormous dependency on one sector makes Aruba the most vulnerable small open economy in the region, resulting in a larger volatility in its economic

320

SISSTEM Aruba

growth compared to the region and the world economy (CBA, 2019; IMF, 2021). While tourism generates employment and revenues, it also has profound negative impacts on Aruba’s environment and ecosystem. Besides the impacts of tourism, Aruba faces other sustainability challenges (outlined in ‘Results’ section). The need to diversify the economy, make it less dependent on tourism and, at the same time, more focused on long-term sustainable development has been acknowledged by local policymakers (CBA, 2019). This need has become more prominent under the current Covid-19 pandemic, which fully revealed the vulnerability of the Aruban economy (IMF, 2021). At the same time, Aruba has identified a need for highly skilled people who can contribute to its longerterm sustainable growth and development. This need is acknowledged by the private sector in Aruba, looking for a labour force with knowledge in STEM to support projects related to biotechnologies, renewable resources like energy and water, waste management, adaptation and mitigation to climate change, among others. Indeed, in Aruba, the largest growth in the labour market occurs in sectors that require relatively highly skilled labour (Hermans and Kösters, 2019). Until recently, the absence in Aruba of higher education in STEM made the island completely dependent on external education, expertise and consultancy, leading to a brain drain of young talent, high financial costs and a lack of a sustainable knowledge base on the island itself. Background on the SISSTEM Programme Given these specific characteristics of Aruba, which are very similar to other SIS, state-of-the-art knowledge of technological solutions embedded in the local context is key to further sustainable development and the increased resilience of Aruba. In this context, education is essential and education for sustainable development (ESD) provided by local higher education institutions has a vital role to play, particularly in SIS. Indeed, ESD explicitly recognizes the need to educate students not only with state-of-the-art knowledge, but to equip them with skills and competences that enable them to apply the acquired knowledge within a specific context, such as an SIS, to support sustainable development. These skills and competences include systems thinking, critical thinking, normative competence, collaboration and self-awareness (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2019). As such, through ESD offered in local higher education institutions, the next generations of highly skilled workers can be formed, thereby acting as agents of change to enhance sustainable development (Stephens et al., 2008; Eppinga et al., 2019). Today, however, SIS often have limited availability of education programmes, researchers and research funds to support ESD in STEM fields. The SISSTEM project aims to provide an answer to this need by setting up an academic education and research programme at UA to educate local and regional youth in STEM, thereby focusing on sustainability issues in SIS. The SISSTEM programme was kick-started by the SISSTEM project, funded under the 11th European Development Fund for Overseas Countries and Territories (EDF-OCT). The project is a collaboration between UA, DEACI (Department of Economic Affairs, Commerce, and Industry of Aruba), UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and KU Leuven. KU Leuven is the oldest and largest university in Belgium based in Leuven. Founded in 1425, it is one of the world’s leading universities in innovation, which was acknowledged as the ‘most innovative university’ in Europe, ranking seventh in the world according to Reuter World’s Most Innovative Universities list in 2019 (Ewalt, 2019). As shown

321

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

SISSTEM

Bachelor & Master of Science in Sustainable Engineering • • • •

STEM education Embeddedness in local SIS context Sustainability backbone Focus on inter- and transdisciplinarity

Research programme • •

Up to 11 PhD research projects Wide range of topics on sustainabilty aspects of Aruba and other SIS

Service to society • •

Highly educated people with technical skills able to make contribution to innovative sustainable development of Aruba Triple helix platform to share knowledge to local and international stakeholders.

FIGURE 17.1  Overview of the different components of the UA–KU Leuven SISSTEM project. Source: Authors.

in Figure 17.1, the goal of the SISSTEM project at UA is to set up an academic bachelor’s and a master’s programme in STEM and to develop the necessary infrastructure, including classrooms and laboratories, while at the same time establish a research programme in sustainability research. The new bachelor educational programme started in fall 2019 and is backed by a team of four senior lecturers at UA, with contributions from around 25 KU Leuven professors who support the UA senior lecturers in developing their course material. Furthermore, KU Leuven and the UA worked together to develop up to six Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Small Private Online Courses (SPOCs), which can be used in the SISSTEM bachelor programme at UA as well as at KU Leuven. As such, a ‘win-win’ situation is created. The bachelor programme offers three specialization tracks: bioenvironmental sciences; informatics and data sciences; and technology and engineering. The multidisciplinary master’s programme currently under development will begin in 2022/23. In addition, up to eleven PhD projects are underway (with ten of the PhD students already recruited) in the SISSTEM project, with research on a wide range of topics relevant to the further sustainable development of Aruba in particular and SIS in general. The PhD candidates will pursue their doctoral training programme at KU Leuven and are supervised by a KU Leuven professor as well as by the Aruban academics. The students spend one semester per year in the research group of the KU Leuven professor to ensure academic training and research in their specific domain. As such, there is a reciprocal link between UA and KU Leuven. Besides their research, the PhD candidates also assist in teaching tasks in the bachelor programme at UA. Finally, the SISSTEM programme focuses on service to society. Indeed, the goal is to deliver highly educated people with the technical skills to contribute to the innovative sustainable 322

SISSTEM Aruba

development of Aruba. A triple-helix platform was developed, where STEM knowledge and research at UA are linked to local and international parties. As such, businesses, institutes, governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can exchange their knowledge, experiences and resources within the SISSTEM programme, to develop and support sustainable practices in Aruba and other SIS. Given all these intentions and goals, the question now arises as to whether this SISSTEM programme will effectively deliver on its targeted objectives. Does it have the potential to change the current unsustainable trends and really be a local and regional agent of change?

Goals of the Study The goal of this study is to evaluate whether the SISSTEM programme has the potential to be an agent of change for sustainable development in Aruba and, by extension, in other SIS. Although the SISSTEM project has some specific characteristics, this study intends to inspire and motivate other higher education institutions in SIS around the globe that aim to develop new or enhance existing curricula to become change agents for sustainability. As such, this chapter moves beyond describing the SISSTEM-specific challenges and presents considered views on lessons learnt and best practices. The chapter is organized as follows. In the next section, the framework for evaluating the SISSTEM programme, based on Stephens et al. (2008), as well as the qualitative research methods used are presented. Following this, the results of this research are analysed, with the SISSTEM programme evaluated against the five critical factors identified by Stephens et al. (2008). The SISSTEM programme as an agent of change for sustainable development in Aruba is then discussed before presenting the main conclusions in the final section.

Methodology Framework Stephens et al. (2008) identified five critical factors needed for higher education to be able to function as an agent of change. Here, these five critical factors are used as a framework to evaluate the SISSTEM programme: 1. The dominant sustainability challenges of the region: here the programme is evaluated as to what extent it considers the local sustainability challenges of the country or region where the programme takes place. 2. The financing structure and independence: here the programme is evaluated based on its financing. Where do the main finances come from? Can these finances support the programme over the mid- and long-term period? Should private sources of funding be added? Might this private funding jeopardize the programme’s independence? 3. The institutional organization: here the programme is evaluated as to what extent the curriculum is discipline-specific, or rather more inter- and transdisciplinary organized, including outreach to and involvement of non-academic organizations in the curriculum and course development. 4. The extent of the democratic processes: here an evaluation of the programme is made as to what extent it is accessible to all members of society, as well as its transparency and neutrality. 323

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

5. Communication and interaction with society: here the programme is evaluated as to what extent the research results and other outputs are communicated both within academia and to the broader stakeholders in the local and regional society. In the following sections, the SISSTEM programme is evaluated based on these five critical factors. It is important to note that by applying this framework, the aim is to evaluate the potential of SISSTEM to be an agent of change for sustainable development, as it is too soon at this stage to evaluate the programme’s impacts on Aruban society. The evaluation of the SISSTEM programme is based on the following data sources: 1. The 11th EDF Territorial Program for Aruba – FED/2018/41657 2. The Grant Contract between the European Union (EU), KU Leuven and UA – FED/2019/406549, including all annexes 3. The SISSTEM Study Guide, describing the SISSTEM curriculum 4. Semi-structured interviews with SISSTEM stakeholders Semi-Structured Interviews with SISSTEM Stakeholders To get a thorough understanding of the SISSTEM programme, its functioning and potential as an agent of change in the Aruban society, in addition to studying the underlying documentation of the programme, semi-structured interviews were conducted with its different stakeholders. To steer the semi-structured interviews, interview guides were used that followed a general script and covered a list of topics that needed to be addressed (see Appendix 17.1). The interview guide ensured that no topic was omitted but allowed the possibility for following new leads or changing the topic if deemed necessary (Bernard, 2006). During the research process, the data were directly interpreted, and further data collection was based on the previously collected knowledge. Semi-structured interviews are a useful way to acquire a large quantity of information in a limited amount of time, especially when respondents can typically only be approached once and no follow-up questions can be asked later on (Bernard, 2006). They provide the researchers with empirical knowledge and a level of understanding that often cannot be acquired through literature study alone. The interviews contributed to understanding the daily functioning of the SISSTEM programme, its successes and its challenges, and they helped determine (using the framework provided by Stephens et al., 2008) whether SISSTEM has the potential to act as an agent of change for Aruban society. Indeed, this qualitative research method allowed for a cross-check of the original purposes of the SISSTEM programme, as described in the project documentation, through triangulation (Koehn and Uitto, 2014). Respondents for the interviews were selected via purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Bernard, 2006). The first respondents were identified based on their role in or involvement with the SISSTEM programme (purposive sampling). Next, these respondents were asked for names of other stakeholders (snowball sampling). When the point of saturation had been reached (Morse, 1991; Bernard, 2006), the interview round was ended. In total, thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted. Table 17.1 gives an overview of the types of respondents and the interviews completed. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, all interviews were undertaken online; they were recorded, transcribed, organized and analysed in NVIVO 12. 324

SISSTEM Aruba

TABLE 17.1  SISSTEM Programme: Overview of Semi-Structured Interviews Conducted,

Aruba Type of Respondent

Number of Respondents

SISSTEM steering committee members

5

SISSTEM staff members at UA

11

KU Leuven staff members

10

Stakeholders in wider Aruban society

4

Total

30

Source: Authors.

Results In this section, the SISSTEM programme is evaluated as to what extent it addresses the five critical factors identified by Stephens et al. (2008). SISSTEM and the Dominant Sustainability Challenges of Aruba and Other Small Island States The programme was evaluated as to what extent it considers the local sustainability challenges of its country or region. First, how the respondents perceive the sustainability challenges in Aruba are discussed. This is followed by how the SISSTEM programme considers these sustainability challenges, both in its research and in the bachelor educational programme. Dominant Sustainability Challenges in Aruba as Perceived by the Respondents During the interviews, respondents discussed what they considered the most important sustainability challenges of Aruba. The most prevalent challenges brought up by the respondents were the issues related to waste management and to the availability of fresh water, food and energy. Regarding waste, respondents indicated that until recently most waste was landfilled without any further processing. This led to the landfill overflowing into the ocean and to regular landfill fires. Nowadays, part of the waste is rudimentarily separated, and residual waste is shredded, processed and wrapped in plastic and buried (Weekes et al., 2021). Respondents noted that previous initiatives, like the construction of a local waste processing facility and a pyrolysis installation, has led to a large loss of invested capital as they have been rarely operational. At the time of writing, there are talks about transporting the Aruban waste to Colombia to be burnt in a cement factory. The limited availability of fresh water on the island forces the Arubans to produce most of their fresh water via an energy-intensive reverse osmosis process. Aruba has an average rainfall of about 450 mm a year (Shah, 2021) but with a high run-off and limited absorption into the ground. Rainwater collection could contribute to the availability of fresh water but is only applied in a limited way. The limited availability of freshwater and arable land hamper local food production. While there is some local production of leafy greens and home gardening initiatives, Aruba’s agricultural sector is very small, accounting for less than 5 per cent of the country’s GDP (CBA, 2019) and creating no added value (World Bank, 2021), with almost all food imported. As such, 325

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

some respondents mentioned increasing food security, producing more local food and becoming less dependent on food imports as key focus areas for further sustainable development of the island. New and modern technologies, such as vertical farming, could provide solutions to local food production (Shah, 2021). For its energy production, Aruba is largely dependent on the importation of fossil fuels (IMF, 2019). About 20 per cent of Aruba’s total energy capacity comes from renewable energy sources, mostly wind and to a lesser extent solar (CBA, 2019). In this context, Aruba likes to promote itself as a testing ground for renewable energy technologies. However, renewable energy production comes with its challenges. Continuous and strong fluctuations in wind and solar energy production are inherent, while the stability of the grid needs to be assured with no options to import or export energy from outside, as is the case in a more continental setting. As one KU Leuven staff member respondent stated, ‘The wind blows on the entire island or its does not, the sun shines on the entire island or it does not. As such, the energy spikes are completely different.’ To a lesser extent, respondents also mentioned environmental pressures – such as the increased urbanization and population density, degradation of the marine environment and the limited terrestrial biodiversity – next to more socio-economic issues – such as the health system and the prevalence of obesity, social inequality, poverty and immigration issues. According to the respondents, the aforementioned challenges are intensified by Aruba’s enormous dependence on the tourism and hospitality sector. As previously noted, it has been estimated that 87 per cent of the Aruban economy depends directly or indirectly on tourism (IMF, 2019; Peterson, 2020). While tourism generates employment and revenues, it also has profound negative impacts on Aruba’s environment and ecosystem. For example, it has been estimated that 20 per cent of the energy produced on the island is consumed by the tourism and hospitality sector (CBA, 2019). In addition, food imports are not only needed for the residents, but also for the tourists. The packaged and processed food and consumables imports lead to even larger waste volumes. According to the respondents, the increased urbanization rate can almost entirely be attributed to the construction of hotels, apartments, bungalows and other facilities for tourists, or the construction of houses for the immigrant tourism-related workforce. Furthermore, respondents stated that because the hotels are mostly located along the shores, they impact the marine environment as they cut off coastline interactions between the marine and terrestrial environments; this is also confirmed by the literature (UN-OHRLLS, 2009; de Scisciolo et al., 2016). Also, with over 800,000 incoming cruise ship passengers per year (CBS, 2015; APA, 2019), dredging and other activities related to these cruise ships are putting significant pressure on the marine environment. Sustainability Challenges Taken into Account in SISSTEM Research Respondents mentioned the urgent need for sound decision-making in Aruba, based on data and research, to address the sustainability challenges. However, many respondents mentioned the lack of data and/or its accessibility to confirm potential links between activities taking place on the island and sustainability challenges. As one respondent who is a stakeholder in the wider Aruban society stated, ‘Aruba is really data deficient in many areas, but certainly on nature and environmental areas. So, it’s just completely missing; we don’t have baseline studies or minimal baseline studies.’ As such, it is essential to start acquiring data on all the sustainability challenges

326

SISSTEM Aruba

TABLE 17.2  Topics of the Eleven PhD Research Projects in the SISSTEM Programme, Aruba

Nr.

Research Subjects

1.

Sustainable agriculture in SIS: Vertical farming

2.

Development of an optimized sustainable waste management system for Aruba

3.

Connectivity between marine fish populations: Research in support of the sustainable management of marine ecosystems

4.

Engineering sustainability … or sustainable engineering: Research project on the edge of sustainability, engineering, entrepreneurship and education in Aruba

5.

Comparative research on social innovation and just resilience in the governance of small insular socio-ecological systems

6.

Detection and spatial analysis of urbanization and land use change in SIS, by means of Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote-sensing techniques

7.

Internet of things for elderly care in Aruba

8.

Operation of reverse osmosis and valorization of brines under conditions of variable productivity: Using the ocean as a sustainable resource

9.

Life cycle analysis for a more sustainable agri-food chain in Aruba

10.

Thermal heating or drying system on solar energy/thermal valorization of indigenous fuels

11.

Organic chemistry for valorization of natural resources

Source: Authors.

raised to support sound evidence-based decision-making. The research component in SISSTEM significantly responds to this need, as there are up to eleven PhD research projects, each aiming to address one or more of these challenges. Table 17.2 presents an overview of the SISSTEM PhD research projects. Incorporating an Island Focus in SISSTEM Research Often respondents stated that the sustainability challenges of Aruba should not be seen as stand-alone elements. Rather, there is a need to put these challenges in the specific context of Aruba, namely the fact that Aruba is an SIS. As Aruba has a surface area of only 180 km², and hence all the sustainability challenges take place in a very limited area within an isolated fragile ecosystem, with no option for diffusion of the hazards to a wider area. As such, these issues and their impact are magnified. In addition, stakeholders indicated that Aruba, like other SIS, lacks sufficient trained people in governance, economics, science and technology, which are essential skills for the sustainable development of a country. According to the respondents, as a result, foreign consultants are often called upon to solve problems that need technological and other expertise. However, these consultants are often not familiar with the local island context, leading to suboptimal or unsustainable solutions. One respondent who was a SISSTEM staff member at UA explained, ‘Most islands then end up importing some other people with the curiosity and the technical drive to come up with solutions locally, but I see them struggle at the start. It takes longer to move forward because these people come in with different ideas from outside. But without knowing the context.’

327

328

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

To account for these specific island challenges, respondents indicated that the SISSTEM programme not only aims to take these specific challenges explicitly into account, but also that this fact was one of the drivers for many SISSTEM staff members and KU Leuven staff members to participate in the project. Specifically, SISSTEM staff members have been selected in such a way that they are all anchored in the Caribbean or have a connection with SIS. In addition, respondents stated multiple times that the research conducted always has a specific focus on finding tailored solutions for the sustainability challenges of Aruba and by extension of other SIS. As a respondent who is a SISSTEM staff member at UA indicated, ‘So in this case it is the development of knowledge, from a local context and no longer the translation of Western methodologies and the like. No, we are going to see what the situation is here and how we can change it. What can we do to contribute to helping the Aruban community first but also the rest of the Caribbean?’ The requirement of locally anchored staff members has large advantages, as they are already aware of the specific challenges. However, respondents also indicated that – particularly due to this requirement – finding suitable staff members has been more difficult than originally anticipated and extra efforts were needed to attract candidates to fill the remaining open positions. Also, respondents mentioned that keeping this insular focus in both research and education is not always easy, and it requires a certain flexibility and patience, especially for KU Leuven staff members used to working in a Western continental setting, which differs from the SIS’s context as detailed in the introduction. Sustainability Challenges Considered in SISSTEM Education In the SISSTEM bachelor programme, many courses taught are based on those originally developed at KU Leuven. Therefore, most of these courses make use of Belgian or European examples and are framed in a continental setting. Both SISSTEM as well as KU Leuven staff members recognize the need to adapt these courses to the local context and the sustainability challenges in Aruba. Local SISSTEM lecturers indicated that instead of using European examples, they use Aruban examples, or they prioritize an emphasis on challenges that are more prevalent in SIS. As a SISSTEM staff member at UA noted, ‘The course is based on a course from KU Leuven, but I am giving it a local spin.’ In addition, some courses (see Table 17.3) are specifically focused on the challenges of SIS. Respondents from both universities indicated that the adaptation of KU Leuven’s course content to the local situation was difficult for some of the more fundamental STEM courses, such as mathematics, chemistry and physics. Also, some KU Leuven staff members indicated that for them it was challenging to adapt the course content to the sustainability challenges of Aruba, as they do not know the local context and challenges very well. Therefore, the work of the local lecturers in providing this local context to the courses cannot be underestimated. Local lecturers, however, also indicated that, while they made serious attempts to integrate the local sustainability challenges, this also takes time and therefore the course content is not yet fully developed. The academic depth of the courses must also be fine-tuned to the knowledge level of the local incoming students. As one respondent, a SISSTEM staff member at UA, stated, ‘So, probably when the lecturing is in cruise control and I have a bit more time, we can see which exercises and experiments we can facilitate more as they relate to Aruba. I am hopeful, when we have proper staffing on board, we can do more and adapt the programme to the Aruban society’.

328

SISSTEM Aruba

TABLE 17.3  Overview of SISSTEM Courses Specifically Focused on SIS Challenges, Aruba

Course Name

Course Objective

Principles of sustainability and SDGs

Understand SIS challenges and sustainable development for SIS

Integrative project in sustainable development

Integrate knowledge on sustainable development and apply it to the analysis of contemporary problems faced by SIS in the Caribbean

Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable development

Conduct research on specific sustainability challenges related to SIS

Entrepreneurship, innovation and society

A course in which a wide variety of speakers from within and outside Aruba are giving seminars on how they perceive entrepreneurship, innovation and society within an SIS context

Source: Authors.

SISSTEM: Financing Structure and Independence The financing structure of the SISSTEM programme was explored. Where do the main finances come from? Can these finances support the programme in the mid- to long-term? Should private sources of funding be added? Might this private funding jeopardize the programme’s independence? Short-Term Financing as Kick-Start for the SISSTEM Programme Currently, the SISSTEM programme is financed as a project under the 11th EDF-OCT European funding. The goal of the funding is merely to kick-start the programme over a period when the curriculum and course content are being developed and optimized, and when the necessary infrastructure, including classrooms and laboratories, are being put in place. Some respondents indicated that for them the initial funding by the EU was very important because it generated trust in the new programme and also allowed for a partnership between the UA and KU Leuven that probably would not have been possible to the same extent without the funding. As another respondent, a SISSTEM staff member at UA, commented, ‘So if we hadn’t had that initial funding, then I don’t know how we could ever have made this successful.’ Respondents also indicated that because the programme is now externally financed, not directly by Aruban public funds, this would allow it to grow and become more established. By the time the EU financing stops, respondents expect that the programme would have gained a sufficient base to move out of the political debate and to get recognition and government financing just like any other educational programme at UA. Long-Term Financing Many respondents raised concerns about the long-term financial sustainability of the programme. As a KU Leuven staff member respondent said, ‘If the financing of the project stops, they will have to be able to continue using their own resources.’ In the long term, the SISSTEM programme will be mainly financed by the Government of Aruba, as agreed before the start of the project, and by the tuition fees paid by local and foreign students. It has been estimated that thirty

329

30

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

students per year is needed to make the delivery of the programme financially feasible. To reach this objective, respondents indicated that extra efforts are needed to attract students from other islands in the region. Hampered by the Covid-19 pandemic, actual visits to other islands to recruit students are impossible at this stage. Therefore, at the time of writing, a social media campaign was run to attract foreign students to the programme. The ability to attract sufficient students and funding for the programme in the long term is one of the main challenges to the sustainability of the programme identified by the stakeholders. In addition, new research projects will require fresh applications for funding, for example with the regional and local government organizations, funding agencies and companies, as well as with the EU, Dutch Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO; Dutch Organization for Scientific Research), through collaborations with other universities. Furthermore, the SISSTEM research programme should be able to assist the Aruban Government in conducting research projects on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in return for the additional research funding. Independence in Education and Research None of the respondents raised concerns about the risk that certain financing structures would jeopardize the independence of the bachelor programme. When the issue was brought up, they were informed that although the government has a large say in the programmes that are run at the UA as they fund almost 90 per cent of these, they do not interfere with the content of programmes and leave final decision-making on course content with UA itself. However, there was a bit more hesitation when it came to the topic of the full independence of the research. While in principle all research topics can be freely investigated, respondents indicated that they fear that certain research results will not be fully accepted and/or respected by the Aruban society when they do not fully match the local expectations. Further, some respondents also mentioned that the research might face difficulties in getting cooperation and support from some stakeholders involved in getting the data needed to conduct the research. This is elaborated further later in the chapter. Nevertheless, in general, it seems that independence of both education and research is guaranteed. SISSTEM’s Institutional Organization I think compartmentalization is always a bit of a threat to the role you can play anyway. Our scale simply does not allow this compartmentalization to persist. This compartmentalization is only possible if you bring people back together. If, for us, this compartmentalization means that each entity is not sustainable, then you are not offering solutions, but you are creating a reduction that can never pay off. In addition, it is also true that I believe that the complexity of sustainability issues in small island states, those are issues that are political, legal, technical, social, that encompass all that. (Member of the SISSTEM steering committee) The majority of the universities around the world, including the UA and KU Leuven, are structured according to traditional disciplines (Stephens et al., 2008). However, within the SISSTEM programme, four different KU Leuven faculties from the Science, Engineering and Technology Group are collaborating now in an interdisciplinary way. In addition the SISSTEM

330

SISSTEM Aruba

programme is designed such that, besides the students taking fundamental STEM courses like mathematics, physics, chemistry or biology, the programme has a strong interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary focus. At the same time, it is an engineering programme, focusing on problemsolving and on applied rather than basic science and is oriented towards sustainable engineering. In this respect, respondents who initialized the programme indicated that it was always their goal not to develop a plain copy of existing STEM programmes, but to tailor it to the local context. Many of the other respondents who indicated that they considered the SISSTEM programme to be unique in this way also recognized this. Indeed, besides traditional STEM courses, the courses presented in Table 17.3 aim to teach the students the skills needed to combine and integrate what they have learnt in the different STEM courses and apply it to actual sustainability challenges within Aruba and other SIS. In this way, the programme equips them not only with knowledge, but also with the skills to operationalize this knowledge when confronted with the local sustainability challenges. These skills and competences include systems thinking, critical thinking, collaboration and self-awareness, ownership and responsibility (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2019). In this sense, the SISSTEM programme follows the principles of ESD. Table 17.4 lists the different courses in the SISSTEM bachelor programme and subdivides them into ‘traditional STEM courses’, ‘courses with interdisciplinary character’ and ‘courses with transdisciplinary character’. As can be seen from Table 17.4, while the majority of the SISSTEM courses (67%) are still fundamental STEM courses, mostly needed as baseline knowledge, 33 per cent are either interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary in nature. Some respondents indicated that the interdisciplinarity and coherence between the different bachelor courses is not yet entirely up to the intended level. As a SISSTEM staff member at UA noted, ‘I still feel that there is a lack of coordination and a lack of, what is the best word for this, alignment between courses.’ While oversight and coherence of the programme is clear at the management level, collaboration and true interactions between the content and the lecturers still needs further improvement. Respondents indicated that this is mainly because the programme is still in its first iteration, and therefore that this is a work in progress. On the research side of the programme, the PhD candidates have very different academic backgrounds and come from different countries. As such, different specializations, experiences and networks are automatically introduced into the programme. From the management side, there are serious attempts to bring the SISSTEM staff members together on a regular basis to discuss their research and to develop the education programme to benefit from these different backgrounds and networks as well as to encourage the cross-fertilization and integration between the different disciplines. Finally, Stephens et al. (2008) highlighted the traditional focus of universities and faculties to disseminate research results via publications in academic journals. In the SISSTEM programme, there is both a focus on this traditional academic dissemination of knowledge via academic publications as well as the sharing and co-creation of knowledge via collaboration with local and international stakeholders. This is discussed in detail later in the chapter. SISSTEM and the Democratization of Education In Aruba, the largest growth in the labour market occurs in sectors that require relatively highly skilled labour. As a SISSTEM staff member commented, ‘In terms of education, brain drain is

331

32

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

TABLE 17.4  Overview of the SISSTEM Courses Taught at UA, Aruba

Traditional STEM Courses

Courses with Interdisciplinary Character

Courses with Transdisciplinary Character

Applied mathematics (6)

Principles of sustainability and SDGs (6)

Integrative project (6)

General chemistry (6)

Environmental sciences (6)

Entrepreneurship, innovation and society (6)

Basics of physics (6)

Socio-ecological systems (6)a Software project management (6)b

Geosciences (6)

Renewable energy (6)c

Applied biological sciences (6)

Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable development (6)

Statistics and advanced mathematics (6)

Environmental law and policy (6)

Introduction to informatics (6) Physics: electromagnetics (6) Bio-organic chemistry and biochemistry (6) Materials engineering (6) Bioeconomics (6) System and control theory (6) Ecophysiology (6)a Environmental chemistry (6)a Signal processing (6)b Machine learning (6)b Chemical and environmental separation processes (6)c Automation and process control (6)c Total credits: 108 ECTS – 67%

Total credits: 42 ECTS – 26%

Total credits: 12 ECTS – 7%

Source: Authors. Notes: The number of credits according to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation Systems (ECTS) system are enclosed in parentheses. Courses from the specialization tracks: a Bio-environmental sciences b Information and data sciences c Technology and engineering Students are expected to spend their 5th semester in a host institute abroad and to attend courses within their specialization and do lab and/or field work. Furthermore, in the third year of the bachelor programme, students have to conduct research and write a bachelor thesis. As the content of the exchange programme and the topics of the bachelor thesis vary with the student, we do not consider this in the calculations.

332

SISSTEM Aruba

not just a problem for Aruba but is a challenge all over the Caribbean .’ Like other Caribbean islands, labour participation increases with the level of education. While in Aruba, people with little education have an unemployment rate of 12.6 per cent, highly educated people have an unemployment rate of only 3.3 per cent (Hermans and Kösters, 2019). Until recently, the absence in Aruba of higher education in STEM made the island completely dependent on external education and expertise in those fields, also leading to a brain drain of local talent and a lack of a sustainable knowledge base on the island itself. Indeed, respondents indicated that due to the lack of higher STEM education, students with interest in STEM go abroad, often to the Netherlands or to the United States, and after their studies, they tend not to return to the island. Furthermore, even if graduate students would come back, they will have missed the island context in their education. Besides the issue of brain drain, respondents indicated that studying abroad comes with its own challenges for these young students, as they often move to far-away countries with a different culture, sometimes being confronted with racism and discrimination. Also, studying abroad is costly, and while study loans are available for studying in the Netherlands, these loans still must be paid back after their studies, leaving freshly graduated students with large debts. Finally, respondents also remarked that not all Arubans can leave the island as they might have other responsibilities like their family or a job. As noted by a stakeholder in the wider Aruban society, ‘While if you have studied here, there is a higher chance that you will also continue to work here. So that is why we think that to expand the labour market in STEM subjects, it is also important that they study here.’ The SISSTEM programme aims to contribute to stopping this brain drain and to creating new opportunities by locally educating these students and training them to address the sustainability challenges in their own country or region. Some respondents indicated that extra efforts might be needed to provide a clear communication of the bachelor programme’s content to attract the right subset of students who are able and willing to study fundamental STEM courses in a sustainability context. The SISSTEM programme is accessible for all students coming out of the highest-level secondary schools with a science track in Aruba, which are organized according to the Dutch education system. Other students who come from the second highest level of schooling or who are missing (part of) the science track can be admitted to the programme after they pass the Academic Foundation Year, which acts as a bridge year between high school and the university. Students older than twenty-one years who do not have the prerequisite education but who have gained the necessary study experience through alternative pathways can take a colloquium doctum exam to access the programme. The tuition and administration fee for the SISSTEM programme is AWG2,500 (US$1,400) for Aruban students or holders of a Dutch passport and AWG8,500 (US$4,725) for non-Dutch passport holders with fewer than five years of official residence in Aruba. These tuition fees are low compared to other institutions in the Caribbean region, but they can be perceived as high as they are about the same as the average monthly wage in Aruba. However, in most cases, students also have access to a study loan, which they must pay back after their studies. Given the relatively high cost of living in combination with the tuition fees, and the fact that the programme also accommodates some older students with families, some of these students have full-time jobs besides their studies. Although such combination is possible, it is very challenging. As with most other programmes organized at the UA, the SISSTEM programme aims to obtain a positive evaluation by the Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie Organsiatie (NVAO). 333

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

This organization is responsible for the accreditation of higher education programmes and/or institutions both in the Netherlands and in Flanders based on a professional and independent evaluation process. Through this accreditation process, neutrality and transparency of the programme are guaranteed. At the time of writing, the SISSTEM programme has not yet obtained this accreditation as the application process can start only after the programme has gone through its first full bachelor cycle. SISSTEM and Its Communication and Interaction with Society As stated by Stephens et al. (2008), the issue of communication should be evaluated at two levels: internally, within the higher education system, and externally, with non-academic stakeholders (Stephens et al., 2008). The internal communication within the higher education system is covered in different ways in the SISSTEM programme. At KU Leuven, a postdoctoral researcher is assigned to facilitate and ensure effective communication between the KU Leuven professors and UA staff members. A general SISSTEM meeting is organized every six months and is attended by the different KU Leuven professors and the members of the SISSTEM steering committee. Furthermore, ad-hoc meetings are organized, when necessary, between the KU Leuven professors and the UA senior lecturers. At UA, meetings are organized regularly, and these are attended by all UA SISSTEM staff members. During these meetings, current issues that the programme is facing are discussed. The PhD candidates are asked to present their research results as part of building up the academic research capacity at UA. As UA SISSTEM staff members have very different backgrounds, these regular internal meetings, whereby knowledge from different perspectives and experiences is shared, are crucial to obtain a more holistic approach of the sustainability challenges addressed within the programme. The external communication with non-academic stakeholders is covered by the triplehelix platform. The goal of this platform is to establish a network with local and international parties that functions as a hub where businesses, institutes, governments and NGOs can share experiences, knowledge and resources. At the academic level, PhD candidates focus on publishing their research results via academic journals and the programme organizes international research seminars under the title ‘Sustainable Island Futures’, at which graduate students and other researchers from SISSTEM as well as from partner institutions present and discuss their research on sustainability issues in SIS. In addition, network sessions are organized to link the PhD researchers with stakeholders. Every six months, the programme sends out a newsletter that highlights the achievements and outputs of the programme. In the SISSTEM ‘Integrative Project’ course of the bachelor programme (as already outlined in Table 17.3), students reach out to stakeholders within the Aruban society to collaborate on a specific sustainability challenge. At the end of the course, the results of the assignments are not only discussed and evaluated internally but are also presented to the stakeholders with whom they collaborated. Current stakeholders involved include, for instance, the Aruba Airport Authority and the Marines’ barracks. In addition, for the course ‘Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Society’, different members of the Aruban or wider Caribbean society are invited to give a talk on various topics related to entrepreneurship, innovation and society in an SIS context. Similarly, connections are made with Aruban society in other courses. A good example is the

334

SISSTEM Aruba

seaweed monitoring project being set up together with the Aruba National Park Foundation, with whom the UA has a Memorandum of Understanding for collaboration, in the context of the ‘Environmental Sciences’ course. Furthermore, networks and collaborations are being established with other universities in Europe, the United States and in the Caribbean. Based on these networks, students can go abroad during their fifth semester for laboratory work experience and pursue specialized courses not currently offered at the UA. In the long term, the SISSTEM programme hopes to host foreign students from other universities through exchange programmes such as the Erasmus+. Finally, the SISSTEM programme is putting lots of effort in promoting the SISSTEM bachelor programme both inside and outside Aruba. For the research component of the programme, the SISSTEM staff members frequently reach out to the wider Aruban and Caribbean society and community. They connect to acquire data via various methods, including stakeholder group meetings, focus groups, multi-criteria analysis, citizen science, interviews, surveys and so on. However, respondents indicated that it has been a challenge in some cases, at least until now, to acquire sufficient data and to get certain stakeholders on board to share their data and knowledge. Reasons for this reticence when it comes to sharing information are, according to respondents, unfamiliarity with STEM research at the UA; a sense of distrust towards how and for what purpose the data are going to be used; or not seeing the personal benefit of putting effort into sharing the data. Respondents, however, noted that with time, as the SISSTEM programme becomes better known, as publications emerge, and as networks are further developed, this challenge could be overcome. Respondents from the wider Aruban society mentioned the need for extra efforts to make the Arubans more aware of the existence of the SISSTEM programme. Efforts like the publication of newspaper articles and videos as well as a broad social media campaign have now been put into place to address this need. In addition, respondents also indicated that their goal is to actively share their research results with the Aruban society, for example, through newspaper articles. Some SISSTEM staff members at the UA indicated that they were hesitant to do so, as they fear that this might result in unmanageable expectations from the small local community, which in the end might not be met. These fears are less prominent towards the academic field, and, as noted before, research results are shared via publications and participations in symposia and conferences.

Discussion: Can SISSTEM Be an Effective Agent of Change for Aruba and Other Small Island States? Table 17.5 presents an overview of the different elements that are considered instrumental for SISSTEM to address the five critical factors identified by Stephens et al. (2008) and links these to the barriers, lessons learnt and recommendations as identified through the analysis of the semi-structured interviews. Table 17.5 shows how the SISSTEM programme is actively focusing its activities on all five critical factors. As such, it can be concluded that the programme has a significant potential of becoming a critical change agent in Aruba, the Caribbean, and potentially other SIS. However, as is also clear from Table 17.5, setting up this programme in Aruba does come with its own challenges. Many barriers identified relate to what can be captured by the term of ‘growing pains’. Indeed, the programme is still young, and some barriers arise as its development

335

336

Long-term financing and therefore long-term sustainability of the programme is guaranteed by government funding agreed upon before the start of the initial project. However, when the initial EU funding stops, partnership with KU Leuven will be more on a voluntary individual level. Attracting sufficient students to the programme from within and outside Aruba essential to ensure the longterm financial sustainability of the programme.

Financial kick-start by the EU, allowing the programme to be developed, but also generating trust and attraction to the programme for some, and making intensive partnership with KU Leuven possible.

Independence of education and research guaranteed through accreditation by NVAO.

Financing structure and independence

Time needed for the programme to grow and courses to be further adopted to the local context.

KU Leuven staff members are not always able to fully grasp the local complexities. Efforts needed to keep communicating specific challenges of Aruba and other SIS. Need for patience and flexibility of KU Leuven staff members.

Need for sufficient staff members acquainted with the local context, which has proven to be more challenging than initially expected. Therefore, extra emphasis and efforts needed to be put into attracting suitable staff members. At a certain point, the local embeddedness might have to be dropped, but then extra effort is needed to keep the insular focus.

Island context and sustainability as backbone of the SISSTEM programme with staff members embedded in the local island context, courses adapted to the local context and research topics especially designed to address sustainability challenges in Aruba and other SIS.

Dominant sustainability challenges

Barriers, Lessons Learnt and Recommendations

Elements Instrumental in Change

Critical Factor

TABLE 17.5  Overview of Implementation of Critical Factors in SISSTEM, Barriers, Lessons Learnt and Recommendations, Aruba

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

SISSTEM as a solution for brain drain and as means to locally educate highly skilled workforce to contribute to the Aruban society. Allowing Arubans and citizens of the wider Caribbean to study in STEM in their own region without having to move to far-away countries, which is sometimes impossible due to personal factors. They can study in their own setting and be educated with knowledge that can directly be applied in the region.

(continued)

Different entry levels of students, which is reduced through the academic foundation year and the colloquium doctum exam. However, extra efforts might be needed to provide a clear communication of the bachelor programme’s content in order to attract the right subset of students who are able and willing to study fundamental STEM courses in a sustainability context. Positive evaluation of the bachelor programme by NVAO is essential to guarantee the value of the bachelors’ diploma at local and international level.

Regular meetings and interactions needed to profit from and further exploit the interdisciplinary character of SISSTEM staff members.

Natural interdisciplinarity as SISSTEM staff members and KU Leuven staff members all have different backgrounds and are sharing their expertise.

Democratization of education

Interdisciplinarity and coherence between different courses not yet entirely up to level as there is time needed for this coherence to develop further.

Focus on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity throughout the educational bachelor programme and in research, allowing for a holistic view.

Institutional organization

Barriers, Lessons Learnt and Recommendations

Elements Instrumental in Change

Critical Factor

SISSTEM Aruba

337

338

Source: Authors.

Large efforts being made to set up networks and collaborations with local and regional stakeholders, both for the educational as well as for the research programme. Networks are being formed, collaborations on research have been set up (e.g. seaweed monitoring project, collaboration with Marines’ barracks sustainability projects and with Aruba Airport Authority SDG strategic plan). Regular communications to the Aruban and Caribbean society on research results.

Communication and interaction with society

Internal communication is well established with regular internal meetings.

Elements Instrumental in Change

Critical Factor

Table 17.5 (continued)

Stakeholders not always prepared to share data due to unfamiliarity with STEM research at the UA, sense of distrust, and lack of seeing personal benefits. Extra efforts needed to make the wider Aruban society aware of the SISSTEM project and its intended goals and to generate trust.

Barriers, Lessons Learnt and Recommendations

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

339

SISSTEM Aruba

is progressing. For example, underestimating the difficulties in finding suitable academic staff who have sufficient affinity with the sustainability challenges in SIS, the time required to further incorporate the local sustainability challenges into the curricula, and the time needed to build up trust among both potential future students as well as the broader Aruban society to become involved in the SISSTEM programme, either by attending the programme or by sharing data and so on. Other concerns relate to the long-term financial sustainability of the programme itself. The aforementioned results are based on an explorative case-study analysis. A limitation of the research is that the interviews were conducted during the early development phase of the programme, clearly showing the potential. It is, however, difficult to claim based on these data as to whether the programme can have an effective impact on Aruba. This will be possible only after a few years. However, examples like the seaweed monitoring project, as well as the sustainability assessments at the Marines’ barracks and at the Aruba Airport Authority indicate that the chances are very high that SISSTEM will become an effective agent of change in Aruba and potentially the wider Caribbean. The study presented in this chapter focuses on the potential that is built into the structure, goals and curriculum of the SISSTEM programme. Within a few years, when the SISSTEM programme has had sufficient time to be fully deployed, further studies should be carried out on its ability to deliver its potential objectives based on measurable outcomes, including employability of the graduates in positions that truly impact the sustainable development of Aruba and comparable SIS. Other potential future research could be a similar analysis of case studies in other comparable regions to propose recommendations that are more general in nature.

Conclusions The SISSTEM programme, currently being set up by UA in collaboration with KU Leuven, Belgium, was evaluated in terms of whether it has the potential to be an effective change agent for sustainability in SIS in general and in Aruba in particular. The evaluation was based on the five critical factors identified by Stephens et al. (2008). While the SISSTEM programme only started recently, the positive evaluation of the programme for each of these factors allows us to conclude at this stage that the SISSTEM programme has a significant potential to be an agent of change for sustainability in Aruba and potentially other SIS. The approach of the SISSTEM programme, its barriers and the lessons learnt have been described in this chapter. This can be of interest for other universities around the globe that aim to develop new or to enhance existing curricula to become change agents for sustainability.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. The development of new programmes by a university in a small island state can support the local development of people who in turn can advance the pursuit of sustainability within this challenging context. 2. Incorporating local sustainability challenges into the curricula and PhD research programmes relies on trustful relationships with the local community as problem owners.

339

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education



3. New programmes and research projects can be a good way to navigate the disciplinebased structure of universities and harness inputs of faculty and students around interdisciplinary sustainability challenges.

Appendix 17.1 Interview Guide to Steer Semi-Structured Interviews Specific to the use of semi-structured interviews is the development of an interview guide. This ensured important topics were not forgotten, and there was still freedom to go deeper into a particular topic and ask additional questions if this was considered interesting or to better understand what was actually meant by the respondent. In practice, the main structure of the interview guide was kept for each respondent, with adjustments made based on the category of respondent, where they could provide a different kind of information. For example, although the topics remained the same, slightly different questions were asked to steering committee members, KU Leuven professors, SISSTEM PhD students and SISSTEM senior lecturers. Not all respondents were able to answer all questions, as they would have lacked sufficient background on the SISSTEM programme (e.g. respondents from the wider Aruban society) or of the educational system in Aruba (e.g. SISSTEM staff recently arrived in Aruba or KU Leuven professors). Introduction Questions • • • • •

Can you shortly introduce yourself? o What is your function in daily life? When did you first hear about the SISSTEM programme, and how did you get involved? o If involved early in the project: Could you present briefly the history of the SISSTEM programme and project? What were the main drivers to develop the project and programme? If SISSTEM staff member o Why did you apply for this job? What attracted you to this job? If you would need to explain the SISSTEM programme to someone who is not familiar with the project or the programme, how would you do this? Aruba and other small island states have some distinct challenges. According to you, what are the main challenges of Aruba and other small island states? General Questions on Education Systema

•

Can you give a bit of background on the university system in Aruba? o Is the University of Aruba accessible for every Aruban, or are there limitations? o What are the subscription fees and how to these compare to the average Aruban income? o Are there scholarships and how do they function?

•

According to you what is the main function of a university? o What role does the University of Aruba have in the Aruban society? o What role could the UA potentially have? o According to you, what is the perspective of the Aruban society on the university?

340

SISSTEM Aruba

Research • If SISSTEM PhD researcher/senior lecturer/KU Leuven professor involved in SISSTEM research: o Can you explain the research topic? o What do you hope to achieve with the research? o How do you hope to have an impact on the Aruban society and on that of other small island states? o What challenges do you encounter in the research? o Are you free to research anything you want, or are there limitations? o Do you plan to communicate your results to the Aruban society? o Do you discuss your research results at a regular basis, and if so, with whom? o Do these discussions have an influence on your research and how? Teaching • For SISSTEM junior lectures and senior lecturers: o Which courses do you teach? Can you explain what they are about? o In your courses, do you try to make a connection with the sustainability challenges of Aruba and other SIS, and, if so, how? o What do you hope to achieve with your courses? What should the students remember from your course? o What are the challenges you encounter in teaching? General Closure Questions • What are the main successes of the SISSTEM programme so far? • What are the main challenges of the SISSTEM programme so far? • When would you consider this project to be successful? • How do you see the future of the SISSTEM programme? Note: aNot all respondents were able to answer all of these questions, as some of them arrived only recently in Aruba and did not know the details of the local education system

Note Disclaimer: The European Union funds the SISSTEM project. The contents of this chapter are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

References Aruba Ports Authority (APA) (2019). ‘Historic Cruise Data’. https://www.aru​bapo​rts.com/main/histo​riccru​ise-data/. Accessed 23 June 2021. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology – Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 4th ed. Lanham: AltaMira Press. 341

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Briguglio, L. (1995). ‘Small Island Developing States and Their Economic Vulnerabilities’, World Development, 23 (9), pp. 1615–32. Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N., and Vella, S. (2009). ‘Economic Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements’, Oxford Development Studies, 37 (3), pp. 229–47. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (2015). Statistical Yearbook 2015, Statistical Yearbook 2015. Oranjestad: Central Bureau of Statistics Aruba. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (2020). ‘Quarterly Demographic Bulletin 2020’. https://cbs.aw/wp/ index.php/2020/06/15/quarte​rly-demo​grap​hic-bulle​tin-2019-2/. Accessed 15 September 2020. Centrale Bank van Aruba (CBA) (2019). Fostering Economic Resilience: From Roots to Routes. Oranjestad: Centrale Bank van Aruba. Connell, J., and Lowitt, K. (2020). Food Security in Small Island States. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Derix, R. (2016). Landscape Series 1: Spatial Developments in the Aruban Landscape: A Multidisciplinary GIS-Oriented Approach. Oranjestad: Central Bureau of Statistics Aruba. Eppinga, M. B., de Scisciolo, T., and Mijts, E. N. (2019). ‘Environmental Science Education in a Small Island state: Integrating Theory and Local Experience’, Environmental Education Research, 25 (7), pp. 1004–18. Ewalt, D. M. (2019). ‘The World’s Most Innovative Universities 2019’. Reuters. https://www.reut​ers.com/ inn​ovat​ive-unive​rsit​ies-2019. Accessed 22 June 2021. Gomes, C. (2014). ‘The Case of Small Island Developing States of the Caribbean: The Challenge of Building Resilience’. https://repo​sito​rio.cepal.org/bitstr​eam/han​dle/11362/38366/LCCAR​L439​ _en.pdf?seque​nce=1&isAllo​wed=y. Accessed 15 September 2020. Guillaumont, P. (2010). ‘Assessing the Economic Vulnerability of Small Island Developing States and the Least Developed Countries’. Journal of Development Studies, 46 (5), pp. 828–54. Hermans, B., and Kösters, L. (2019). ‘Labour Force on the Dutch Caribbean Islands’. http://stat. gov.sx/downlo​ads/LFS/Labour_Fo​rce_​Dutc​h_Ca​ribb​ean_​Isla​nds.pdf%0Aht​tps://www.cbs.nl/-/ media/_pdf/2019/09/2019s​t08-lab​our-force-dutch-caribb​ean-isla​nds_​web.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2020. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2019). ‘Kingdom of the Netherlands – Aruba’. IMF Country Report No. 19/148. https://www.imf.org/en/Publi​cati​ons/CR/Iss​ues/2019/06/03/King​dom-of-the-Neth​ erla​nds-Aruba-2019-Arti​cle-IV-Consu​ltat​ion-Disc​ussi​ons-Press-Rele​ase-and-46958. Accessed 15 September 2020. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2021). ‘Kingdom of the Netherlands – Aruba’. IMF Country Report No. 21/81. https://www.imf.org/en/Publi​cati​ons/CR/Iss​ues/2021/04/21/King​dom-of-the-Neth​erla​ nds-Aruba-2021-Arti​cle-IV-Consu​ltat​ion-Disc​ussi​ons-Press-Rele​ase-50175. Accessed 24 June 2021. Kerr, S. A. (2005). ‘What Is Small Island Sustainable Development About?’. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48 (7–8), pp. 503–24. Kioupi, V., and Voulvoulis, N. (2019). ‘Education for Sustainable Development: A Systemic Framework for Connecting the SDGs to Educational Outcomes’. Sustainability, 11 (21), pp. 1–18. Koehn, P. H., and Uitto, J. I. (2014). ‘Evaluating Sustainability Education: Lessons from International Development Experience’. Higher Education, 67 (5), pp. 621–35. Morse, J. M. (1991). ‘Chapter 8 – Strategies from Sampling’, in J. M. Morse (ed.), Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 127–45. Peterson, R. R. (2020). ‘Over the Caribbean Top: Community Well-Being and Over-Tourism in Small Island Tourism Economies’. International Journal of Community Well-Being. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s42​413-020-00094-3. de Scisciolo, T. et al. (2016). ‘Beach Debris on Aruba, Southern Caribbean: Attribution to Local LandBased and Distal Marine-Based Sources’. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 106, pp. 49–57. Shah, K. U. (2021). ‘Science, Technology & Innovation for Sustainability in Small Island States: Key Implications for Policy and Practice’. IPL Policy Brief Series, 1, pp. 1–10.

342

SISSTEM Aruba

Stephens, J. C. et al. (2008). ‘Higher Education as a Change Agent for Sustainability in Different Cultures and Contexts’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9 (3), pp. 317–38. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2014). Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing Countries: Results of the UNEP Foresight Process. Nairobi: UNEP. United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) (2009). The Impact of Climate Change on the Development Prospects of the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. New York: UN Headquarters. Weekes, C., Mijts, E., and van Caneghem, J. (2021). ‘Sustainable Strategies for Materials and Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in Small Island states: A Case Study of Aruba’. Paper Presented in 18th International Symposium on Waste Management and Sustainable Landfilling. 11–15 October, Cagliari. World Bank (2020). ‘The World Bank in Small States’. https://www.worldb​ank.org/en/coun​try/smal​lsta​ tes/overv​iew. Accessed 14 August 2020. World Bank (2021). ‘Aruba – Country Profile’. https://datab​ank.worldb​ank.org/views/repo​rts/repor​twid​ get.aspx?Repo​rt_N​ame=Cou​ntry​Prof​ile&Id=b450f​d57&tbar=y&dd=y&inf=n&zm=n&coun​try=ABW. Accessed 23 June 2021.

343

34

344

345

18

Global Challenges and Opportunities for African Universities STEPHANIE BURTON AND LETI KELYN

Introduction In a world where current global challenges are many and solutions are urgently needed, the broader international science community must work together in fundamentally different ways to enhance global knowledge production. The challenges are complex and dynamic, and science-based approaches are essential to provide new knowledge and its application to enable a transformed world as well as to address the megatrends of rapid technological development, globalization, the climate crisis and mass migration trends. Yet Africans are seeking to address the challenges that Africa faces: ‘Even if scientists leave the continent, they are still connected. Go east, west, north or south – home is home’ (Datok in Woolston, 2019). The multiple impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have led to unprecedented damage to national and global economies and societal structures and systems; widening inequalities; threatening employment, especially for women (Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2020, p. 8); and worsening environmental conditions. The pandemic has affected the health and livelihoods of the most vulnerable groups in society and affected poverty-stricken regions in Africa, as much as, if not more than, anywhere in the world. Economic and social crises, compounded by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, require deep understanding through a transdisciplinary approach to address the diverse facets of multiple challenges at the same time (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2021). In the face of ongoing (and future) epidemics and environmental pressures, Africa faces social fragmentation, widening inequality among countries, and there is a growing need to rebuild economies and develop effective approaches to public health systems. Considering all these factors, addressing sustainability challenges in Africa has become more complex and more challenging. Furthermore, climate change, already the world’s greatest threat, is magnified by the prospect of long-term recurrent pandemic events as well as the increasing incidence of extreme climate-related events and their impact on economies, productivity, and the health and well-being of people.

345

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals Before the Covid-19 pandemic, it was widely accepted that the world’s most pressing challenges were comprehensively and accurately expressed in the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015). The SDG agenda remains relevant and enjoys global support as a framework to create solutions for a better world environment. The SDG vision for a better and more equitable world is a moral agenda, where the obligations are the same for all countries and every sector has a shared responsibility. However, sustainability challenges are wicked problems because of their complexity, and dynamic interdependent nature, to the extent that they often seem ‘resistant to solution’ (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2017, p. 1). UNESCO (2017) supported the development of ‘Guidelines on Sustainability Science in Research and Education’ for implementing the SDGs as part of an ongoing programme aiming to broaden the application of the sustainability science approach in (among others) higher education institutions (HEIs). Sustainable Development in Africa Progress towards achieving the SDGs has been slow and varied across the different regions of Africa, with most African countries not achieving the targets they originally set (SDSN, 2020, pp. 4–5). In Africa, the greatest challenges are with the SDGs that speak to food security and zero hunger (SDG 2); good health and well-being (SDG 3); industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9); and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16). Accelerated progress is needed in all goals related to human well-being (SDG 1 to SDG 7), quality education (SDG 4) and sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) (Statistics South Africa, 2019). The ‘OECD Wellbeing Framework’ (OECD, 2020) includes measures of health, housing, life satisfaction, quality of environment and social connection; developing countries have experienced deterioration in all these facets. On the OECD dashboard of targets for the SDGs, the goals that already present the greatest challenges in Africa are SDG 3, with 87 per cent of developing countries scoring low, and SDG 9 and SDG 16, both with 78 per cent of countries scoring low (OECD, 2020). Moreover, no African country scored above average on thirteen of the seventeen goals (OECD, 2020). Overall, just under 2 per cent of the whole dashboard shows improvement/ on-target progress. The goals where Africa is performing better are SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) with 20 per cent and 7 per cent of countries achieving above average scores, respectively (see also Selormey et al., 2019). The Afrobarometer is a pan-African, non-partisan research network that conducts public attitude surveys on democracy, governance, economic conditions and related issues across more than thirty countries in Africa. Six rounds of surveys were conducted between 1999 and 2015, and findings from Round 7 surveys (2016–18) are currently being released. Considering the same challenges, the lens of the Afrobarometer speaks directly to the needs, concerns and priorities of the African population. Key findings of the most recent report include issues of unemployment, health, education, poverty and food shortage. Unique problems arise in African countries, such as water supply in Guinea and Burkina Faso; food shortages in Malawi, Mali and Niger; crime and security in Kenya and Madagascar. These findings link closely with the perception of citizens in most African countries that their governments need to invest in the areas of education and health 346

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

as top priorities. Significantly, climate change itself was not identified as a priority concern among citizens surveyed by Afrobarometer, with respect to wanting government action (see Coulibaly et al., 2018). Indeed, Afrobarometer’s public surveys show that while many people in Africa have heard of climate change, about 40 per cent are unfamiliar with the concept and only some 30 per cent are ‘climate change literate’. Nevertheless, climate change does have critical impacts on the priority areas identified, such as water supply, food shortages and agriculture. It is not yet clear what will be the full impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the achievement of the SDGs in Africa (and elsewhere), but it would seem obvious to predict some overarching trends for certain key social and economic goals, especially those related to health and wellbeing, and economic growth. Poverty leads to basic survival challenges such as health, water and food as well as infrastructure, homes and security. The most recent SDG Report (2020), considering the impact of Covid-19, indicates that ‘the poor, disadvantaged, and marginalised communities tend to have the least say in the decisions that affect them and are least likely to be included in the data and evidence that governments use to allocate resources and shape policies’ (SDSN, 2020, p. 2).

Developing Research in Universities in Africa All African heads of state have agreed on the African Union Agenda 2063 (AU, 2002), an ambitious action plan to stimulate further development throughout the continent. Realizing Agenda 2063 is strongly dependent on enhancing adequate skills and competences among the labour force as well as increasing the volume, relevance and quality of frontier-led research. It is estimated that African universities generate up to 95 per cent of the research output in Sub-Saharan Africa, and in several African countries, the national flagship university produces more than 50 per cent of the national research output (African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA)–The Guild, 2020a). This suggests that strengthening the overall research and development (R&D) and innovation capacity in Africa should be focused, at least principally, on developing research-intensive universities as the core knowledge institutions on the continent. This would support the universities’ critical role in enhancing the R&D capacity and innovation potential of the private sector, in setting up successful incubation projects and in contributing to the digital economy in Africa. The importance of finding African solutions to African problems by African partnerships is well recognized. However, the higher education environment in Africa is facing numerous practical, infrastructural, political and research capacity challenges, which are hindering the ability to address global and continental issues. Higher education on the African continent requires better infrastructure, technology, funding, access to research information and data, collaboration and partnerships. Universities also face major capacity challenges in many areas, including uncertain human and budgetary resources resulting from insufficient national funding and fragmented and unsustainable investments from development aid agencies. All these factors impede academic development and lead to low regard for African universities from universities from outside the continent (Maassen, 2020, pp. 7–8). Young African researchers have highlighted a range of challenges, including a lack of public understanding of science, limited educational opportunities, funding constraints, a poorly trained workforce to implement scientific solutions (such as in engineering), personal safety and reliable 347

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

electricity (Woolston, 2019; Chingwete et al., 2019). These factors result in researchers from the African continent seeking international career paths, as their governments fail to prioritize investment in science and technology as part of economic development (ARUA–The Guild, 2020a, p. 3). Universities ‘face major capacity challenges in many areas, such as human resources management, education and research facilities, the institutional room to manoeuvre, and the unstable institutional budget situation, resulting from insufficient national funding and fragmented, unsustainable investments from development aid agencies, which often hinder further academic development and growth. Therefore, they are generally not regarded as equal scientific partners for universities from outside the continent’ (Maassen, 2020, p. 3). With support for leveraging international opportunities to address local problems, and balancing funding with projects, these young African researchers could become part of a globalized approach that will not only bridge the resource divide, but also enhance respect for researchers in Africa (Woolston, 2019). Adopting sustainability science approaches to address African challenges will require further capacity building and paradigm shifts from traditional disciplinary approaches (UNESCO, 2017, p. 4). In developing interdisciplinary collaboration between the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities and liberal arts, the shift will need to embrace sustainability science. The next generation of science leaders will need to address the challenges of a post-Covid-19 society. They will require a much broader and diverse skills set to enable researchers to address risk and sustainability for social development and well-being. These skills would include, but are not limited to, critical- and systems thinking, and transdisciplinarity (i.e. transdisciplinary research skills such as epistemological agility, systems thinking foresight, critical thinking, innovativeness, science communication and advice for knowledge transfer). There is also a need to develop the linkages among science, society and policy (UNESCO, 2017, p. 2). Other skills include: 1. General research skills such as project design, scholarly communication, open science principles, ethics, article writing, grant proposals, interviewing skills. 2. Advanced research skills such as measures of excellence, text and data analysis, peer reviewing, participation in committees, mentorship and serving on tenure-review committees. 3. Personal development skills such as verbal communication, leadership, diplomacy, time management, work–life balance, improvement of research profile, awareness of additional challenges that transdisciplinary research requires (see Sellberg, 2021). 4. Technical research skills such as advanced digital literacy, internet-based study, qualitative data analysis, research data management, data visualization, geographical information systems (GIS) analysis, statistical or mathematical modelling. 5. Collaboration skills such as communication (verbal and written), policymaking, international negotiations, collaborative interpersonal skills (culture, ideology, contexts, viewpoints). In Africa, as elsewhere, there is a lack of institutional mechanisms to advance the collaborations and partnerships needed in higher education and research in order to promote effective dialogue between research, society and policy. The transdisciplinary research method focuses on a holistic and co-creation approach – working with stakeholders from all sectors of society, including affected communities, to participate in the design, initiate and conduct science programmes and implement innovations. This can enable communication and collaboration of universities with 348

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

civil society, business and industry, and policymakers. The inclusivity achieved through this approach builds social cohesion and buy-in, and it also increases the likelihood of success in achieving the shared goals of R&D programmes (AU, 2020, pp. 14–16). Academic–Industry–Government Partnerships Universities have a key role to play in building academic–industry–government partnerships through their ability to define problems, design programmes to find solutions as well as to initiate stakeholder collaboration. Science and technology are key to enabling economic and social development (AU, 2020, p. 8; European Union (EU), 2020, p. 5) and creating solutions to the many challenges that come from science-based approaches, multi- and transdisciplinary collaborations as well as cross-sectoral contribution. The success of such collaborations requires the establishment of partnerships and developing cooperative ways of working (Du Plessis, 2020). Partnerships of various types can enable cooperation between sectors and help work towards inclusivity in R&D. Nationally and regionally, such partnerships can be built between institutions and sectors, based on shared purpose, agreed objectives and available resources. The role of business and societal actors is as important as that of research and government organizations, particularly with respect to investment and resourcing of development initiatives. African Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic The Covid-19 pandemic has undoubtedly impacted Africa, not least due to the consequent economic and social effects. Nevertheless, it has also stimulated significant development given the urgent need for research and provision of information to governments and communities. Scientists have played a significant role in the development of public understanding of the effects and consequences of the pandemic as well as in education to influence behaviour and protect lives, and in Africa, this has largely been led by universities (ARUA, 2020, p. 2). The African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) network reported on the response of research universities to the pandemic and the need for advice and technical developments, including the formation of task teams to advise governments, development of testing technologies, and participation in global networks to gather genomic survey data for monitoring viral spread and variant emergence, for developing vaccines, and for producing protective materials. An important development arising from the reporting on ARUA responses has been a grant from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) to support ARUA universities in improving the continent’s capacity for vaccine development. Three research hubs were established (ARUA, 2020, pp. 16–17), in eastern, southern and western Africa, to assist with organizing key collaborations to enable vaccine development collectively, where it would not be possible by individual institutions. The Role of Policymakers Sustainable development in Africa requires not only science and technology, but also transformations underpinned by strong and shared policy frameworks. Many such instruments are relatively new and as such not well established, and in Africa, there are additional economic issues and concerns related to low productivity, security, governance and social support (InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), 2019). 349

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

The Network of African Science Academies (NASAC, 2019), comprising twenty-eight members (as of November 2019) plays an important role in advocacy and representation on science, particularly with respect to AU. The IAP in their report on African academies (IAP, 2019), and their role in harnessing science, engineering and medicine to address African challenges, noted the important role of academies in working together to inform African policymakers about the role of science in the development of Africa and aligning their policies with the SDG agenda. The report also noted the role of regional offices of international organizations in the UN system and the AU in supporting the science community of Africa (IAP, 2019). International Partnerships and Networks Universities and members of the global academy typically have intellectual and moral autonomy, and they accept and fulfil their responsibilities to society in relation to addressing global challenges, among their other roles. These responsibilities transcend national boundaries and can be shared through internationalization of higher education and the cooperative activities associated with international partnerships. A recent survey by the International Association of Universities (IAU) showed that most universities see enhanced international cooperation and capacity building as the major purpose of internationalization of higher education. This underlines the view that universities recognize a responsibility to contribute to society and the development of social justice (Deane, 2021), and this is the case for African universities. The development of science leadership is an important opportunity for African science organizations, and there are some very promising initiatives in place on the continent. Networks of HEIs are key to building R&D capacity and ensuring successful collaboration. Many examples of international networks of universities exist that serve to bring their members together around shared interests and priorities. Examples include: 1. Association of African Universities (AAU, 2012) has a membership of over 400 African universities, and partners with the AU, the World Bank and the EU as an overarching voice for higher education in Africa. The aims of the AAU are to ‘shape policy for higher education, science and innovation; promote best practices in undergraduate and graduate education; and strengthen the contributions of research universities to society’. 2. The Africa Research Universities Alliance (ARUA, 2015) is a network of sixteen researchintensive universities that focus on expanding and enhancing the quality of research conducted in Africa by African researchers. Focusing on research intensity as a requirement for membership has meant that ARUA is effective in building collaborations that are making significant contributions to Africa-led research programmes, such as the development of vaccines and Covid-19 testing, food security, and climate and development. 3. The African Science Leadership Programme (ASLP), the Next Einstein Forum (NEF) and several African National Young Academies (NYAs) are supporting the aspirations of emerging African scientists in using science to inform policy and improve lives (IAP, 2019). 4. The Australia Africa Universities Network (AAUN, 2014) adds a dimension of south–south cooperation. This is a consortium of universities in Australia and Africa, connected through institutional partnerships, focusing on educational and research programmes which are largely related to sustainability challenges facing both continents.

350

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

All these networks represent opportunities to build scientific capacity on the continent of Africa. However, what is needed is more intensive and effective inter-institutional communication and coordination of research activities. In Africa, efforts are hindered by poor infrastructure and connectivity – a major barrier to effective collaboration (AU, 2020, p. 15). Indeed, ‘The AU Programme on Infrastructure Development for Africa (PIDA) revealed different levels of infrastructure readiness to support innovation in African economies. It is also reflected in the low score by Africa in many of the major classifications or indices such as the world’s leading universities, competitiveness index, etc.’ (AU, 2020, p. 15). The Opportunity of the Digital Era The opportunity provided by the advancing wave of technology is to accelerate development, especially in the less-developed countries in Africa. Using twenty-first-century ways of creating and sharing knowledge and information will allow universities to enable communication; remove cultural and inter-sectoral barriers; and build linkages between people, between communities and across regions, thereby influencing education and improving the quality of life. Superimposed on the SDG agenda, the rapidly progressing digital era of the Fourth Industrial revolution is generating new ways of connecting, digitizing information and integrating data, in addition to calling for new intersecting and converging technologies to be developed and applied. However, associated challenges include job insecurity and the need for different types of work, which in turn require new ways of training. Furthermore, access to connectivity and new modes of information sharing present challenges in many parts of the developing world, where lack of infrastructure, access, training and capacity could lead to further widening of inequality and even greater development deficits (Woolston, 2019). As the digital era moves forward, the production of data, its use, protection and sharing have become complex, requiring systems for information and data management that are largely digital and often orientated towards open science. This means that, to participate internationally, African universities require data capacity, connectivity and communication technologies. Partnerships and networks that include business and industry, as well as universities, need to be built to achieve this as a shared objective to ensure a system that is consistent across the continent (Kigotho, 2021). Although various African academic networks are in place, platforms and mechanisms for facilitating collaboration and accelerating information and knowledge sharing are not well established in Africa. This is increasingly critical in the digital era, where sharing of information is at the heart of collaborative and transdisciplinary research, and the online activities of universities and communities of practice (Gunderman and Vance, 2021). Open Science The availability of high-tech, digital and smart technologies (such as cloud computing and virtual research platforms) that allow open digital access will enable universities to engage in data-driven science and effective transdisciplinary research for sustainable development. What is needed in Africa is the necessary connectivity and infrastructure, both of which are lacking in most regions (Chetty, 2021). With this opportunity comes the need for digital literacy – for all members of all

351

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

communities – and innovation in the education systems at all levels, so that people can acquire the skills and capacities that will enable them to access digital systems for their respective needs. The European Commission (EC) proposed a vision for a global approach to research and innovation that involves cooperation among countries and regions, supported by a multilateral framework of agreements. The vision involves ‘Open Science’ as the basis for international cooperation in addressing, among other things, the grand challenges of climate chance and environmental sustainability, health and digital transformation (Murphy and Jørgensen, 2021). Common challenges listed in the proposed renewed AU–EU collaboration will include five challenges that would secure ‘investment in research, innovation, and higher education’. This will include public health; the Green Deal; blue (marine) economy and energy transitions; digital transformations for a more sustainable economy and society; good governance, peace and security; and migration, mobility and overcoming discrimination (ARUA–The Guild, 2020b, p. 2). The envisioned African Open Science Platform (AOSP) project is funded by the South African Government’s Department of Science and Technology (DST) through the National Research Foundation (NRF), the International Science Council (ISC) and its Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA); and managed by an AOSP Office hosted by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) under direction of CODATA. (see the ASSAf Landscape Study (part 1), 2019) Piloted in 2016 as a pan-African initiative, AOSP was set up as the landscape for data science initiatives in Africa with the aim of establishing an open science community of practice. It comprises national entities, pan-African or regional bodies: the African Academy of Sciences and NASAC for academies; AAU; and the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) for universities; and AfricaConnect3 (AC3). Since 2011, AfricaConnect has worked towards ‘supporting the creation, development and use of advanced, reliable internet connectivity for the teaching, learning and research communities of Africa’ (AC3, 2021) in a three-phase approach (AfricaConnect, 2011–15; AfricaConnect2, 2015–19; and AfricaConnect3, 2019–). Plans included the development of policy frameworks, incentives, training and technical requirements for the operational platform. The six identified strands of the platform included cloud computing and data access and analysis tools; software tools and policies/practice for research data management; an African Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Institute; data-intensive ice research programmes; network for Education and Dataintensive Skills in Data and Information; and network for Open Science Access and Dialogue (see ASSAf Landscape Study (part 1), 2019). However, the project has yet to become fully operational due to institutional and technical challenges, with roll-out of the website and data repositories delayed. The proposed timeframe for enhancing the roll-out is now set as 2021 for operationalization (hosting arrangements, business plan development, appointment of staff, initial financial arrangements), and 2022 for implementation (node development, strategic partnerships, communication/lobbying, continental representative body) (information supplied by the Director of Strategy, Planning and Partnerships (SPP) at the NRF, personal communication). The AOSP Landscape Study (part I) (2019) identified six broad categories of open data challenges in relation to research cultures: low interaction with open data discussions by African researchers; complicated ethical and legal frameworks; lack of positive examples of open African research; skills shortages; financial barriers; and utility of data (ASSAf, 2019, p. 52). This speaks 352

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

to two diverse challenges – that of a lack of availability of government data and statistics for research purposes, and off-continent data harvesting and analysis. Exploring the landscape of open data research repositories – with an African focus in relation to the SDGs – shows rather disappointingly that the data are mostly in large-scale international data collection projects, and they are used for the purposes of off-continent data analysis (ASSAf, 2019 p. 76). There are a few examples of countering the international hold on African data, using data driving the African agenda. These include universities such as the University of Botswana, Botswana International University of Science and Technology (BIUST) and the Makerere University (Uganda). ‘Rightly [they] regard research data as an asset and a shop window that can increase reputation and build partnerships’ (ASSAf, 2019, p. 35). Initiatives from these institutions include policy development ‘to discourage helicopter research’ and to ensure adequate recognition, partnership opportunities and using data ownership to the benefit of researchers (ASSAf, 2019, p. 35). In the context of sustainable development, and open science more generally, the contributions of government data (SDSN, 2020, p. 16) and research data are complementary, and each make a major contribution to science (ASSAf, 2019, p. 35). Prioritization of challenges in implementing the SDGs differ from one African country to another, but lack of statistical capacity is the most important challenge in Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Niger and Tunisia, while lack of funding is the most important challenge in Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republican, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Furthermore, some countries (Algeria, Libya, Niger, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia and South Africa) cite too many indicators as the most important challenge with Zimbabwe being the only country to report that indicators not being well defined as a crucial issue (SDSN, 2020, p. 16). Universities can serve as an important conduit for this connection between open science and government data. The recent Covid-19 crisis highlighted the fact that timely production of data is crucial during health emergencies. Quality statistics and effective National Statistics Offices are essential for all stages of evidence-based decision-making and policy formulation, especially in healthcare, and African countries have many deficiencies in this area (SDSN, 2020, p. 27). For example, only three African countries can provide citizens with birth and death certificates upon request within thirty days or less and free of charge (SDSN, 2020, p. 29).

Key African Opportunities Networks of institutions and organizations working together are key to building capacity and ensuring successful collaboration. Several initiatives serve as examples, such as the many institutional partnerships associated with the University of Pretoria (UP). We examine some of these here. Public Health: Institute for Sustainable Malaria Control Dealing with public health and future pandemics requires digitization of health information and data-driven public health initiatives. The UP Institute for Sustainable Malaria Control, a programme supported by the national Medical Research Council and co-sponsored through a 353

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

partnership with a local travel management company, is co-developing a range of integrated transdisciplinary approaches to address malaria in Africa. One programme involves the use of remote sensing to monitor the conditions that might exacerbate malaria infections. The technology also communicates with members of the public through a cellular phone app(lication), supplying information about local conditions and malaria-related health hazards, nearby health facilities and actions/means to avoid infection. This provides an excellent example of how much could be achieved to promote health in Africa, through the next iteration of this technology: a system that maps exposure to many diseases, predicts the next wave of disease, and links this to climatic conditions and climate change would be invaluable, especially given the likelihood of new pandemics in future. The technology could also provide information for healthcare businesses and allow planning to provide health cover, and also help educate communities in advance of disasters and threats. Industry Development: Innovation Africa Innovation Africa@UP (2020) ‘provides an investment platform for research and capacity development needs for the future of agriculture in Africa, catering for joint initiatives between business, governments, development, and research organizations. While the initial focus of this development is precision and sustainable agriculture, other sectors such as transport, health, education, and others will also use this platform’. Bringing together technologies and initiatives, Innovation Africa@UP is a research investment platform that hosts and develops government– industry–university research entities to address national and pan-African needs for sustainable development and economic growth. The Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), Engineering 4.0 and Future Africa and various other research programmes and faculties at UP provide a powerful foundation for the Innovation Africa@UP platform. The focus is on combining development in smart infrastructure and transport, distributed sensor networks, autonomous vehicle and drone technology, virtual reality, data science and artificial intelligence with advances in biotechnology. Key examples include: 1. Data-driven sustainability: Information Hub (FABI) The Information Hub (IH) data platform is an initiative of Innovation Africa@UP and FABI. The IH is developing a centralized point for researchers and practitioners that allows for the management, sharing and connection of information sources. The data platform will allow users to optimize data analysis and develop innovative and locally relevant digital tools to support national industry and government needs for growth and development. It is envisioned that the data platform will facilitate the establishment of research networks, communities of practice (CoPs), and private-sector and local government partnerships. This will stimulate broad-scale collaboration across South Africa, with the possibility to expand partnerships and research collaboration into other parts of Africa. 2. Smart Cities and Urbanization | Engineering 4.0 UP established the Engineering 4.0 facility to develop a transdisciplinary approach to harness the power of the Fourth Industrial Revolution in addressing African urban challenges, such as food security, inequality and energy vulnerability. Research on the future of smart cities in developing economies will contribute to understanding the risks and opportunities for future smart cities in Africa. A complementary programme is investigating smart vehicles, 354

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

smart roads and infrastructure that allows them to be connected, in a smart city, to reduce traffic congestion and to ensure the safety of passengers and cargo. This can contribute to the logistics of transport, for example, in improving the transport of food as well as reducing wastage or damage to fresh produce. 3. Transdisciplinarity: Future Africa Institute To foster transdisciplinary approaches to solving African challenges, UP launched the Future Africa Institute. This provides a dynamic living, learning and research environment for scientists, scholars and practitioners to come together to work on sustainability and sustainable development, focused on African objectives. Future Africa has established a visualized network for researchers and associates to enable contact, collaboration and networking through the ConnectUs platform. The aims of Future Africa include promotion of the broad field of convergence science through a transdisciplinary approach with linkages among a wide range of academic disciplines and institutions; training and development of young scientists in transdisciplinary research and science leadership aligned with the human capital development needs of Africa; and establishing partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society, policymakers, business as well as the media to produce collaborative transdisciplinary research and training. Research Integrity, Traditional Culture and Listening to Wisdom Public understanding of science is a form of inclusivity. By actively engaging with communities to enhance a holistic understanding of sustainable development, universities can enable all community members to acquire knowledge and skills to manage the impact of future sustainability challenges (UNESCO, 2017, p. 8). Universities, as co-producers of knowledge, can participate in all facets of education, through linkages with industry and community and through enhanced science communication. African universities have the opportunity to draw from local traditions and cultures and use the wisdom of the past to make connections with communities, through cooperation and collaboration, for now and into the future. There is a wealth of knowledge and intellectual property in the traditions of African communities, much of which may be accessible only through oral histories and storytelling. Respect for traditional knowledge, and protection of cultural rights, is key to understanding community responses and to making use of local knowledge in research. Interaction between research institutions and their broader communities, through co-production, is the foundation of sustainability science. Co-production allows knowledge production to ‘leverage the vast potential of diverse cultural resources to promote sustainability in the wider community through better understanding of and contributing to knowledge, attitudes, values, lifestyles, and narratives’ (UNESCO, 2017, p. 2). Community structures and customs also provide the opportunity for community-friendly ways of presenting scientific information to not only inform and educate on current knowledge but also to advocate preparedness for future risks. Thus, communities (as part of the broader society) are important stakeholders in and contributors to the development of research programmes. The widespread access and use of social media have brought added complexities to knowledge sharing and research integrity. While the need to research, investigate, interpret and use digital and social media are recognized, the values of privacy, integrity and respect, 355

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

in education systems, in our research and in business sectors must be added. It is interesting to note, in this context, that the SDGs where Africa has made most progress are those that are connected to community values, namely SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 15 (life on land).

Conclusions It is critical to develop the necessary interfaces among science, policy and society to advance sustainability knowledge and action, enhance adaptive management and societal learning, and provide the scientific bases for policymaking as well as decisions and actions by civil society (UNESCO, 2017, p. 5). To fully realize these opportunities, all sustainable development efforts must support the vision of ‘leave no one behind’, which is central to Agenda 2030. Academic institutions and their partnerships are vital in ensuring the equity considerations that are an integral part of any work in the field of sustainability. A key to Africa’s success in sustainable development and socio-economic uplift is a focus on entrepreneurship in the future development of resilient, green and inclusive societies. Africa already shows highly entrepreneurial endeavours, and digital awareness, although its countries are not yet fully equipped. The future workplace in Africa will need to utilize the twentyfirst-century digital technologies that are fast expanding and rapidly becoming key routes for sustainable development and future industrialization. Africa’s continent-wide networks need to be developed as a mechanism for addressing sustainability. Sustainable development is about creating solutions for a better world environment. In any global or continental partnership for sustainable development, shared knowledge as well as interand transdisciplinary approaches are essential to enable the transformations needed. Finding solutions to current global challenges demands that the international science community work together in fundamentally different ways. This means incorporating the work of more diverse teams, being inclusive of talent worldwide and building academic and stakeholder networks that reflect local needs. Importantly, Africa needs solutions tailored to Africa’s sustainability challenges. Sustainability science requires scientists to work responsibly and collectively in diverse partnerships. Equally important, education and training programmes need to incorporate these approaches. Nowhere is this clearer or more important than in Africa, where science in and for Africa can help transform our world. Leveraging technology enables communication, allowing knowledge and information to be created and shared, for barriers to be removed and for linkages to be built among people, communities and across regions to improve quality of life. To realize these opportunities fully, the vision of ‘leaving no one behind’ central to the Agenda 2030 debate must guide academic institutions and their partnerships considered vital in ensuring the equity and inclusivity that are integral parts of any sustainability work. There are many practical challenges in Africa, from skills shortages and infrastructure deficiencies to poor communication systems and a lack of cooperative policies. The Covid19 pandemic has had major negative impacts on African social and economic systems but has also stimulated collaborative research on the continent. Growing networks and collaborative partnerships and forward-looking research initiatives harnessing the power of the digital era are enabling African universities to develop African science solutions. Africa is uniquely positioned 356

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

to use the available opportunities in addressing the SDGs in Africa and to realize the vision of leaving no one behind.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT 1. Given the challenges and opportunities to advance sustainability in Africa, universities in the continent have a powerful responsibility to engage in driving up skills and research in support of a just transition with solutions tailored to Africa’s sustainability needs. 2. Academic–industry–government partnerships and collaborations are a powerful way to accelerate and scale action for sustainability by universities. 3. Efforts to counter the loss of African talent to other nations will require investment in learning and research infrastructure in universities across nations in Africa.

References Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) (2019). ‘African Open Science Platform – Landscape Study’. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/assaf.2019/0047. Accessed 17 August 2022. AfricaConnect3 (AC3) (2021). ‘10th Anniversary on May 11, 2021’. YouTube Video. https://youtu.be/ Xgbg​vxRq​27w. Accessed 17 August 2022. The African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) (2015). ‘ARUA Concept’. https://arua.org.za/about/. Accessed 17 August 2022. The African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) (2020). ‘2020 Annual Report’. https://arua.org.za/ wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/ARUA-Ann​ual-Rep​ort-2020.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. The African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA)–The Guild (2020a). ‘Recommendations for Strengthening African Research Universities (Brussels)’. Position Paper. https://www.the-guild.eu/ publi​cati​ons/posit​ion-pap​ers/arua-guild-posit​ion-on-afr​ica. Accessed 17 August 2022. The African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA)–The Guild (2020b). ‘Confronting Our Common Challenges: A New Approach to Strengthening Africa’s Research, Innovation and Higher Education Capacity’. The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and Bern Open Publishing. doi: 10.7892/bo-ris.145049. African Union (AU) (2002). ‘Constitutive Act of the African Union (1999)’. https://au.int/en/overv​iew. Accessed 17 August 2022. African Union (AU) (2020). ‘On the Wings of Innovation: The African Union Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Strategy for Africa 2024 (STISA-2024)’. https://au.int/sites/defa​ult/files/new​seve​nts/ worki​ngdo​cume​nts/33178-wd-stisa-engli​sh_-_fi​nal.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. Afrobarometer (2020). ‘2020 Annual Review’. https://afroba​rome​ter.org/. Accessed 17 August 2022. Association of African Universities (AAU) (2014). ‘Association of African Universities Constitution’. https://www.aau.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/sites/9/2016/10/AAU-Const​itut​ion-in-Engl​ish-1. pdf?_ga=2.115871​622.184​4999​633.163​9385​648-209​3331​395.163​9385​648. Accessed 17 August 2022. Australia Africa Universities Network (AAUN) (2012). ‘About Us’. http://aaun.edu.au/about-us/. Accessed 17 August 2022. Chetty, R. L. (2021). ‘Dell Technologies – SA Universities Must Fast Track Digital Transformation to Remain Competitive’. Hypertexts. https://htxt.co.za/2021/07/dell-techn​olog​ies-sa-unive​rsit​ ies-must-fast-track-digi​tal-tra​nsfo​rmat​ion-to-rem​ain-comp​etit​ive/. Accessed 17 August 2022. Chingwete, A., Felton, J., and Logan, C. (2019). ‘Afrobarometer, Dispatches | Round 7: AD334: Prerequisite for Progress: Accessible, Reliable Power Still in Short Supply across Africa’. 357

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

https://afroba​rome​ter.org/sites/defa​ult/files/publi​cati​ons/Dis​patc​hes/ab_r7_dipstachno334_pap11_ reliable_electricity_still_out​_of_​reac​h_fo​r_mo​st_a​fric​ans.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., and Mekongcho, T. M. (2018). ‘Economic Globalization, Entrepreneurship, and Development’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, pp. 271–80. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techf​ore.2017.09.028. Accessed 17 August 2022. Deane, P. (2021). ‘Universities as Agents of Human and Societal Well-Being’. University World News. https://www.univ​ersi​tywo​rldn​ews.com/post.php?story=202106​1614​5632​843. Du Plessis, H. (2020). ‘Linking Transdisciplinarity Practice to South African Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Reflections on How Transdisciplinarity Can Play a Role in Assessing the Challenges Facing South Africa, and in Creating the Means to Think, Act and Innovate to Address These Challenges’. Mistra Working Paper. https://mis​tra.org.za/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2020/05/Work​ ing-Paper-Link​ing-Tran​sdis​cipl​inar​ity-Pract​ice-to-South-Afri​can-Scie​nce-Tec​hnol​ogy-and-Inn​ovat​ionPol​icy-Final-Final-280​420.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. European Union (EU) (2020). ‘Final Report of the SFIC Africa Task Force. European Research Area and Innovation Committee: Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation’. https://data.consil​ium.eur​ opa.eu/doc/docum​ent/ST-1355-2020-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. Gunderman, D., and Vance, E. (2021). ‘Low- and middle-Income Countries Lack Access to Big Data Analysis – Here’s How to Fill the Gap. The Conversation Africa’. https://thec​onve​rsat​ion.com/ low-and-mid​dle-inc​ome-countr​ies-lack-acc​ess-to-big-data-analy​sis-heres-how-to-fill-the-gap-159​412. Accessed 17 August 2022. Innovation Africa@UP (2020). ‘FABI Became the First Institute of Innovation Africa@UP in 2020’. https://www.fabi​net.up.ac.za/index.php/news-item?id=1093. Accessed 17 August 2022. InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) (2019). ‘Harnessing Science, Engineering and Medicine to Address Africa’s Challenges: The Role of African National Academies’. https://www.int​erac​adem​ies.org/ publ​icat​ion/har​ness​ing-scie​nce-engi​neer​ing-and-medic​ine-addr​ess-afri​cas-cha​llen​ges-role-afri​can. Accessed 17 August 2022. Kigotho, W. (2021). ‘African Universities Hamstrung by Poor Campus Networks’. University World News. https://www.univ​ersi​tywo​rldn​ews.com/post.php?story=202109​1411​5008​260. Accessed 17 August 2022. Maassen, P. (2020). ‘Developing Equal, Mutually Beneficial Partnerships with African Universities. Recommendations for a New European collaboration Strategy’. The Guild Insight Paper No. 1. The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities. https://www.the-guild.eu/publi​cati​ons/insi​ ght-paper-one. Accessed 17 August 2022. Murphy, M., and Jørgensen, T. (2021). ‘A Vision for Multilateralism in Research and Innovation’. University World News. https://www.univ​ersi​tywo​rldn​ews.com/post.php?story=202106​0910​2004​677. Accessed 17 August 2022. Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) (2019). ‘Home Page’. https://nasa​conl​ine.org/. Accessed 17 August 2022. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020). ‘How’s Life? 2020 | Measuring Well-Being’. https://www.oecd.org/sta​tist​ics/how-s-life-23089​679.htm. Accessed 17 August 2022. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2021). ‘Perspectives on Global Development 2021 | From Protest to Progress?’. https://www.oecd-ilibr​ary.org/sites/405e4​c32-en/ index.html?ite​mId=/cont​ent/publ​icat​ion/405e4​c32-en. Accessed 17 August 2022. Sellberg, M., Cockburn, J., Holden, P. B., and Lam, D. P. M. et al. (2021). ‘Towards a Caring Transdisciplinary Research Practice: Navigating Science, Society and Self’. Ecosystems and People, 17 (1), pp. 292–305. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2021.1931452. Selormey, E. E., Zupork Dome, M., Osse, L., and Logan, E. (2019). ‘Afrobarometer Policy Paper 60 | Change Ahead: Experience and Awareness of Climate Change in Africa’. https://www.afroba​rome​ ter.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/migra​ted/files/publi​cati​ons/Pol​icy%20pap​ers/ab_r7_policypaperno60_ experience_and_awareness_​of_c​lima​te_c​hang​e_in​_afr​ica.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022.

358

Challenges and Opportunities in Africa

Statistics South Africa (2019). ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Country Report 2019 – South Africa’. http://www.stat​ssa.gov.za/MDG/SDGs_Count​ry_R​epor​t_20​19_S​outh​_Afr​ica.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. The Sustainable Development Goals Center for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2020). Africa SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2020. Kigali: SDG Center for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://sdgin​dex.org/repo​rts/2020-afr​ica-sdg-index-anddas​hboa​rds-rep​ort/. Accessed 17 August 2022. United Nations (2015). ‘Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/203​ 0age​nda. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017). ‘Guidelines on Sustainability Science in Research and Education’. https://unes​doc.une​sco.org/ark:/48223/pf000​ 0260​600. Woolston, C. (2019). ‘Meeting the Challenges of Research across Africa’. Nature, 572, pp. 143–5. https:// www.nat​ure.com/artic​les/d41​586-019-02311-2.

359

360

360

361

19

University–Community Partnership in Nepal PURNA B. NEPALI AND PRAKASH BARAL

Introduction Nepalese society has undergone major structural changes post-federalization, with the agricultural subsistence mode of living changing into commercial and industrial forms (National Planning Commission (NPC), 2007). Changes in capital formation, diverse off-farm livelihood opportunities, property rights, marketable surplus, social and gender relations, technology and so on has created space for agrarian and societal transformation in the country to various intensities. However, the transformation of Nepal is stagnating with worsening conditions of the poor, widening inequalities and injustices between the ‘haves and have nots’, high livelihood vulnerability of the marginalized and disadvantaged groups, and limited economic growth of the country (Basnett et al., 2014). While societal and state transformation initiatives are being implemented, the time is right to reorient these initiatives to create a society where no one is left behind in accord with the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; NPC, 2015). The constitution of Nepal (2015) envisaged and prioritized a direction for social and state transformation, keeping the issue of prosperity at the centre. The national slogan of ‘Happy Nepali and Prosperous Nepal’ (NPC, 2018) has been core to plans and policies such as the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan (NPC, 2018) and Envisioning Nepal 2030 (NPC, 2016). The latter highlights two major strategies for societal transformation: (1) identifying the key drivers and (2) working on major transformation initiatives by engaging those drivers to remove structural difficulties and institutional weakness to enhance the efforts of prosperous Nepal (NPC, 2016). All of these longterm plans and policies seek to foster inclusive and equitable transformations and prosperity in the spirit of the national vision of moving from a least developed country (LDC) status to that of a developing country by 2022, and of a middle-income country by 2030 (NPC, 2018). For this, the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan, 2076/77-2080/81, and Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS), 2015–30, consider public, private and cooperatives as major economic pillars of the nation (Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD), 2015) and call for their active participation. The SDGs guide the national programmes for the same period (NPC, 2016). Nepal’s universities and its academic institutions are emerging as efficient actors of transformation and social inclusion, extending their traditional role of classical pedagogy to social responsibility and transformation (Unibility, 2016). Looking at global initiatives, like landgrant institutions, policy labs, university community partnership and the like in the United States, India and Canada, higher education institutions (HEIs) have established themselves as leading

361

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

actors in promoting social justice for historically marginalized sections (based on race, caste, gender, etc.), creating a way for inclusive transformation of the state and society. This chapter explores the societal role of universities in the Nepalese context and their connections to the communities and societies they serve. Extending their role beyond the traditional teaching–learning activities, the case is made to reorient their functional dimensions in line with the national mission of transformation and prosperity in line with SDGs and national plans and policies. With the SDGs acting as a guiding compass for orienting the university as a social organization with social responsibility as well as its academic pursuits, there is space for Nepalese universities to become the engine of transformational sustainability and play a critical role in assessing effective solutions through multi-stakeholder collaboration and partnerships.

SDGs (2016-30) for Inclusive Growth and Transformation With inclusive growth and transformation at the centre of the global Agenda 2030, the SDGs attempt to prioritize social inclusion and equity in marginalized sections of the society so that no one is left behind (United Nations Committee for Development Policy (UNCDP), 2018). The adoption of this global agenda and the Paris Agreement (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2021) have guided national governments to design frameworks for action and global cooperation on sustainable development focusing on time bound targets for Prosperity, People, Planet, Peace and Partnership – known as the five Ps (The World in 2050 (TWI), 2018) and achieve the net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (World Meterological Organization, 2018). Sustainable transformation requires targeted interventions: engagement of a diverse subset of businesses and civil societies; targeted problem-solving; clear communication and effective mobilization of stakeholders; change in the societal, political and economic structure and activities; and transformation of resource use, institutions and social relations (Sachs et al., 2016). These interventions are needed to achieve key outcomes of the SDGs at global, regional and national levels, being better adapted to respective national contexts. Leaving any of these out would significantly regress achievement of SDGs. These interventions require a deep, deliberate and persistent structural changes; must be technically feasible; and should be financed through joint ventures of public–private financing (Gaspar et al., 2019). They need to accelerate development through deployment of new and relevant technologies and policy adherence (both horizontal, i.e., across branches of governments, and vertical, i.e., between levels of governments) and must be maintained for timely implementation (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003). Finally, such transformation needs to engage business and local communities, civic societies, universities and other stakeholders in public debate through coherent policies, regulations and market incentives about the detailed sustainable pathways for inclusive and societal transformations. This would allow universities to embrace more coherently key issues and SDG targets in their academic programmes. The concept of transformation is central to fulfilment of the SDGs and calls for the involvement of diverse actors and stakeholders. For universities, this means changes in the pedagogical approaches to better fit curricula and academics to this global agenda and sensitize students to their role in such transformation as active actors (Sachs et al., 2016). As such, there is a need to reorient the classical pedagogy approach (Nepali, 2020). Here, a newly launched programme on 362

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

public policy, governance and management education in universities of Nepal is described with a critical perspective in the landscape of state and societal transformation. By bringing together stakeholders and the community to deal with a wide range of public policy and governance issues, managerial capacity is enhanced and skills and knowledge of the diverse stakeholders, especially the public sector, are developed through interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches, commonly referred to as the transdisciplinary approach. This approach refers to curriculum integration that dissolves the boundaries between conventional disciplines and organizes teaching and learning around the construction of meaning in the context of real-world problems or themes (International Bureau of Education, n.d.). In this way, universities could be a key actor in implementation of the inclusive and transformative interventions required to achieve the SDG targets and the national agendas of prosperity, equity, and agrarian and social justice.

Theoretical Framework The concept of the extended social role of a university for societal transformation as well as critical public policy and governance draws on the theoretical perspectives of critical pedagogy by Paulo Freire (1970), scientific inquiry by John Dewey (1937) and annihilation of caste by Ambedkar (2018) through transdisciplinary lens. These theoretical perspectives highlight the historical causes of struggles, inequalities and social injustice and also identify universities and education systems as a means for resolving these issues for a more just and equitable society where all will be free and dignified. These perspectives, if embedded with the public policy processes, create new dimensions for universities to contribute to societal and state transformation through policy processes. The concept of critical pedagogy was mainstreamed by Freire (1970), drawing on bitter experiences in their homeland where learners were passive with no voice or choice. The memorization of delivered knowledge without practical understanding and teacher-centred knowledge inspired Freire to change the ‘banking concept of education’ without creation of knowledge (Freire, 2016, p. 73). Freire realized that social oppression, inequality and hegemony would surpass the voice of the oppressed ones, with their illiteracy, ignorance and acculturation of silence around their poor economic conditions such that they do not realize their rights are undermined (Mahmoudi et al., 2014). Thus, the concept of critical pedagogy was introduced by Freire for gradual cultural revolution to liberate people from oppression, domination and ignorance. This concept sees human society as imperfect and always subject to radical change, with the power and authorities asserting ideological positions and confining people to predefined roles that limit their freedom. These social and political limitations and constraints of peoples’ lives benefit the few at the expense of the masses (Cross, 2014). Attempts to transform the social realities and the undesirable outcomes make society open to radical change. Thus, critical pedagogy – through the concept of dialectical thought, that is, challenging existing situations and finding other alternatives that might enable positive changes in the society examines the basic assumptions made by people about the world, society, social institutions and structures, and it offers innovative ways to analyse the role that the universities and education systems can play as agents of social change and transformation (Unibility, 2016). Employing critical pedagogy in universities can connect directly with the advocacy of public policy to help address contemporary public issues (the power structures and patterns of inequality within the status quo) 363

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and focus on the role of education as a means to transform these oppressive structures based on the values of love, care and solidarity, thus paving the way to create a more just and equitable society (Mahmoudi et al., 2014). Similarly, Dewey’s scientific inquiry provide a hands-on approach to learning (Dewey, 1937). This perspective stresses that education should provide the value judgement, thus significantly influencing the decision-making ability of individuals through the active process of knowledge comprehension, application, analysis, interpretation, evaluation and creation of new knowledge (Ignacio, 2018). Dewey’s seminal work titled ‘Education and Social Change’ (1937) provides insights into the role of education in creating a society free of any forms of injustice and inequalities by engaging individuals in working for the same cause of generating genuine solutions for the issues of social transformation. This effect of education on social transformation is instrumental for the transformation of society. According to Dewey: Civil liberties and human rights are well respected in a more democratic, just, free, and peaceful world. The objective of education ought to be to create people who grasp the complexity and broader suggestions of social issues and who too feel enabled to engage with such issues and are prepared to work toward creating genuine solutions: i.e. People who fight for a society free of prejudice, injustice, intolerance, narrow mindedness, discrimination, and xenophobia. (Dewey, 1937, pp. 472–4) Thus, the central idea of this perspective is that education should be well poised and dedicated to preparing its learners to identify the root causes of the social issues and work to resolve these issues as responsible citizens and members of society. Such an approach with policy graduates should enable them to have clear insights on the grounded reality of their society and work for the betterment of it by raising those issues in public-policy making and governance process. Transdisciplinary methods acknowledge diverse perspectives (scientific and practitioners) and relate science and policy in addressing issues such as policy, governance and management, thereby providing a structured overview of the manifold experiences gained in these fields in a larger systematized context. Designed in a development strategy workshop to initiate a broad reflection and negotiations among the diverse stakeholders for joint identification of suitable solutions to be implemented, it contributes to sustainable development in marginalized and resource-deprived areas by dealing with complex life problems. This approach could be adopted by universities to develop a transdisciplinary laboratory to bring together diverse stakeholders (public agencies, business community, civic society, representatives from the marginalized, local community, etc.) on a single platform and view the complexities of societies through the lens of critical pedagogy, scientific inquiry and annihilation of caste to create practice-oriented solutions to serve the common good and overcome the mismatch between knowledge production in academia and knowledge requests for solving societal problems. This effort by universities would help traverse the boundaries between different academic cultures and enable learning from exemplary experiences in research to provide a more systematic account of cross-cutting issues regarding transformation. All of these perspectives blended in public policy education could help generate more effective ways to resolve inequality, discrimination and unequal power structures in society (Henry, 2019). Linking these concepts to pedagogy in universities would enable evidence-based solutions to be explored. It would help learners analyse the academic programme and its application to 364

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

practical issues and the challenges of societal transformation as well as bring together diverse stakeholders. It also would facilitate capacity building, relationship building, forming networks and public leadership development. This would ultimately build the knowledge of learners, promote cooperation, justice and integrity among stakeholders and thus motivate and devote them all to needs-based engagement in identifying major social issues and addressing them in the policymaking process through policy activism. This would be pivotal for the transformation and development of society.

Social Role of the University for State and Societal Transformation and Civic Consciousness Universities, beyond their classical teaching pedagogy, can embrace certain degrees of social responsibility and establish themselves as inclusive civically responsive universities more connected to society and able to contribute towards sustainable societal change and development (Sachs, 2018). This will increase their impact in society, tackling societal challenges and helping address the issues of historical and structural injustice and discrimination, thus having a significant effect on the social and cultural life of the local community. The concept of social responsibility among universities promotes their participation in policymaking and aligns universities with public policy processes by increasing the public understanding of university research (Unibility, 2016). In short, the concept of a social and civic (SOC) university (Fakhrutdinova, 2010b) ensures that universities operate for the goodwill of all (inside and outside their command), meeting societal needs and solving the social problems as actors in their respective communities. By enhancing social actions and other initiatives to improve their surrounding areas, universities could contribute more to the well-being of society through public responsibility. These concepts could be fostered by each university through certain strategies, like working from a bottom–up approach (Matland, 1995), efficient and effective dialogue with stakeholders, impact assessment to evaluate the influence of universities in social life and prioritizing the social aspects of universities. Designing a plan for social responsibility and social action could be effective in this aspect. For this, universities need to be transparent concerning the impacts of their activities to society and stakeholders. Their social commitment, accompanied by clear objectives, sustainable outreach strategy and clear vision of why and how it is important, along with a core team able to mobilize resources and synthesize different viewpoints by involving different stakeholders, are important in this regard (Martin, 2015). The concept of civic consciousness and civic education is gaining momentum in a contemporary context, which means being aware of the community and how individuals might be able to help. The social issues of economic disintegration, societal differentiation, devaluation of social values and norms are all negatively influencing the public consciousness of the people, especially youth (Valeeva et al., 2014). The increasing social problems and issues may result in the moral degradation of youth (Fakhrutdinova, 2010b). Thus, different universities are now prioritizing the implementation of civic education and consciousness programmes by considering these issues, their psychological characteristics and the need to focus on developing the intellectual and moral capacities of students to support their sense of responsibility for social actions and the aspirations (Fakhrutdinova, 2010b). Thus, universities would establish stable relationships in society through meaningful dialogue between individuals and groups and generate innovative solutions 365

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to social problems. They would support the sensibility of thoughts and maturity judgements and rapid development of moral sense among students, thus, encouraging responsibility towards the community and society they live in. As the formation of students’ sense of citizenship is based on the psychological aspects (Valeeva et al., 2014), the civic consciousness programme would emphasize the academic makeup of education at the university. It would help students develop a searching and inquisitive curiosity, increased sensitivity and action, as well as responsibility and commitment to society and state. It would also promote directness and honesty, creating high demands for themselves and others along with the ability of criticism and self-criticism to comprehend the topics of interest and the ways they can be resolved (Valeeva et al., 2014). Thus, universities should now give greater priority to the creation of pedagogical conditions for civic education and consciousness that foster the development of students who can realize the norms and ideals about public values, interests and civic positions. This can be done through dialogue, role-playing sessions, debates and other extracurricular programmes that have their theme oriented towards the societal problems. Inclusive and social transformation mainly concern poverty reduction, addressing the issues of high social inequality, increasing capacities of the governmental bodies (institutional and human resource), broad and diverse economic growth and well-protected social security schemes (NPC, 2016). Nevertheless, universities and academia rarely tackle these social concerns directly focusing merely on the academic theoretical framing, excluding practical and real-life concerns of the public. This mode of education has constrained students’ ability to use their knowledge fully for societal betterment (Raika, 2018). Moreover, university–community relations can seem a distant priority within the institutional domain. Thus, it is of utmost urgency for universities to deliver prospects of applicable and practice-based knowledge to enable students understand the real social and public issues and help them provide effective, feasible and sustainable solutions from the community level. There should be a way of engaging local communities and external stakeholders with students and faculty so that mutual learning and experience can identify and solve real problems with technical assistance from universities (Kakkad, 2017). The curriculum needs to be reoriented to incorporate a solid understanding of the complexities of the global challenges so that students have opportunities to dive deeper into the specific challenge of their choice and work together for social welfare, being active contributors rather than the passive observers (Kakkad, 2017). The universities should establish long-term give-and-take relationships with its surrounding communities, truly respecting the community’s processes and emphasizing ‘with the community’ rather than ‘for the community’. This would foster the sense of ownership of universities towards the community and consequently the university can move side by side to resolve societal issues like poverty, disparities and dispossession and contribute towards societal transformation. HEIs are locally rooted and connected globally (Purcell, 2019). Thus, they have significant opportunities to work with other stakeholders and local communities to generate new ways and strategies to tackle the SDGs and transformation needed (Findler et al., 2019; Trencher et al., 2014; Cortese, 2003). They can act as the change agents, align their research and innovation opportunities along with the academic mission of the institution, and adopt the radical changes required to deliver the necessary institutional transformation. The concept of ‘living labs’ (Filho et al., 2020) could allow universities to further their contribution to sustaining the social, economic and intellectual well-being of local communities and society at large and connect directly with them to deliver more sustainable and inclusive futures. 366

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

The mission of universities is seen as three-fold in the present context (Purcell, 2019). While the first and second mission reflects the teaching/learning process and research/innovation, respectively, the third mission is the social responsibility of universities. HEIs need to embrace this three-fold mission by adopting the SDGs and national plans and policies for delivering meaningful change and for achieving the goals and objectives of social inclusion, racial and caste justice and equity as well as overall state and societal transformation. Looking at the space for change generated by the SDGs across multiple domains, university-led SDG projects could align with the issues of inclusive transformation within academic undertakings, thus enabling learners to develop insights on the root cause of inequalities and the historical struggles and oppression in societies and thereby develop a sense of responsible citizenship to help resolve those issues. In this way, universities can act as a bridge between the students and the societal issues they would contribute to resolving for a more just and equitable society.

Examples of University-Led Projects for State and Societal Transformation Some exemplary cases illustrate how the universities are undertaking their social roles to contribute to society and the communities they serve. Here, cases that could be relevant for universities in a Nepalese context are explored. University as Living Labs With the SDGs set as the driving agenda for sustainable development in the world, universities could present their significant role in an innovative way. The concept of living labs in university settings, as seen in Plymouth University, Harvard University and the American University of Bulgaria, saw the institutions redefine their academic priorities keeping sustainability at the centre of their mission to catalyse and accelerate changes in economic, civic and community settings (Purcell et al., 2017). In this way, universities are working to co-create the transformational change needed to support sustainable development through professional sustainability services and academic work, activating students and faculty towards a shared purpose to create broad connections with external partners and stakeholders relevant to the university’s mission of sustainability and societal transformation (Purcell et al., 2019). Universities can draw upon their own assets in their academic and operational domains to help resolve the challenges of sustainable development and use their human capital and resource infrastructure in the model of a living lab where there is an opportunity to learn from the real-world problems and search for solutions. In short, universities can act as a test bed for real-life solutions (Brundiers and Wiek, 2011). Thus, there is space for the pedagogic innovations and research opportunities focused on public priorities (such as the SDGs) and aligned with the academic mission of the institution (Rosenberg Daneri et al., 2015). In addition, these labs/models could collaborate and coordinate with local governments and other external stakeholders to drive local innovations and create community-level impact thereby functioning as a holding framework for organizational governance to generate solutions with social, economic and environmental benefits (Waheed, 2017). This helps in accelerating delivery of the SDG targets by assisting in shaping new ways for collaboration, educating the public and delivering the knowledge and innovations into the society, thus establishing universities as the engines of societal transformation, and paving a new 367

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

pathway for social inclusion and transformation. Thus, the academic and educational role of the universities along with the models of living labs could lead with their shared governance models and strategic sustainability innovations to become an actor of transformative institutional change drawing both on top–down and bottom–up strategies of sustainable development. The strategic alignment of the academic mission with the targets of SDGs for sustainable development is major part of university engagement with the implementation of the SDGs (Rouxle and Pretorius, 2016). This can be achieved through the living lab model that brings professionals together with students and faculty into a closer dialogue and interaction to foster experiential learning within the university or outside with external partners to tackle the societal problems (Filho et al., 2020). HEIs have profound potential to deliver the SDG targets when these institutions are connected to the communities they serve (Lozano, 2018). University–Community Partnerships: The Relevance of Land Grant Universities and Historically Black Colleges to Nepal The Land Grant Universities (LGUs) and Historically Black Colleges (HBCs) of the United States are good examples of university–community partnership for social justice and equity. Beyond the classical teaching–learning process, these universities work to strengthen community-institution relations through outreach and cooperative functions (Raika, 2018). They work for social and racial justice of African American farmers (Allen and Esters, 2018), addressing contemporary land and agrarian concerns concerning property rights, tenure security and importance to smallholders. HBCs, established under second Morill Act (1890), provide an atmosphere for social emancipation and change, and they have contributed towards community development and community service. In the past decade, these models have brought significant and visible transformative effect in the rural areas of the United States, Mexico, Canada and beyond (Nepali et al., 2021). Thus, LGUs can re-establish the relationship of a university with the community and integrate research and education to generate the field-level solutions to SDG problems. In response to the weak Research–Extension–Education (R–E–E linkage) in Nepal (Jaishi et al., 2020), this model of university could help address the gaps in linkage and contribute to empowering marginalized communities through community-level participation for overall transformation. Adopting this model could foster the transformation through inclusion of diversified communities at local levels. Policy Labs: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Chicago and Harvard University Policy labs are forms of collaborative inquiry among a diverse range of participants (multidisciplinary) in group discussion and dialogue, experimenting with innovative methods, and designing and actively engaging the public in multiple stages of public policymaking process so that the process becomes responsive towards them (Sachs, 2018). These labs are at the centre of means and opportunities to generate ideas, mutual understanding and gain insights into how various policy actors think, communicate and interact by observing them as they discuss policy problems and attempt to produce constructive solutions. In this context, young scholars have a chance to get involved in the policy research and create space for inclusive and meaningful 368

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

participation of the oppressed and the disadvantaged groups (DAGs) in policymaking so that their voices and needs can be embedded effectively in policy issues. These labs also foster an environment to acknowledge the dynamism of social diversities (based on class, caste, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.), creating innovative ideas and encouraging the public to serve the communities they come from by facilitating the extracurricular leadership training activities along with opportunities to interact and learn from diverse professionals in numerous field settings (Findler et al., 2019). This model of interaction, when incorporated in the curricular and institutional objective of universities, would open a new space for students and academia to understand the broader complexities of society and its public issues, and the university could efficiently contribute towards this endeavour. The case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Policy Lab highlights the university’s initiative to connect academia and public institutions for state transformation by encouraging policy researchers to serve the nation (MIT Policy Lab, 2021). It does this by recognizing policy relevant research issues in universities, identifying policy gaps in works and practices, designing effective outreach methodologies and making viable commitment to address those issues in policymaking process. The case of a student-led initiative at the University of Chicago, the Harris Policy Lab (2021), allows the learners to apply core policy challenges faced by their clients and strengthen their professional experience and skills to analyse, develop, advocate and implement policy in real-world contexts. This lab thus makes students responsible towards the policy issues of the communities/clients they serve. Harvard University’s Evidence for Policy Design (EPoD, 2021) project is an illustration of the university engagement in evidence-based policy methodologies addressing societal needs and advocacy on diversity and inclusion through various public programme portals. It serves as a platform to bring policymakers and different partners in public policy into discourse and design practice-oriented solutions to resolve the issues of inequality and food insecurity, climate change adaptation and resilience, and ultimately empower community societies. Looking at the relevancy of such labs in a Nepalese context, it is necessary to adapt the models to bring all stakeholders (i.e. policy analysts, policy advocates and campaigners) engaged in research on social movements (caste, race, class and gender) and policy together under intersectionality and transdisciplinary approaches for social justice and equity. Nepal’s hierarchical systems (caste, patriarchy) is a major drawback for social equality and social justice, with decision-making backed by unequal access to forms of patronage and coercion and mediated by personal, political and institutional loyalties among people. This marginalizes those lower in the hierarchy, making them vulnerable regarding opportunities, policies and programmes. In this case, a transdisciplinary policy lab offered by a university in Nepal would afford faculty, scholars, students, practitioners and social activists/movement actors a common platform to generate evidence-based innovative knowledge and perspectives. It would recognize and materialize the historical struggles and experiences of people relevant to future policy uptake, especially translation into an informed policymaking process. Moreover, it would provide a platform for further interdisciplinary work on caste–race–class–gender questions as they relate to social and agrarian justice and overall emancipations. Ultimately, this contribution could consolidate and create an innovative and pragmatic forum for global justice and social transformation. 369

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Environmental Justice: A New Dimension of University–Societal Transformation Relations Environmental justice (EJ) refers to the protection of marginalized and vulnerable populations and places (based on class, caste, race, ethnicity, gender, geography, language etc.) from environmental harms, along with the equitable provisions for EJ (London et al., 2017). The concept of EJ involves four questions: (1) who is benefitted and harmed by the environment, (2) who has power in decision-making, (3) whose knowledge and experiences are respected and (4) who is included in thriving sustainable and equitable communities (London et al., 2017). EJ addresses the environmental issues of societal impact and highlights the connections between people and society that are the major causes of historical injustice and oppression; it advocates for the well-being of all people. The concept emerged at the crossroads of public policy, social movements and science/academic research. It expanded to address the new problems and issues of environmental inequality and environmental racism. It includes the relationship between the local and the global that creates the spatial methodologies and social theories to examine the problems of environmental injustice (London et al., 2017). These include refining the mechanisms and processes of environmental injustice, the focus of the state and environment, and the revitalized attention to the interactive relationship between academia and social movements. In the Nepalese context, the EJ concept could be a promising agenda to help address the agrarian issues of those oppressed and those who are economically and environmentally vulnerable. It could create a new space to embed studies and assessment of the struggles of the marginalized and DAGs and enhance their access, ownership and control over resources by working in close proximity with these communities. Institutions could help improve their socioeconomic conditions in two ways: (1) by supporting communities and movements to develop powerful, useful shared analysis of their situations and (2) by helping to provide and maintain spaces and platforms for further alliance and network building. The concept of agrarian justice and EJ could evolve as the platform for HEIs to engage diverse stakeholders and connect marginalized communities and DAGs with logistical and technical support through research, informed analysis and evidence-based policymaking for the real solutions developed and led by communities (Justins and Holt-Giménez, 2017). By participating in a series of networks and partnerships, their voices could be heard in the national and international spaces and further strengthen their movements of resistance against historical dispossession, deprivation and marginalization. This model could be a remedial measure for restructuring and reorganizing the agrarian system deeply influenced by historical struggles and inequality and guarantee a more equitable control and access of resources for all. This effort to implement EJ could be embedded in the programmes of land reform to improvise the scale of land ownership of disadvantaged farmers. In addition, the EJ model could include vocational programmes, credit facilities, mass farmers’ organizations, farmers’ cooperatives and other structures to strengthen farmers’ capacity and empower them equitably. Its sole priority should be the sovereignty of the people rather than of the state (Agarwal and Levian, 2019). In this regard, universities can have their mission guided by the principles of equity and equality and define their frameworks to incorporate the concept of EJ in their programmes and curricula to benefit those caught in the vicious cycle of environmental injustice and environmental racism (London et al., 2017). The joint effort of government, civil societies (CSOs – civil society

370

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

organizations) and universities can be a way to resolve the issues of environmental security and resilience through EJ. As the social issues arise from environmental factors too, EJ is a prime model to foster societal transformation, and the universities can better address environmental issues in their mission and programmes.

Nepal’s Initiatives for University’s Community Engagement and Societal Transformation Kathmandu University as a Research University and KU Vision 2030 Kathmandu University (KU), in an attempt to establish itself as a research university and centre of excellence, initiated a new and critical direction with an institutional value-based KU Vision 2030 (KU, 2017). The new vision focuses on six initiatives: quality, impact, equity, global engagement, identity and innovation. Through this vision, the university aims to address the multidimensional policy needs based on the complex issues and problems in the public domain in response to insufficient service delivery to people, structural poverty, inequality and deprivations (KU, 2017). The university has attempted to foster community engagement through its policy outreach centre to facilitate both policymaking from below and grass-root innovations. The innovative KU School of Management Policy Lab (KUSOM, 2021) was established for collaborative inquiry, with human-centred design and an innovative approach to policymaking through shared ideas, trust and understanding among diverse stakeholders at regional and national levels. The concept of evidence-based policy design, implementation and evaluation through grants to policy researchers helps identify policy issues in the real world as well as recommend policy solutions for resolving them. In addition, KUSOM identified policy gaps to intervene and build the capacity of metropolitan city staff regarding policymaking issues. It established itself as the platform for sharing experiential learning and collaboration on practicum, internship and policy capstone projects for scholars/students. It offers regular seminars and symposia on contemporary issues and challenges of local governance; workshops with government organizations (GOs)/ non-government organizations (NGOs) for better policy decision-making; and assistance to the Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC) in designing and evaluating the policies and programmes targeted at disadvantaged communities through diversity and inclusive perspective and local land use planning. KUSOM focuses on rural youth leadership and their engagement in policymaking in addition to the initiation of a local knowledge management and innovation system for recognizing and documenting local values, norms and cultures. The KUSOM Master of Public Policy and Management (MPPM) Policy Outreach Center (KUSOM, 2021) was established to enhance the relationship of the university with its local community and to create a sense of ownership for students and faculty towards the community. The Knowledge and Policy Hub provides a platform for the university, KMC and other stakeholders (CSOs, policy activists, scholars, etc.) to share their perspectives on the real issues of the metropolitan area and resolve them by means of informed and evidence-based analysis through multiple perspectives. A community-based food policy action is being undertaken through a community–university partnership and research model for building community relationships, conducting research as well as cultivating actions in students, faculty and other stakeholders. All these programmes of the university strengthen the

371

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

university–community partnership and foster the substantial community engagement to serve beyond academia (KU, 2017). Students/Professor-Led Movements and Societal Reforms in Nepal The engagement of academia (students and professors) in reform activities, especially in the form of movements and protests as well as campaigns, is gaining momentum in Nepal. Their efforts to bring about change in society beyond the classical pedagogy function of the university make them change agents. There are many examples of such changes, from the professor-led movement of Dr Govinda KC (Onlinekhabar, 2021), who is driving endeavours to reform, systematize, arrange and improve medical education in Nepal, to peaceful fasts-unto-death campaign in light of critical issues with medical education in Nepal, and the ‘Enough Is Enough’ protest of the youth (Bhattrai, 2021) to sensitize Nepalese leaders to their public responsibility regarding the management and control of the Covid-19 pandemic. The clean and untarnished image of professors and students was able to sensitize the government and initiate reform in their respective sectors (Bhattrai, 2021). Other exemplary cases include those led by students in collaboration with CSOs to tackle legal procedures and laws regarding the acid attack cases, movements against gender and caste discrimination and violence, movements against corruption and flawed governance system and so on. All these initiatives provide a space for the respective universities to alert the critical governance system about the issues of prime importance and resolve them collaboratively. University–Community Models: Agriculture and Forestry University, Tribhuwan University, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, and Other Institutions The Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), established as the first LGU in Nepal, is attempting to focus on research, education and extension as its main function and is dedicated to encompassing service to the local communities in its mission. The AFU senate, the highest governing council of the university, decided to establish branch colleges (Das et al., 2019) in different geographical areas under a LGU model that is in the inception process. All these are planned to be committed to community and diversity as outreach and extension programmes. With community contribution and motivation, there is a great possibility for them to evolve as community-based land grant colleges and include the broader complexities of society under study/curricula to initiate innovative solutions in joint ventures with students, faculty and local community actors. Similarly, the Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science (IAAS) has a Directorate of Extension and a newly established Research and Community Development Centre under the aegis of Lamjung Agriculture Campus to provide services to local communities. The Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training (CTEVT, 2021) established technical and vocational institutes in different geographical areas based on feasibility and the potential in these areas, for example, technical institutes at Humla, Jumla, Jiri and Lahan. KU also established Kathmandu University Technical Training Center (KU TTC, 2021), which is providing services to the community on electrical engineering, organic farming and agriculture for mid-level human resource development. In addition, Tribhuwan University (TU) established research centres and think tanks in each of its academic departments. This helps policymakers collaborate directly with the university and other external stakeholders in formulating and implementing development policies, plans and programmes with conceptual, 372

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

empirical and value premises. These centres also recommend the alternatives, ideas and solutions to the policy issues and problem in the Nepalese context and establish an enlightened, conscious and influential public opinion. A High-level Commission for Education of Nepal was established in 2017 (Myrepublica, 2017) under the Ministry of Education (MoE) to prioritize the issue of productive use of the education system (transformative education) in community, society and state contribution. The commission has analysed the relevancy of the LGU and HBC models for reforming the education system and reorient it so that the students and faculty are focused on peoples’ concern and their livelihoods. This would establish the universities as change agents in society and allow them to learn from the community, teach the community, support the community, enjoy in conjunction with the community and celebrate the community. All these initiatives by universities in the federalized context of Nepal are thus making efforts towards the overall development of the community and society by linking education with research, extension and the society itself for a broad inclusive transformation of the society. The review of these practices and cases from global and national levels opens a new dimension on the extended role of a university. They can be an actor and coordinating body to consolidate the efforts of diverse stakeholders by providing a common platform so that current and future generations are oriented towards societal issues. Creating a sense of ownership and responsibility could be generated in students who are then the active contributors working towards sustainable development and social transformation. Moreover, the challenges and national targets of the SDGs can be implemented through a university by incorporating the objectives of the SDGs with curricula and reorienting the education system in line with sustainable development. There is a new space for a university to initiate a policy dialogue among stakeholders through models like policy labs, living labs and so on and to sensitize students, faculty, policy scholars, policy activists and local representatives about the complex and intertwined issues of society. In this way, the multidimensional issues of inequality, structural poverty, historical struggle, oppression and exclusion based on caste–class–gender inform the development of solutions at the local level through rigorous evidence-based and informed policy research and improve overall policymaking by being more inclusive and responsible. However, some global initiatives could not be placed in a Nepalese national context. Hence, it is of utmost priority to triangulate these initiatives and cases with national practices and scenarios to modify them into those practices in Nepal that would effectively reduce the gaps and ensure collaboration among different actors for efficient results. The universities of Nepal should establish themselves as the common platform of dialogue between governmental, private and other stakeholders and community and reorient their academic programmes for the betterment of broader society and the nation as a whole. The diversity and multiplicity of perspectives fostered on any issue could help generate real-life practical solutions that actually resolve the issues of social development.

Multiple Strategies for Social Responsibility and Transformation There is a need to contextualize multiple strategies for universities to contribute towards the SDGs and societal needs more generally. Such strategies should be mixed and blended approaches, also known as transdisciplinary approaches, which cover the multiple perspectives as follows: 373

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

1. Design thinking and human-centred innovation and action: Concepts like offering degrees in Public Policy and Management and Transdisciplinary Policy Labs would enable students to deal with public governance issues. It promotes ‘how to think’ regarding the issues and strengthens the capabilities and knowledge of the youth for human- and community-centric strategies and solutions. The Discover, Design and Evaluate (DDE) approach (Adam and Nash, 2016) could be promoted in universities to foster efficient public service delivery through informed and evidence-based policy analysis and bridge the gap between academia and public policy. The DDE is based on human-centric design thinking and innovation (human-focused, prototype-driven, innovative design process) which can be expanded into five stages: empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test for the innovation processes (Interaction Design, n.d.) 2. Reflective and experiential learning: Students should be given opportunities to interact with diverse stakeholders and local community members so that they can engage in social development and become responsible citizens and active contributors to society. To achieve this, there should be shared programmes and collaborations among universities and with community-based organizations to enable reflective and experiential learning for students and local people where they could acquire first-hand experience and knowledge about social complexities and problems and assist in identifying sustainable and feasible solutions for these issues. 3. Impactful professional career: Alongside academic excellence, universities should prioritize opportunities for students to develop an impactful professional career. The concept of policy labs, outreach centres and so on could be influential in supporting the professional careers of the younger generation by engaging in effective dialogue with diverse stakeholders in societal issues and help them develop insights about social problems. 4. Pragmatic analysis: Societal issues are multidimensional in nature, and they should be resolved only through mixed and pragmatic approaches. Pragmatic analysis on multiple perspectives of societal issues would allow the generation of solutions. Thus, universities need to adopt this along with critical pedagogy and scientific inquiry for broad development of students, faculties and local communities. 5. University–community partnership: KU initiated the university–community partnership principle in Nepal through the KU Medical School and KU School of Engineering. It is a good connection and nexus to understand community-based learning and offers opportunities for faculty, researchers and students to work on local innovations. Such learning should be replicated in other universities, colleges and research-based organizations in Nepal. 6. Land grant institutions/missions: The concept of LGUs and HBCs when introduced in in Nepal connected universities with the federal government and the local community. In this way, universities become more responsive towards societal issues. 7. Critical pedagogy: Universities need to reorient their curriculum and academic activities using different pedagogical concepts and critical pedagogy for societal transformations. Scientific inquiry for public problems and the principle of university–community partnerships and public interest could be employed. These concepts will ultimately establish universities as key drivers of SDGs and community development. 8. Student-led engagement initiatives: Universities could further sensitize students towards the issues of contemporary issues and their roles and contribution in solving them. 374

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

9. University consortium (inter-university cooperation): There should be a consortium of universities of similar programmes for inter-university cooperation and a knowledge hub for joint learning, public action and activism. The knowledge hub would foster research and learning on existing public problems and challenges. It would promote the exchange of faculty, researchers and students, thereby creating competition as well as cooperation. 10. Small community-based initiative with globally connected and locally rooted principle: Universities should be strategic and tactical in connecting with the global goals. For example, Columbia University established an SDG Academy and Sustainable Development Solutions Network with multiple themes to contribute to the SDGs. Such a global agenda relies on well-rooted local networks, that is, effective connection and collaboration between universities and governmental bodies and CSOs. 11. University collaborations: Universities in Nepal (e.g. KU) can establish vibrant and meaningful collaboration with regional/provincial universities for policy- and liberal artsrelated programmes for exchange of experience and learning for education, knowledge generation and joint public activism and actions following in the footsteps of global universities such as Harvard–MIT, Harvard–John Hopkins University and Harvard– Princeton University. 12. University in inclusive policymaking: Considering new federal governance as per the new constitution of Nepal, inclusive policymaking processes based on caste, ethnicity, gender, geography is largely undermined. Still, there is a centralized mindset and tendency/ trend of undermining the issues of marginalized communities. Therefore, robust inclusive policymaking and empowering the local and marginalized communities should be fostered by universities as key actors. 13. Developing civic consciousness of students: Developing SOC competency for lifelong learning is key for impactful engagement with long-lasting motivation in respective domains. For example, there are some practicum and internship provisions in technical universities that incorporate an SOC approach in line with the SDGs (e.g. Erasmus project – IN4SOC: Internships for Enhancing Social and Civic Key Competences for Lifelong Learning in Technical Universities).

Pragmatic Policy Uptake in Nepal All these instances and strategies could pave an innovative pathway for transformation in Nepal. For this, Nepal should adapt a pragmatic model ensuring the following so that its universities could contribute towards the SDGs and broader societal transformation. 1. Supportive political and legal framework to enable the role and contribution of Nepal’s universities regarding the issues of SDGs and establishing them as active drivers of social development. 2. University engagement in policymaking could allow multiple perspectives and lenses to analyse the issues and generate technical and feasible solutions with diverse participation of stakeholders. Universities are aware of the social issues and problems and are capable of providing efficient solutions. 375

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

3. Universities should design and implement social responsibility programmes and activities using inclusive and decentralized procedures to encompass all groups and people irrespective of the caste, class, gender or any other bases of inequality.

Conclusions Universities are emerging as the active drivers and key actors in society. Their traditional role of classical pedagogy has shifted to critical pedagogy and social responsibility, thus establishing them as the important agents of social transformation and sustainable development. Different examples illustrate the involvement of universities in policymaking and work on the SDGs and advocate for their broader role in society. Universities can provide emancipatory ways to promote racial, agrarian and social justice for historically marginalized sections (based on race, caste, gender, etc.), paving the way for a more inclusive transformation of the state and society. The implementation of the global agenda of SDGs at a national level through different interventions calls for diverse engagements of stakeholders in targeted problem-solving, clear communication and effective mobilization of resources. This is needed to initiate structural changes in socio-political and economic structures of society in the desired direction and efficient resource use, along with the capacity building of institutions and social relations at different levels. As the targets and goals of the SDGs are multidimensional in nature, universities could localize the SDGs’ goals and targets in their curricula through transdisciplinary approaches for inclusive and transformative interventions in local community for prosperity, equity and social justice. The social culture of universities makes them responsive civically and connected to the community and society they serve and exist in. They can make significant positive impacts in society as agents of socialization and guide development activities in desired directions. Moreover, the social responsibility of universities means they are involved in public policy advocacy needed to resolve societal issues and work for the well-being and betterment of broader society. Designing a plan for social responsibility and social action in context could be effective in this regard. Thus, the social commitment of a university accompanied by clear objectives, a sustainable outreach strategy and a strong determination to involve stakeholders could be important to advancing sustainable development. Universities can link its students and faculty efforts directly with stakeholders and the community they serve within and outside the community. Along with the pedagogical, research and extension functions of universities, the SDGs and social responsibility functions enable students to develop insights across multiple perspectives about the root causes of social issues and look to resolve them from a local level by engaging all stakeholders and people from the community. For this, the universities could learn from the models like policy labs, living labs, LGUs/HBCs and so on, and they could reorient their programmes and activities towards societal causes. University as living labs, or the concept of policy labs, open up the space for universities in Nepal to engage in society-oriented programmes and activities at the policy level. They have an opportunity to establish a common platform for knowledge sharing, common understanding, informed and evidence-based analysis of the societal causes with multiple perspectives of diverse stakeholders as well as generate innovative solutions in this regard. They could also be platforms for the students to reorient their career towards society and gain insights on broader complexities of the society to become a responsible citizen and contribute to resolve those causes. 376

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

The initiatives in Nepal –like the step taken by KU towards public policy and establishing itself as research university – directly resonated with the community through its policy outreach centre and policy labs, university–community relations as seen in IAAS, and AFU and academiainitiated reform initiatives, which are attempts to increase the social responsibility of the universities. However, these initiatives alone are not sufficient, and they need to be embedded with the global cases localized in a national and local context. For example, the policy outreach centre and student-centred MPPM programme of KU could be further institutionalized and replicated by other universities to provide an opportunity for tomorrow’s leaders to handle the complex situations of the society through experiential learning and develop impactful careers to contribute to society. The university–community model would be enhanced and fostered in the public domain through these efforts and the university would be able to work for the community it serves. The analysis of initiatives and practices at different levels enlightens the core theme of the extended roles of universities in society in support of sustainability and transformation. The following lessons can be drawn from the review: 1. Universities are key social drivers and actors for implementing and achieving the SDGs and national programmes. 2. Universities and their different initiatives, like policy outreach centres, policy labs, university– community nexus and living labs, can advance societal impact and support transformation of society. 3. Engagement of universities in public-policy making can help ensure multiple perspectives and insights are included. 4. University–community relations and partnerships can enhance the social responsibility of students, faculty and universities by prioritizing working with the community, supporting the community in addition to enjoying and celebrating with the community. 5. Universities are redefining their roles towards society and social causes, that is, transformation for social responsibility.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. Universities can make a powerful contribution to societal transformation by helping to remove structural difficulties and reduce inequities. 2. Interventions focused on sustainable transformation offer a blueprint for universities to tailor their efforts for maximal impact. 3. National-level reviews related to sustainable development can influence educational policy and priorities for universities.

References Act of 2 July 1862 (Morrill Act), Public Law 37-108. Act of 30 August 1890 (Second Morrill Act), Public Law 111-122. Adam, C., and Nash, J. (2016). ‘Exploring Design Thinking Practices in Evaluation’. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 12 (26), pp. 12–17.

377

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Agarwal, S., and Levien, M. (2019). ‘Dalits and Dispossession: A Comparison’. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 50 (5), pp. 696–722. doi: 10.1080/00472336.2019.1597145. Allen, B. C. M., and Esters, L. T. (2018). ‘Historically Black Land-Grant Universities: Overcoming Barriers and Achieving Success’. Research Brief. Center for Minority Serving Institutions, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. https://cmsi.gse.rutg​ers.edu/cont​ent/histo​rica​lly-black-land-grant-unive​ rsit​ies-ove​rcom​ing-barri​ers-and-achiev​ing-succ​ess. Accessed 17 August 2022. Ambedkar, B. R. (2018). Annihilation of Caste. New Delhi: Rupa Publications. Basnett, Y., Henley, G., Howell, J., Lemma, A., and Pandey, P. R. (2014). Structural Economic Transformation in Nepal: A Diagnostic Study. Nepal: DFID. Bhattrai, S. (2021). ‘From Social Media onto the Streets: How Enough Is Enough Forced Nepal Government to Rethink the Pandemic’. News Blog. Social Change. https://socia​lcha​nge.org.np/fromsoc​ial-media-onto-the-stre​ets-how-eno​ugh-is-eno​ugh-for​ced-nepal-gov​ernm​ent-to-reth​ink-the-pande​ mic/. Accessed 17 August 2022. Brundiers, K., and Wiek, A. (2011). ‘Educating Students in Real-World Sustainability Research: Vision and Implementation’. Innovative Higher Education, 36 (2), pp. 107–24. doi: 10.1007/s10755-010-9161-9. Cortese, A. D. (2003), ‘The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future’. Planning for Higher Education, 31 (3), pp. 15–22. Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training (CTEVT) (2021). ‘Home Page’. http://itms. ctevt.org.np:4443/. Accessed 17 August 2022. Cross, J. (2014). Dream Zones: Anticipating Capitalism and Development in India. London: Pluto Press. Das, A. K., Pyakuryal, K., Sharma, M. D., and Upreti, B. R. (2019). ‘Prospects of Establishing a LandGrant University Model’. Policy Paper on the Agriculture and Forestry University of Nepal. (R. J. Williams, N. R. Devkota and A. Adesogan (eds)). Gainesville, FL: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems, and Agriculture and Forestry University. Dewey, J. (1937). ‘Education and Social Chang’e. American Association of University Professors, 23 (6), pp. 472–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40219​908. Evidence for Policy Design (EPoD). (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://epod.cid.harv​ard.edu/what-is-epod. Accessed 17 August 2022. Fakhrutdinova, A. V. (2010b). ‘The Role of the Students’ Civic Education in Terms of International Integration’, in Integration Processes in the Modern Professional Education: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. Kazan: MES RT Publishing Center, pp. 288–92. Filho, W. L., Salvia, A. L., Pretorius, R. W., Brandli, L. L., Manolas, E., Alves, F., Azeiteiro, U., Rogers, J., Shiel, C., and Do Paco, A. (2020). ‘Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development’. World Sustainability Series. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15604-6. Findler, F., Schönherr, N., Lozano, R., Reider, D., and Martinuzzi, A. (2019), ‘The Impacts of Higher Education Institutions on Sustainable Development’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (1), pp. 23–38. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Random House. Freire, P. (2016). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury. Gaspar, V., Amaglobeli, D., Garcia-Escribano, M., Prady, D., and Soto, M. (2019). Fiscal Policy and Development: Human, Social, and Physical Investment for the SDGs. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Harris Policy Lab. (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://har​ris.uchic​ago.edu/academ​ics/des​ign-your-path/appl​iedexp​erie​nce/har​ris-pol​icy-lab. Accessed 17 August 2022. Henry, R. (2019). ‘Investigation of Methods Universities Uses to Inform Public Policy’. https://policy​lab. mit.edu/sites/defa​ult/files/docume​nts/Invest​igat​ion%20of%20Meth​ods%20U​nive​rsit​ies%20Use%20 to%20Inf​orm%20Pub​lic%20Pol​icy.pdf. Ignacio, Perez-Ibanez (2018). ‘Dewey’s Thought on Education and Social Change’. Journal of Thought, 52, pp. 19–31. Interaction Design (n.d.) ‘Home Page’. https://www.inte​ract​ion-des​ign.org/lit​erat​ure/top​ics/des​ign-think​ ing?utm​_sou​rce=faceb​ook&utm​_med​ium=sm&utm_c​ampa​ign=boost&fbc​lid=IwAR2​f57J​wSY-djtS​ 6cn6​_IQZ​VPD6​Oepf​v1b-gp-tqOKV7​Mhl9​ez2K​PMIP​9yk. Accessed 17 August 2022. 378

University–Community Partnership in Nepal

Jaishi, M., Nepali, P. B., Rijal, S., and Dhakal, B. (2020). ‘Strengthening Research-Education-Extension (R-E-E) Linkage in New Context of Federal Structured Nepal’. Responsible Education, Learning and Teaching in Emerging Economies, 2 (1), pp. 1–11. Justins M., and Holt-Giménez, E. (2017). Land Justice: Re-imagining Land, Food, and the Commons in the United States. Oakland, CA: Food First. Kakkad, A. (2017). ‘Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: What Can a University do? Kroc Peace Magazine, pp. 31–3. https://issuu.com/unive​rsit​yofs​andi​ego/docs/kroc-mag-2017-final. Accessed 17 August 2022. Kathmandu University (KU) (2017). ‘Revisiting, Reinforcing and Reaffirming Our Values: Kathmandu University Silver Jubilee Initiatives: Vision, 2030’. https://ku.edu.np/news/gall​ery/1/ku-sil​ver-jubi​leeinit​iati​ves-2017.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. Kathmandu University School of Management (KUSOM) (2021). ‘Master of Public Policy and Management’. Brochure. https://kusom.edu.np/uploa​ded/Fin​al_M​PPM%20Bro​chur​e_KU​SOM_​Shor​ ter%20Vers​ion_​Dec%208_2​020.docx.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. Kathmandu University Technical Training Center (KU TTC) (2021). ‘Opening of the “Kathmandu University Technical Training Center” (KU TTC)’. Press Release. https://www.ku.edu.np/news-app/ open​ing-of-the-kathma​ndu-uni​vers​ity-techni​cal-train​ing-cen​ter-ku-ttc?searc​h_si​te_n​ame=kuh​ ome&show_​on_h​ome=1. Accessed 17 August 2022. London, J. K., Schwartz, K., Cadenasso, M. L., Cutts, B. B., Mason, C., Lim, J., Valenzuela-Garcia, K., and Smith, H. (2017). ‘Weaving Community-University Research and Action Partnerships for Environmental Justice’. Action Research, 16 (2), pp. 173–89. Lozano, R. (2018), ‘Proposing a Definition and a Framework of Organizational Sustainability: A Review of Efforts and a Survey of Approaches to Change’. Sustainability, 10 (4), pp. 11–57. doi: http://dx.doi. org.ezp-prod1.hul.harv​ard.edu/10.3390/su1​0041​157. Mahmoudi, A., Khoshnood, A., and Babael, A. (2014). ‘Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy and Its Implication in Curriculum Planning’. Journal of Education and Practices, 5 (14), pp. 86–92. Martin, B. (2015). ‘Benchmark Standards for University Social Responsibility across the EHEA’, in G. Dima (Coord.) et al., University Social Responsibility: A Common European Reference Framework. Final Public Report of the EU-USR Project, pp. 10–13. http://www.eu-usr.eu/?p=607. Accessed 17 August 2022. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Policy Lab. (2021). ‘Make Policy in Your Field: Minor in Public Policy’. https://poli​sci.mit.edu/underg​radu​ate/minor-pub​lic-pol​icy#:~:text=MIT’s%20in​terd​ isci​plin​ary%20Pub​lic%20Pol​icy%20mi​nor,is%20a%20th​ree%2Dtie​red%20prog​ram. Accessed 17 August 2022. Matland, R. E. (1995). ‘Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5 (2), pp. 145–74. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242. Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD) (2015). Agriculture Development Strategy. Kathmandu: Singh Durbar. Myrepublica (2017). ‘High-level Commission to Federate Education System’. https://myre​publ​ica.nag​arik​ netw​ork.com/news/27142/. National Planning Commission (NPC) (2007). Three Year Interim Plan (2008–2010). Kathmandu, Nepal: NPC. National Planning Commission (NPC) (2015). Sustainable Development Goals 2016-2030: National Preliminary Report. Kathmandu, Nepal: NPC. National Planning Commission (NPC) (2016). ‘Envisioning Nepal 2030’. Paper Presented at International Seminar on 28 March. https://www.adb.org/sites/defa​ult/files/publ​icat​ion/185​557/envi​sion​ ing-nepal-2030.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. National Planning Commission (NPC) (2018). Fifteenth Five Year Plan Approach Paper. Kathmandu, Nepal: NPC.

379

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Nepali, P. B. (2020). Reorienting Evidence-based Policy Analysis and Dialogue in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: Policy Advocacy Working Group, KUSOM. Nepali, P. B., Gaulee, U., Baral, P., Paudel, S., and Khanal, S. (2021). ‘Relevance of the Historically Black Colleges and University (HBCU) and Land Grant Model for Inclusive Transformation in Federal Nepal’. Journal of Underrepresented and Minority Progress, 5 (2). pp. 100–24. Online Khabar (2021). ‘Dr. Govinda K. C. Archives’. https://engl​ish.onlin​ekha​bar.com/tag/dr-govi​nda-kc. Accessed 17 August 2022. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003). ‘Policy Coherence’. Paper presented at 27th Session on the Public Management Committee GOV/PUMA. https://www.oecd. org/offici​aldo​cume​nts/publi​cdis​play​docu​ment​pdf/?cote=GOV/PUMA(2003)4&docL​angu​age=En. Accessed 17 August 2022. Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., and Spengler, J. D. (2019). ‘Universities as the Engine of Transformational Sustainability toward Delivering the Sustainable Development Goals “Living Labs” for Sustainability’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (8), pp. 1343–57. doi: 10.1108/ IJSHE-02-2019-0103. Purcell, W. M., Sharp, L., and Chahine, T. (2017), ‘New Governance Models for Entrepreneurial Universities: A Conceptual Framework’. Academic Proceedings of the 2017 University-Industry Engagement Conference: From Best Practice to Next Practice – Asia-Pacific Opportunities and Perspectives, pp. 19–29. Raika, T. B. (2018). ‘Land Grant University and Institutions’ Suitability in Nepal’. Personal Communication, Dhangadi, Kailali. Rosenberg Daneri, D., Trencher, G., and Petersen, J. (2015). ‘Students as Change Agents in a TownWide Sustainability Transformation: The Oberlin Project at Oberlin College’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, pp. 14–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cos​ust.2015.07.005. Rouxle, C., and Pretorius, M. (2016), ‘Conceptualizing the Limiting Issues Inhibiting Sustainability Embeddedness’. Sustainability, 8 (364), pp. 1–22. doi: 10.3390/su8040364. Sachs, J. (2018). ‘Geography, Geopolitics, and Policy in the Performance of Transition Economies’. Economics of Transition, 26 (4), pp. 841–9. Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., and Williams, J. (2016). ‘Pathways to Zero Emissions’. Nature Geoscience, 9, 799–801. The World in 2050 (2018). Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Report prepared by the World in 2050 Initiative. Luxemburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). www.twi2​050.org. Trencher, G., Terada, T., and Yarime, M. (2015), ‘Student Participation in the Co-Creation of Knowledge and Social Experiments for Advancing Sustainability: Experiences from the University of Tokyo’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, pp. 56–63. doi: 10.1016/j. cosust.2015.08.001. Unibility (2016). ‘University Meets Social Responsibility (UNIBILITY) – 2015-2017’. Report on UNIBILITY project. http://www.ub.edu/respon​sabi​lita​tsoc​ial/docs/UNIBIL​ITY_​1stN​ewsl​ette​r_Ja​n16. pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. United Nations Committee for Development Policy (UNCDP) (2018). ‘Leaving No One Behind’. https:// sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ent.un.org/cont​ent/docume​nts/275471​3_Ju​ly_P​M_2._Leaving_no_one_behind_ Summary_from_UN_Commi​ttee​_for​_Dev​elop​ment​_Pol​icy.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2022. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2021). ‘The Paris Agreement’. https://unf​ccc.int/proc​ess-and-meeti​ngs/the-paris-agreem​ent/the-paris-agreem​ent. Accessed 17 August 2022. Valeeva, R. A., Koroleva, N. E., and Sakhapova, F. Kh. (2015). ‘Development of the Technical University Students’ Civic Consciousness’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, pp. 350–3. Waheed, M. H. (2017). ‘A Revolution for Post-16 Education – Part 2: How Do Living Labs Work?’ www. sus​tain​abil​itye​xcha​nge.ac.uk/files/liv​ing_​labs​_pro​ject​_par​t_2.pdf. Accessed 29 August 2018. World Meterological Organization (2018). ‘WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018’. WMO-No. 1233. https://libr​ary.wmo.int/doc_​num.php?exp​lnum​_id=5789. Accessed 17 August 2022.

380

381

20

Transformative Change for Sustainability: The Wellington Plus Programme KAREN A. SMITH, ANDREW WILKS, JANE FLETCHER AND HEATHER GATLEY

Introduction The four commonly identified dimensions of sustainability in a higher education context are campus operations, learning and teaching, research, and community engagement and outreach (Lipscombe et al., 2008; Barth, 2013; Hoover and Harder, 2014; Findler et al., 2019; Fissi et al., 2021). Over the past two decades, early research on higher education institutions (HEIs) and sustainability focused more on campus operations including university greening and reducing HEIs’ ecological footprint (Wals, 2014). Research then widened to include learning and teaching, and community outreach and engagement (Wals, 2014). However, while there is now substantial research on sustainable education in the formal curriculum, there have been fewer studies of informal learning for sustainability in HEIs, including extracurricular initiatives (Gramatakos and Lavau, 2019). The role of students as agents of change for campus sustainability has been recognized (e.g. Murray, 2018; Mohamad et al., 2021). Yet, there is less explicit consideration of off-campus extracurricular activities as part of a university’s external partnerships with society and industry, what Stachowiak et al. (2013) refer to as ‘third mission activities’ alongside research and teaching. An exception are studies of student volunteering, involving a triad partnership of students, universities and not-for-profit organizations (HaskiLeventhal et al., 2019). This chapter critically reflects on an extracurricular programme focused on civic engagement in the local community and considers its role in the evolution of sustainability at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). The chapter begins by reviewing the literature on civic engagement and extracurricular programmes as part of the sustainability practices of HEIs. The benefits of extracurricular programmes and student volunteering provide a theoretical context for the chapter’s case study of the Wellington Plus Programme. This is an extracurricular service and leadership programme and involves three components: volunteering, professional and personal development workshops, and a reflective portfolio. The chapter identifies three phases in the university’s recent sustainability journey and reflects on how civic engagement – and specifically this extracurricular programme – has been interlaced with the wider evolution of sustainability within the institution. The chapter concludes by analysing the

381

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

critical success factors and barriers and what these mean for embedding sustainable practices that drive change internally and within the wider community.

Sustainability and HEIs Universities can position themselves as sustainability leaders that can enhance relationships with external stakeholders as well as attract students (Leal Filho and Bardi, 2019). This can contribute to the university’s external sustainability performance and their role in their region, alongside internal aspects of sustainability, including campus sustainability, research and curricula (Dagiliūtė et al., 2018). Stakeholder engagement is a critical success factor for university sustainability, including both student involvement and collaborations with external partners (Murray, 2018). HEIs can operate as anchor institutions within their local communities. Harris and Holley (2016) outline four components of anchor institutions. First, they have spatial immobility and are tied, or anchored, to a specific location, with a strong stake in that community through their mission, investment and community relationships. Second, anchor institutions are typically non-profit and, third, employ large numbers of people and have significant purchasing power. Finally, anchors have an institutional mission that has a social purpose and has influence in the community. These components all suggest a role for anchor institution universities to be sustainability leaders in their region. In an urban American context, Friedman et al. (2010) highlight that a university being rooted in its community starts with the mission statement and strategic plan. A perceived disconnect with the institution’s strategic objectives can be a barrier to education for sustainability (Akins et al., 2019). Other barriers include the complexity of sustainability, lack of resources or institutional support, and an absence of transformative leadership and champions (Akins et al., 2019). Organizational silos, including among different disciplines, act against sustainability (Pompeii et al., 2019) and an integrated and whole of university approach is important (Akins et al., 2019).

Sustainability, Civic Engagement and Extracurricular Activities Embedding sustainability in the curriculum is recognized as important (Gramatakos and Lavau, 2019); however, informal learning experiences also have the potential to enable universities and students to engage in transformative change for sustainability, both on-campus and externally. Extracurricular activities are not directly related to the formal curriculum, and examples of extracurricular sustainability activities include awareness campaigns, groups and networks, training opportunities as well as on- and off-campus events (Lipscombe et al., 2008). Informal and extracurricular education for sustainability can benefit from being outside the formal curriculum, as activities are not constrained by disciplinary norms and institutional departmental structures (Lipscombe et al., 2008; Gramatakos and Lavau, 2019). Extracurricular initiatives can take place away from traditional campus spaces. They can potentially reach different student communities (Lipscombe et al., 2008) and extend the reach of sustainability education within an institution and with the wider community (Gramatakos and Lavau, 2019). Student volunteering is recognized as a form of extracurricular activity that can generate benefits for those involved (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019). Volunteering can enable students to acquire skills, competencies and work experience that can enhance their employability, develop 382

Transformative Change at Wellington

citizenship and promote social and personal benefits (Williamson et al., 2018; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019). Various studies have identified benefits to universities from extracurricular student volunteering (see Holdsworth, 2010; Holdsworth and Brewis, 2014; Garrecht et al., 2018; Williamson et al., 2018; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019; Holmes et al., 2021; Rampasso et al., 2021). Volunteering promotes learning opportunities that enable students to develop and demonstrate graduate capabilities and attributes and meet institutional goals regarding, for example, student employability, citizenship, resilience and well-being. Extracurricular volunteering can benefit universities by reputational and image improvements, providing a point of differentiation that may impact on student recruitment. Positive outcomes for university–community stakeholder relations are also an outcome of extracurricular volunteering by students (Holdsworth, 2010; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019). Community organizations can benefit from students’ labour and engagement, potentially increasing their organizational capacities and leadership skills, and this may have a longer legacy of encouraging students to continue volunteering after graduation (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019). Although literature on extracurricular activities recognizes the potential for supporting sustainability outcomes, there is minimal direct mention of sustainability in relation to student volunteering even though Rampasso et al. (2021) found that volunteering could be an effective means for universities to prepare students to act sustainably. Lipscombe et al. (2008) recognize the weaknesses of extracurricular learning to include limited resources to develop and support activities, and a danger that they are seen as marginal activities within universities. As with other extracurricular initiatives, student volunteering requires institutional support, leadership and investment of resources (Holdsworth and Brewis, 2014; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019). Brewis and Holdsworth (2011) point to the need for universities to place volunteering in the wider institutional and social contexts. They emphasize the importance of opportunities for student reflection on their volunteering to maximize the benefits and impact of these informal learning experiences. Lipscombe et al. (2008) also highlight the paradox of extracurricular activities that may be able to reach a wider audience than sustainability education in the formal curriculum but can also be viewed as lacking accessibility as they are often voluntary and optional. Similarly, Williamson et al. (2018) note that student volunteering systems can reinforce rather than break down inequalities. How extracurricular activities can contribute to transformative change for sustainability within and outside HEIs therefore warrants further consideration. This chapter presents a case study of the extracurricular Wellington Plus Programme at Victoria University of Wellington and weaves together the development of the programme and the university’s sustainability transformation.

Case Study: The Wellington Plus Programme Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington was founded in 1897 and is one of New Zealand’s oldest tertiary institutions. Its three campuses are in the heart of New Zealand’s capital city. In 2020, the university had 17,767 full-time equivalent (FTE) students studying across its Faculties of Business and Government, Law, Humanities and Social Sciences, Education, Science, Health, Engineering, and Architecture and Design Innovation. The Victoria Plus Programme was established in 2008 as an opt-in extracurricular service and leadership programme. The programme was renamed the Wellington Plus Programme in 2019 and is referred to by its current name throughout the chapter, except when quoting historical 383

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

material. The programme was designed with the objectives of recognizing students’ on-campus leadership positions as well as their volunteer and civic engagement activities in addition to extending the university’s relationships with the Wellington community. It connects the skills and expertise of students from all disciplines with projects and volunteer work around the Wellington region and on the university’s campuses. Leadership, social responsibility and employability are at the core of the programme. The three-part programme is free, open to any student and can be completed at two levels. For the Certificate, students volunteer approximately eighty hours for at least two different causes; this takes about six to twelve months to complete. To achieve the Award requires approximately 250 hours of voluntary work and typically takes two to three years to complete. The Award is granted when a student completes their studies. For both the Certificate and Award, students also need to participate in professional and personal development workshops that complement their volunteer experiences and formal academic studies. The programme facilitates opportunities to learn skills such as networking and time management, and it supports career management and includes participation in leadership and social responsibility seminars delivered by external business and community organizations. Upon meeting the requisite criteria, students submit a self-reflection portfolio. By reflecting on skills developed and lessons learnt during the programme, students identify how they can transfer their learning to different environments including further study, future employment or life in general. The achievement of the Certificate or Award is recorded on a graduate’s academic transcript. Over 1,500 students are enrolled in the programme (in 2021). In 2019, over 104 Wellington community organizations, twenty-two university clubs and more than thirty services across the university’s three campuses benefited from students volunteering as part of the programme. In 2019, forty-four Awards and fifty-eight Certificates were granted The contribution of the programme is collated annually from activity reports. In 2019, this represented over 22,000 hours of student volunteer effort and equates to a financial contribution of at least NZ$389,400.1 In 2020, there was a decrease in activity of 61 per cent due to the impact of Covid-19. However, in the second half of the year, students were able to return to campus and volunteer work due to New Zealand’s management of Covid-19 in the community. Adaptations to the programme were made to meet student needs during different Covid alert levels and to support offshore students who were unable to return to Wellington because of New Zealand’s border restrictions. This will continue to be the case as required. In 2020, forty-eight Awards and fifty Certificates were granted. An Extracurricular Sustainability Journey The establishment and development of the Wellington Plus Programme are outlined together with the university’s sustainability journey over the past two decades. In doing so, the chapter analyses the extracurricular programme’s role in the university’s sustainability transformation from an operational approach focused on reducing the environmental footprint of campusbased operations, to embracing a holistic, multidimensional and pan-university commitment to sustainability. The sustainability journey is divided into three phases: sustainable campus operations; sustainability as academic emphasis; and sustainability as a whole of institution and student partnership.

384

Transformative Change at Wellington

Phase 1: Sustainable Campus Operations In the mid-2000s, sustainability at Victoria University of Wellington was focused on environmentally sustainable campus operations and practices. Academic sustainability activities were within departmental silos and focused on individual academics or research teams within units, such as the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute (NZCCRI, 2021) and the Antarctic Research Centre (ARC, 2021). The university’s sustainability staff (including chapter author AW) were in the Property Services team and focused on operational matters related to campus management (e.g. energy efficiency improvements, sustainable commuting options and environmentally sustainable design in new constructions on campus). The university’s Environmental Committee was also operationally focused, despite most members being academics. In 2010, AW moved to work at the University of British Columbia in Canada and experienced a more advanced and holistic approach to higher education sustainability. On their return to Victoria University of Wellington in 2011, they worked with the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Science to shift the focus of the Environmental Committee from operations to research and teaching, foreshadowing a wider transformation of sustainability outlined in the next development phase. During this period, the university had a strong focus on developing graduates with skills in leadership, communication, and critical and creative thinking. Two related but separate extracurricular programmes were developed in 2008 to provide opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate leadership. The Director of Student Services observed several service leadership programmes developing in Australia and globally, and funding was sought from a charitable trust to fund the pilot of the Victoria Plus Programme (‘Victoria’ or ‘Vic’ being the informal name of the university, with the programme often being referred to as VicPlus). Although many on-campus and community engagement activities for students already existed, the programme established university support and recognition of these, including acknowledgement on a graduate’s official transcript. Following the pilot programme’s success, it became a central part of the university’s student engagement activities, managed by the Careers and Employment team. Based on Holmes et al.’s (2021) continuum of university student volunteer programme models, the Wellington Plus Programme can be classified as a centrally administered programme as it is organized by paid university staff with minimal direct involvement of students in its organization. While the Wellington Plus Programme was the first of its kind in New Zealand, centrally administered programmes are the most common model of student volunteering in Australia (Holmes et al., 2021). About six months after the Wellington Plus Programme, a second leadership programme was established, namely the Victoria (now Wellington) International Leadership Programme. Whereas the Wellington Plus Programme is embedded in local connections, the International Leadership programme focuses on global connections and is in the university’s International Office. In 2009, both programmes were commended in the institution’s New Zealand Universities Academic Audit (New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit-Te Wāhanga Tātari, 2009), which highlighted their contribution to helping students prepare for leadership positions in society. They were subsequently included in the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Good Practice database (see Victoria University of Wellington, 2012). The foundation of the Wellington Plus Programme was focused on student leadership, employability, social responsibility and civic engagement. While ‘sustainability’ did not explicitly

385

386

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

feature in the programme’s original objectives, two sustainability-related drivers motivated its establishment. First, employers, local businesses and community organizations engaging with the university were themselves exploring social responsibility and developing corporate social responsibility programmes. Second, students were leading and driving environmental activities within the university and in the local community. For example, the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association (VUWSA) created a Sustainability and Well-Being Officer role and established several sustainability-focused student clubs on campus (Victoria University of Wellington, 2021b; VUWSA, 2021). The Wellington Plus Programme enabled the university to channel student interest into emerging sustainability initiatives. This included the university’s Growing Graduates initiative,2 a collaboration between the university’s charitable foundation and the local council to plant native trees in Wellington’s town belt. Since 2013, Wellington Plus students have participated in the annual tree planting events alongside university staff and alumni. Phase 2: Sustainability as Academic Emphasis Leadership is central to the success of sustainability initiatives in higher education (Hoover and Harder, 2014; Lozano et al., 2014), and in early 2014, Professor Grant Guilford joined the university as Vice-Chancellor. This appointment and the development of the university’s ‘2015–2019 Strategic Plan’ (Victoria University of Wellington, 2015b) continued a shift from sustainability as campus operations to a stronger academic emphasis on sustainability in research and teaching. The strategic plan set out a vision that Victoria University of Wellington will be a world-leading capital city university and one of the great global-civic universities, with that vision being underpinned by the University’s mission to undertake excellent research, teaching, and public engagement in the service of local, national, regional, and global communities. (Victoria University of Wellington, 2015a, p. 2) The strategy documents linked this vision back to one of the founding motivations for the establishment of the university in the late 1890s: the need for the nation’s capital and its region to be supported by a public university. This strategic plan was a strong statement of civic engagement and sustainability as core commitments and demonstrations of the university’s values, aligned with actions such as pledging to divest its investments in fossil fuels. The strategic planning process also saw the identification and adoption of eight distinctive areas of academic emphasis, including ‘enhancing the resilience and sustainability of our natural heritage and capital’ (Victoria University of Wellington, 2015b). While still heavily focused on sustainability, this also recognized the university’s research and teaching excellence in managed and built environments. In 2014, two newly created roles had a strong impact on the leadership of the university’s sustainability activities. An Assistant Vice-Chancellor (AVC) Sustainability role was established, the first in New Zealand, initially reporting to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research). Later in 2014, the university’s senior leadership team was restructured, including creating a new Provost position with oversight of all academic activities in the university; the AVC Sustainability became one of their direct reports. A third senior appointment, a Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Engagement), was focused on developing partnerships with communities and reflected the

386

Transformative Change at Wellington

global-civic engagement vision. Sustainability and civic engagement were thus becoming embedded in the academic and leadership structures of the university, moving beyond the previous operational focus. The Wellington Plus Programme continued its focus on student leadership and transformation, and this fitted within the emerging emphasis on civic engagement. Indeed, the programme was leading student engagement activities and recognition. Initially many of the student volunteering activities had been focused on campus-based activities such as peer-to-peer mentoring support or student-led environmental activities. However, developing connections with community partners, including Volunteer Wellington and Volunteering New Zealand, drove the growth of off-campus, community-based student volunteering and engagement. Wellington Plus Programme staff and students were therefore driving transformative change both within the university and in the local community. For example, the Careers and Employment team, including the Wellington Plus Programme manager and administrator, developed a reputation as the go-to unit for advice to academics and faculties on community engagement and developing civic engagement initiatives. The programme staff have also advised on the establishment of extracurricular programmes at other New Zealand universities. Wellington Plus staff and students worked closely with the local volunteer resource centre, Volunteer Wellington, to support community initiatives, including the Volunteer Wellington Vanguard, a student leadership group. The university’s capital city location was reflected in the global-civic mission, and the programme also had a wider impact as part of national projects. For example, Wellington Plus staff and students were involved Volunteering New Zealand’s development of a countrywide student volunteer week. The national launch was held on-campus in 2015, including highlighting the Wellington Plus Programme, students and impacts. During this period, author KS was also a board member –Vice-Chair, and then Chair of Volunteering New Zealand – further facilitating the university–community engagements and leadership in student volunteering. Phase 3: Sustainability as a Whole of Institution and Student Partnership The third phase of development of Victoria University of Wellington’s sustainability journey began in 2016 with the establishment of the Sustainability Office under the Provost. This move of sustainability from Property Services built on phase two’s recognition of sustainability being much more than campus operations. It positioned sustainability as an organization-wide priority and embedded a more holistic approach, which increasingly incorporates well-being, equity and inclusion, social responsibility as well as civic engagement. Key sustainability initiatives have included participation in the Australasian Green Impact programme (Green Impact, 20213), recognition in the Australasian Green Gown Awards (which acknowledge sustainability best practice across the tertiary education sector, for energy use and transport projects) and signing the University Commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), n.d.). In 2017, the university, which has reported on its annual greenhouse gas emission since 2007, committed to a net-zero carbon goal by 2030 (Victoria University of Wellington, 2021a). The more holistic conceptualization of sustainability is reflected in the increasing inclusion of activities beyond the environment. Student-led initiatives have also grown, with a key role played by the students’ association VUWSA; this includes sustainability-related clubs and societies, a campus community garden,

387

38

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

mobilizing an estimated 4,000 students and staff to join the ‘School Strike 4 Climate’ march to the national parliament and the student-led sustainability week. The latter won the ‘Student Engagement’ category at the 2018 Australasian Green Gown Awards (Green Gown Awards, 2018), while the Victoria Plus Programme was the winner in the ‘Benefiting Society’ category at the same event and went on to win at the International Green Gown Awards in 2019 (Sustainability Exchange, 2019). The broader view of sustainability means the Wellington Plus Programme is now reflecting the university’s wider focus on social responsibility and civic engagement, in addition to environmental and campus operations activities. Whereas previously the Wellington Plus Programme had been included in the ‘student engagement’ section of the institution’s Annual Reviews, in 2018 it was, for the first time, explicitly linked to the university’s sustainability achievements.

Reflections on Transformative Change for Sustainability through an Extracurricular Programme In this section, we reflect on the university’s sustainability journey and the role of the Wellington Plus Programme as part of transformative change. We do this from our positions as the university’s Director of Sustainability (AW), manager of Careers and Employment and foundation Victoria Plus Programme coordinator (JF), current Wellington Plus Programme coordinator (HG) and an academic in the field of volunteer management who has been an academic champion for the programme (KS). We also draw on conversations with those within the university and externally, as well as student, alumni, employer and community feedback, but would like to emphasize that these are our collective reflections from our various perspectives, rather than an official institutional narrative. Victoria University of Wellington positions itself as a values-based university, and this is demonstrated in its mission. However, the university Provost Wendy Larner (interviewed for this chapter on 3 June 2021) also asked ‘What does it mean to be a values-based university?’ and continued by noting thus: ‘In recent years there has been a sea change in that lots of universities now talk about values, but a lot of them are just apple pie stuff, whereas I think we genuinely struggle with this commitment and understand that we won’t always get it right’. The increasing emphasis put on sustainability is an example of how the university is visibly demonstrating its values. This has included the stance of the university’s senior leadership and commitment to forefronting sustainability. The university was the first in New Zealand to sign the University Commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, commit to divesting its investments in fossil fuels and set a net-zero carbon goal. More recently, the Vice-Chancellor made a prominent public statement when they led other staff in marching alongside students in the 2019 School Strike 4 Climate march. As an anchor institution, place is an important element of how and why the university has transformed its understanding of sustainability and reflects the important role of civic engagement and being part of the city and region in which it is located. Provost Wendy Larner sees that we are a progressive university full of progressive people [and] we’re in a progressive city as well. Our students tell us they come to Wellington because they like the fact that they can be who they want to be in Wellington. (Interview, 3 June 2021)

388

Transformative Change at Wellington

As the national capital, while Wellington is dominated by the government there is also a vibrant creative industries sector. The city has a strong activist counterculture, as Wendy Larner reflected: ‘We’re in a city that absolutely understands the importance of activism and protest’; she continued, ‘Our students want to be engaged with Wellington’. The city also wants to engage with the university and its students. Julie Thomson, regional manager for Volunteer Wellington, who facilitates volunteer placements for Wellington Plus Programme students, noted that, as part of supporting the Green Gown application, We’ve witnessed the impact of students volunteering right across the community sector – from doing beach clean-ups and tree plantings through to fundraising for frontline social services and using their skills for the benefit of the Wellington community. [Wellington Plus] is important to us because it’s creating the next generation of volunteers with a strong social conscience. (International Green Gown application, Green Gown Awards, 2018) This social conscience and sustainability activism is illustrated by Awardee Kate de Boer, who was a 2020 finalist in the Australasian Green Gown ACTS (Australian Campuses Towards Sustainability) Award of Excellence Student category. In the introduction to her self-reflection portfolio, she wrote: Volunteering itself has been a vital part of my student experience. It has grown my connections and friendships, but mostly it has allowed me to ‘put the act into activism’ for my passions, namely environmental protection, and community development. The Wellington Plus Programme has facilitated this, and the need to reflect has shown me how much I learn during the time I give. (Portfolio Reflection,4 2019) Relationships and networks have been essential in the success of the Wellington Plus Programme, including relationships with local, regional and national organizations and individuals. The programme’s institutional home in the Careers and Employment Service means connections with employers are particularly strong and employability outcomes have been an important impact and narrative for the programme. As part of the Green Gown Award application, James ReesThomas, Partner at PwC, noted thus: The [Wellington Plus] Programme provides students an excellent opportunity to think deeply about the contribution they want to make to society. More than just another course, it exposes students to a wide range of ideas, organizations, and leadership styles. From an employer’s point of view these are the types of experiences we want our graduates to bring. (International Green Gown application, Green Gown Awards, 2018) In a 2018 survey of Wellington Plus alumni, 84 per cent of respondents said that the programme positively impacted their employability. This includes developing skills, experience and confidence, and students challenging themselves within the programme is a reoccurring theme in alumni’s survey comments and testimonials, for example: Participating in Wellington Plus improved my communication, gave me the confidence to step outside my comfort zone, and I can recognise my strengths and

389

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

weaknesses and work to them. This has enabled me to seek out better employment opportunities and be a better-rounded employee. (Programme feedback,5 2018) Liaising between lecturers and students [as a class rep] and my representative roles on boards and committees (during the Victoria Plus Programme) have given me the confidence required in my job to report to senior management and propose my own projects to the museum exhibitions programme, and to take on roles on local conference committees. (Programme Feedback, 2018) As the quotes demonstrate, programme alumni highlight the application of these skills and confidence into their graduate employment. The impact on obtaining paid work is also important, including differentiating oneself from other graduates and developing professional networks, for example: I felt like I needed more than good grades to differentiate myself from other amazing students and I was interested in expanding my networks. Wellington Plus has been a large part of my student experience at university and opened many doors (to parttime work during my studies). (Portfolio Reflection, 2020) Getting involved has helped me to network in my field and introduced me to people that have later proven to be invaluable for references, or job applications. (Programme Feedback, 2018) Alumni report positive reactions from recruiters to their involvement in the extracurricular programme, for example: I have had opportunities to work with many individuals from different companies through my volunteering with the programme. These experiences served as strong talking points during the hiring process and will be incredibly useful in my graduate position. (Portfolio Reflection, 2020) [The programme] tells prospective employers that I’m community-minded, committed, and willing to go the extra mile; and … that I’m able to use my reflections and insights (from the written reflective portfolio) to understand and explain my skills and abilities. I also find stories about my VicPlus experiences really useful in answering interview questions. (Programme Feedback, 2018) The volunteering, personal and professional development, and reflective components of the Wellington Plus Programme each contribute positively towards enhancing the employability of students. The involvement in the programme demonstrates a commitment to social responsibility and sustainability, for example: The fact that I took time out of my busy schedule as a student to volunteer assured my current employer that I would always go the extra mile in my work. The company was convinced that I was the best person to lead their corporate social responsibility drive. (Programme Feedback, 2018) Reflecting on the establishment of the Sustainability Office under the Provost’s portfolio (see phase three), Wendy Larner saw this as ‘an institutional moment, but it was also a global moment. The SDGs are on the radar. People are beginning to talk about sustainability in more holistic, multifaceted kind of ways. It’s clearly no longer simply an operational dimension’ (interviewed 390

Transformative Change at Wellington

on 3 June 2021). The initial leadership by an AVC Sustainability emphasized the learning, teaching and research dimensions of sustainability; the fact that this institutional leadership is now with a Director of Sustainability reflects the holistic positioning of sustainability. A strength of the Wellington Plus Programme has been its adaptability to reflect and contribute to the direction of the university. While ‘sustainability’ was not explicitly part of its initial objectives, social responsibility was a foundational value. As the university has increasingly recognized a more holistic view of sustainability, this has included the social impact and justice activities of Wellington Plus students, as well as environmental activism. The programme has also been at the forefront of university aspirations on civic engagement. This has included programme staff leading, for example, the establishment of a university staff volunteering programme and being recognized for their expertise in community engagement. The Wellington Plus Programme’s status as an extracurricular activity means students are not compelled to participate for academic credit and so are both motivated and self-directed. Students can tailor the programme to suit their personal interests and passions, studies and schedule. This provides both ownership and flexibility: students choose what they want to be involved in and when they do it. Many students report that their time management skills improved because of their involvement in the programme. Employers like to see that a student has taken the initiative to get involved outside of their studies and develop their skills. Its extracurricular status also means there are no penalties for non-completion. Being outside the formal curriculum has also facilitated agility in the programme, which has been quick to quickly adapt and innovate (e.g.to support students stranded offshore due to Covid-19) without requiring complex academic approval processes. For the Sustainability Office, the pan-university nature of the Wellington Plus Programme means they can connect with service-orientated students from all disciplines, which is more efficient and effective than going through individual faculties, schools and programmes, and this extends the reach of sustainability initiatives. However, the extracurricular status has also been a challenge for the Wellington Plus Programme, in terms of its recognition, the ability to scale up and extend its impact, and issues of access and equity. While its institutional home in Careers and Employment has afforded strong connections with the community, it has potentially narrowed its perception internally as simply an employability and careers-focused opportunity. There is a perceived lack of support from the academic community in its position as an extracurricular activity that students might choose to do in addition to their academic studies. Students often face barriers to accessing extracurricular activities. Even when they are nominally free, extracurricular programmes may not be accessible as they involve the investment of time and resources that individuals might need to direct to other activities, including paid employment, caring and other work, family and cultural commitments. This can be a particular issue for some students, such as those with disabilities or from low socio-economic backgrounds. Extracurricular activities are optional, and hence they are not fully embedded in the student experience. They can also lack the resourcing and infrastructure to scale-up activities and are not recognized in faculty or central budgets. The programme being run out of a student support service means the only funding comes from a proportion of the Student Services Levy – a compulsory student services fee that is paid in addition to tuition fees in New Zealand’s tertiary education organizations. These fees are used to fund services for students including counselling, health services, financial advice and careers guidance, student advocacy, sport, recreation and cultural activities, and student representation. 391

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Student perceptions of the amount of work it takes to complete the programme are also a challenge. Awardees are fulsome in their praise of the opportunity and the transformative impact it has enabled; however, some are deterred from completing the programme by its pedagogical underpinnings that require a reflective portfolio. Although opportunities for reflection on student volunteering are recognized as important (Brewis and Holdsworth, 2011), some students want to be, and are, active in the university and their communities but do not appear to value the deeper learning of the reflective component of the awards. The programme team recognizes that alternatives to a written portfolio (such as videos, blogs or interviews) may be useful and, while changes have not yet been implemented, the university recently conducted a Design Sprint to understand what students would like to see in the programme and how it could be evaluated. Mirroring the experiences of embedding sustainability, the university’s current work to coordinate civic engagement activities has been challenged by the complexity of activities across the institution that are confusing to navigate not only for external stakeholders but also internally. Although the establishment of the Sustainability Office aimed to address institutional silos, many of these remain. The Wellington Plus team and Sustainability Office (and its predecessors) have collaborated on many initiatives (e.g. the annual Growing Graduates, now called the Growing Our Future, tree planting, and the international Green Impact change and engagement programme). However, there is also duplication of activities and time spent building relationships with community partners where they may already be well established with the other entity, or elsewhere in the institution. Many of these relationships are reliant on individuals’ networks and their institutional knowledge and capital.

Conclusions In line with global trends in higher education (Wals, 2014), in the past two decades sustainability has received much greater prominence at Victoria University of Wellington, and this has been accompanied by a more holistic understanding of sustainability. This transformation has moved sustainability from a focus on campus operations to a wider engagement of research, learning and teaching as well as education for sustainability. Students have been recognized as agents of change for sustainability, for example in relation to campus sustainability and within the curriculum (Murray, 2018; Mohamad et al., 2021). At Victoria University of Wellington, student demand for action has been an important driver and students, including the student association, VUWSA, have often led the university in sustainability initiatives. Students have long been active on campus and in the wider community through student volunteering programmes (HaskiLeventhal et al., 2019; Holmes et al., 2021); however, extracurricular activities and informal learning for sustainability have received less research attention (Gramatakos and Lavau, 2019). The three phases of Victoria University of Wellington’s sustainability evolution and the parallel development of the Wellington Plus Programme illustrate the emergence of community engagement and outreach within sustainability in higher education. Being outside the formal curriculum has brought advantages for the Wellington Plus Programme, including those identified by Lipscombe et al. (2008) and Gramatakos and Lavau (2019), for example, enabling the programme to be agile and responsive to the changing institutional and societal contexts. Students’ environmental and social impact activities and the university’s employability and student experience objectives drove the programme’s foundation; these values and the 392

393

Transformative Change at Wellington

Wellington Plus Programme itself are now recognized as integral to the university’s sustainability aspirations. As an extracurricular programme, it is not constrained by disciplinary norms and siloed university structures; instead, it can be inclusive of multiple academic perspectives, and students can therefore shape their Wellington Plus experience to reflect their personal, academic and professional interests and priorities. The extracurricular programme continues to support and recognize on-campus sustainability action but also drives and highlights student commitments to sustainability and civic engagement in the Wellington community. As such, it visibly demonstrates the university’s vision as a global-civic and values-driven university, in addition to its role as an anchor institution (Harris and Holley, 2016) and as a leader in sustainability in its community. The case recognizes the importance of effective leadership and having individuals who are committed to and championing sustainability (Hoover and Harder, 2014; Lozano et al., 2014), including having organizational structures that position sustainability as a pan-university priority. The Wellington Plus Programme has also been ingrained in the university’s growing recognition of civic engagement alongside and interwoven with sustainability. While the extracurricular status has brought advantages to students and the university, many of the weaknesses identified in previous studies are also detectible (see, e.g., Lipscombe et al., 2008; Williamson et al., 2018; Haski-Leventhal et al., 2019). The Wellington Plus Programme has been well supported within the Student Services division; but being outside the curriculum brings resourcing challenges. Its institutional home in Careers and Employment connects it strongly to students and the community (including employers) but positions the programme at the margins of the university’s research, teaching and learning activities. In New Zealand, employability has not been strongly embedded into the wider curriculum and is often focused on work integrated learning, which may include volunteering (Rowe and Zegwaard, 2017). Nevertheless, the Wellington Plus Programme needs to work across a complex organization, often siloed into different disciplines and activities (Pompeii et al., 2019). The inclusion of the award on the academic transcript, however, reflects a more integrated model of student volunteering (Holmes et al., 2021). This enables the recognition of the individual student’s achievement, as well as celebration and public acknowledgement of awardees and their impacts, emphasizing the importance of civic engagement within the university and externally. The programme’s visibility has also benefited from external recognition through the International Green Gown Awards. However, the marginality of this extracurricular programme presents challenges for further scaling of the initiative. How best to embed student’s service and civic engagement activities in the curriculum is an ongoing debate within the university. In conclusion, this case illustrates the opportunities for universities to develop programmes that can harness the activism of students while also embedding sustainable practices that can influence change internally and within the community.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT 1. The university’s place-based mission as a global-civic university is shaping its sustainability journey and focus on community engagement. Maintaining strong connections with the community has been a key part of a decade of success of the

393

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education





Wellington Plus Programme, deepening the university’s role as an anchor institution and its engagement in sustainability initiative in the city and wider region. 2. The strengths of positioning the Wellington Plus Programme as an extracurricular activity mean it can work easily across disciplines and institutional silos and is able to quickly adapt to meeting changing institutional and student priorities. Strong institutional and programme leadership are crucial to position such extracurricular programmes at a strategic level, given the fact that staff and student groups change regularly and that resources are limited. 3. While not initially conceived as a ‘sustainability’ initiative, the founding values of the programme have become aligned with the sustainability objectives of the institution. Collaboration with students and regular evaluation and feedback help drive adaptations to the programme and meet student needs.

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the input of the current and previous Wellington Plus Programme Managers Olga Smith and Charlie Devenish for their leadership of these programmes and their input into this chapter. We also acknowledge the encouragement of Provost Wendy Larner, and the support of community partners, particularly Julie Thomson and the Volunteer Wellington team.

Notes 1 Using a replacement cost valuation approach (see Cordery et al., 2011) based on the 2019 New Zealand minimum wage (NZ$17.70). 2 Growing Graduates is now the Growing Our Future initiative (Victoria University of Wellington, 2021c). 3 https://gree​nimp​act.acts.asn.au/. 4 Students submit a self-reflection portfolio as part of applying for the Certificate or Award. 5 Quotes are taken from student feedback on the programme, for example, a survey of alumni conducted in 2018.

References Akins, E. E., Giddens, E., Glassmeyer, D., Gruss, A., Hedden, M. K., and Slinger-Friedman, V. (2019). ‘Sustainability Education and Organizational Change: A Critical Case Study of Barriers and Change Drivers at a Higher Education Institution’. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11 (2), p. 501. doi: 10.3390/ su11020501. Antarctic Research Centre (ARC) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/antarc​tic. Barth, M. (2013). ‘Many Roads Lead to Sustainability: A Process-Oriented Analysis of Change in Higher Education’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14 (2), pp. 160–75. doi: 10.1108/14676371311312879. Brewis, G., and Holdsworth, C. (2011). ‘University Support for Student Volunteering in England: Historical Development and Contemporary Value’. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9 (2), pp. 165–76. doi: 10.1007/s10805-011-9129-0.

394

Transformative Change at Wellington

Cordery, C. J., Proctor-Thomson, S., and Smith, K. A. (2011). ‘Valuing Volunteer Contributions to Charities’. Public Money & Management, 31 (3), pp. 193–200. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2011.573230. Dagiliūtė, R., Liobikienė, G., and Minelgaitė, A. (2018). ‘Sustainability at Universities: Students’ Perceptions from Green and Non-Green Universities’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, pp. 473– 82. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.213. Findler, F., Schönherr, N., Lozano, R., Reider, D., and Martinuzzi, A. (2019). ‘The Impacts of Higher Education Institutions on Sustainable Development: A Review and Conceptualization’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (1), pp. 23–38. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0114. Fissi, S., Romolini, A., Gori, E., and Contri, M. (2021). ‘The Path toward a Sustainable Green University: The Case of the University of Florence’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123655. Friedman, D., Perry, D., and Menendez, C. (2010). ‘The Foundational Role of Universities as Anchor Institutions in Urban Development’. A Report of National Data and Survey Findings. Coalition of Urban Serving Universities, and Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Washington DC. Garrecht, C., Bruckermann, T., and Harms, U. (2018). ‘Students’ Decision-Making in Education for Sustainability-Related Extracurricular Activities: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies’. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10 (11), p. 3876. doi: 10.3390/su10113876. Gramatakos, A. L., and Lavau, S. (2019). ‘Informal Learning for Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (2), pp. 378–92. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2018-0177. Green Gown Awards (2018). ‘Green Gown Awards Australasia – 2018 Winners’. https://www.gree​ngow​ nawa​rds.org/2018-winn​ers. Green Impact (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://gree​nimp​act.acts.asn.au/. Harris, M., and Holley, K. (2016). ‘Universities as Anchor Institutions: Economic and Social Potential for Urban Development’, in M. Paulsen (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 393–439. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_8. Haski-Leventhal, D., Paull, M., Young, S., MacCallum, J., Holmes, K., Omari, M., Scott, R., and Alony, I. (2019). ‘The Multidimensional Benefits of University Student Volunteering: Psychological Contract, Expectations, and Outcomes’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49 (1), pp. 113–33. doi: 10.1177/0899764019863108. Holdsworth, C. (2010). ‘Why Volunteer? Understanding Motivations for Student Volunteering’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58 (4), pp. 421–37. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2010.527666. Holdsworth, C., and Brewis, G. (2014). ‘Volunteering, Choice and Control: A Case Study of Higher Education Student Volunteering’. Journal of Youth Studies, 17 (2), pp. 204–19. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.815702. Holmes, K., Paull, M., Haski-Leventhal, D., Maccallum, J., Omari, M., Walker, G., Scott, R., Young, S., and Maher, A. (2021). ‘A Continuum of University Student Volunteer Programme Models’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43 (3), pp. 281–97. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2020.1804658. Hoover, E., and Harder, M. K. (2014). ‘What Lies Beneath the Surface? The Hidden Complexities of Organizational Change for Sustainability in Higher Education’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 175–88 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.081. Leal Filho, W., and Bardi, U. (eds) (2019). Sustainability on University Campuses: Learning, Skills Building and Best Practices. Cham: Springer. Lipscombe, B. P., Burek, C. V., Potter, J. A., Ribchester, C., and Degg, M. R. (2008). ‘An Overview of Extra-Curricular Education For Sustainable Development (ESD) Interventions in UK Universities’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9 (3), pp. 222–34. doi: 10.1108/14676370810885853. Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R., and Hug, J. (2014). ‘A Review of Commitment and Implementation of Sustainable

395

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Development in Higher Education: Results From a Worldwide Survey’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108 (Part A), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048. New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit-Te Wāhanga Tātari (2009). ‘Victoria University of Wellington Te Whare Wānanga o Te Ūpoko o Te Ika a Māui Academic audit report Cycle 4’. https:// www.aqa.ac.nz/sites/all/files/Victo​ria%20Cyc​le4.pdf. Mohamad, Z. F., Mamat, M. Z., and Muhamad Noor, M. F. (2021). ‘Students as Change Agents for Campus Sustainability in Malaysian Universities’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22 (1), pp. 404–22. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-06-2020-0224. Murray, J. (2018). ‘Student-Led Action for Sustainability in Higher Education: A Literature Review’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19 (6), pp. 1095–110. doi: 10.1108/ IJSHE-09-2017-0164. New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute (NZCCRI) (2021). ‘Home Page’. https://www.wgtn. ac.nz/nzc​cri. Pompeii, B., Chiu, Y. W., Neill, D., Braun, D., Fiegel, G., Oulton, R., Ragsdale, J., and Singh, K. (2019). ‘Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Integrating Sustainability across the Curriculum at a Teaching-Oriented University’. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11 (9), p. 2652. doi: 10.3390/su11092652. Rampasso, I. S., Quelhas, O. L. G., Anholon, R., Silva, L. E., Ávila, T. P., Matsutani, L., and Yparraguirre, I. T. R. (2021). ‘Preparing Future Professionals to act towards Sustainable Development: An Analysis of Undergraduate students’ Motivations towards Voluntary Activities’. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28 (2), pp. 157–65. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2020.1804478. Rowe, A. D., and Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). ‘Developing Graduate Employability Skills and Attributes: Curriculum Enhancement through Work-Integrated Learning’. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18 (2), pp. 87–99. Stachowiak, K., Pinheiro, R., Sedini, C., and Vaattovaara, M. (2013). ‘Policies Aimed at Strengthening Ties between Universities and Cities’, in S. Musterd and Z. Kovacs (eds), Place-Making and Policies for Competitive Cities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 263–91. Sustainability Exchange (2019). ‘Benefitting Society Finalist: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand’. https://www.sus​tain​abil​itye​xcha​nge.ac.uk/benefitting_society_​fina​list​_vic​tori​a_un​iver​sit. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://ap-uns​dsn.org/regio​nalinit​iati​ves/unive​rsit​ies-sdgs/uni​vers​ity-com​mitm​ent-overv​iew/). Accessed 4 January 2022. Victoria University of Wellington (2012). Annual Report 2011. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. Victoria University of Wellington (2015a). Annual Report 2014. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. Victoria University of Wellington (2015b). Strategic Plan 2015-2019. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. Victoria University of Wellington (2021a). ‘Carbon Footprint’. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/sus​tain​abil​ity/ourcam​pus/car​bon-footpr​int. Victoria University of Wellington (2021). ‘Clubs Directory – Sustainability’. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/ stude​nts/cam​pus/clubs/direct​ory?categ​ory=sus​tain​abil​ity. Victoria University of Wellington (2021c). ‘Growing Our Future’. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/sus​tain​abil​ity/ get-invol​ved/grow​ing-our-fut​ure. Victoria University of Wellington Students Association (VUWSA) (2021). ‘VUWSA Representation – Your VUWSA Executive’. https://www.vuwsa.org.nz/vuwsa-exec. Wals, A. E. J. (2014). ‘Sustainability in Higher Education in the Context of the UN DESD: A Review of Learning and Institutionalization processes’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, pp. 8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.007. Williamson, I., Wildbur, D., Bell, K., Tanner, J., and Matthews, H. (2018). ‘Benefits to University Students through Volunteering in a Health Context: A New Model’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66 (3), pp. 383–402. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2017.1339865.

396

397

21

Student Involvement in Environmental Management Activities SAKIKO OKAYAMA

Introduction There are currently 803 universities in Japan, of which eighty-six are national universities (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan (MEXT), 2021a, p. 2). Chiba University is the only national university in Chiba Prefecture, located next to Tokyo, the capital of Japan. It is a comprehensive university with ten faculties: medicine, pharmacy, nursing, science, engineering, letters, law and economics, horticulture, liberal arts and sciences, and education. The university was founded in 1949 and currently has about 14,100 students and 3,500 faculty members (National University Corporation Chiba University, 2021a, p. 1). In 2005, the university acquired ISO 14001 certification (hereinafter, EMS) and has since been working to become more sustainable, with a focus on the environment. Initially, the university established the Chiba University Student Committee for EMS (hereinafter, Student Committee) as a way to maintain its environmental management system, with students taking the initiative in operating the system as part of their education. This system has brought great results in terms of the environment, economy, society and education. In recent years, the activities of the Student Committee have expanded, and students have begun to implement projects in cooperation with companies, which has led to initiatives that go beyond the university’s environmental measures. This has enabled the university to not only indirectly contribute to the building of a sustainable society through its own research and education, but also to reach out to society at large through companies. This chapter explores the changes in students, the university and companies that have been brought about by Chiba University’s seventeen-year student-led EMS initiative and cooperative projects between students and companies. To begin, the next section provides an overview of Chiba University’s student-led EMS system.

Overview of Chiba University’s Student-Led EMS Background of Acquisition of ISO 14001 In 1996, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) enacted ISO 14001, the international standard for environmental management systems. Japan obtained the highest number of certifications in the world in the early 2000s. The first Japanese university to obtain

397

398

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

ISO 14001 was Musashi Institute of Technology in 1998. The number has gradually increased since then, and by 2007, sixty universities had obtained the certification (Okayama, 2017, p. 57). In October 2003, Chiba University’s President declared that it would embark on the acquisition of ISO 14001 certification. There were four reasons for this: first, to fulfil its social responsibility as a large-scale business to reduce its environmental impact; second, to take the initiative in environmental management as a public educational institution; third, to show the society that Chiba University is a leader in the field by taking the unprecedented initiative of students to obtain ISO certification; and fourth, to make effective use of expenses by reducing utility and water costs. Explicitly the reason for a student-led approach was to position the EMS as part of the education programme, but implicitly it also aimed at gaining agreement within the university to acquire ISO 14001 certification. At the time, it was thought to be difficult to obtain ISO 14001 certification without hiring a consultant, but since the university did not have the budget for this, it was agreed that the students would perform the work necessary to obtain and operate the certification. The Student Committee was officially established in 2003. The author (SO) was a third-year undergraduate student when it was established and served as its first chair. The forty-member committee led various tasks related to ISO certification, and the university successfully obtained ISO 14001 certification in January 2005. In December 2013, it became the first university in Japan to obtain ISO 50001, an international standard for energy management systems. Continuation Mechanism: ‘Chiba University Method’ ISO 14001 needs to be renewed each year, with targets and plans set out annually. Initiatives are implemented according to the plans, an internal audit is conducted, results evaluated, and the management reviews the plans to implement the PDCA (Plan–Do–Check–Act) cycle for the next year. In addition, it is necessary to undertake a continuing examination every year and a renewal examination once every three years by an external examination body. Thus, maintaining the certification requires a great deal of effort on the part of teachers and administrative staff, as well as costs for audits and other activities. Of the seventy-one universities that have acquired ISO 14001 certification in Japan, only about ten universities, including Chiba University, are currently maintaining this. Therefore, how has Chiba University been able to maintain its ISO 14001 certification for more than sixteen years under the initiative of its students? The answer is the ‘Chiba University Method’. This is a unique system devised by Chiba University in order to operate the EMS on a student-led basis. The features of this system are as follows: 1. a student committee is established within the university organization; 2. students are involved in the fundamental operations of the EMS as well as in a wide range of other activities; 3. students are given credits and qualifications for these activities; 4. the student committee is also active as a non-profit organization. In recent years, collaboration between students and companies has had a very positive impact not only on the local community but also on the university, so this can be considered a fifth feature and is discussed later.

398

Student-led Environmental Management

Establish a Student Committee within the University Organization When students try to form their own environmental activity groups, they tend to become clubs. However, Chiba University has placed the Student Committee as an organization within the EMS organizational structure of the university. The organization is headed by the President and the Director in charge of planning. Directly below this is the Environmental ISO Planning Committee, which is responsible for making decisions regarding the operation of the university’s EMS, and the Student Committee is positioned right next to it. What is the advantage of having it within the university organization? It is the ability to have students perform the tasks necessary for the operation of the university’s EMS. From the students’ point of view, being recognized within the university as an official activity enables them to involve the faculty and staff in their activities. In addition, the Student Committee has its own room and computers and other equipment purchased at public expense. The budget and transportation expenses for the activities are also provided, and recruitment brochures are sent to new students. The university’s public relations office issues a press release about the committee’s activities. This kind of treatment is completely different from that of a typical student club. Students Perform Tasks Related to the Fundamentals of EMS and a Wide Range of Activities The PDCA cycle for the EMS must be operated every year in order to maintain ISO 14001 certification. At Chiba University, the Student Committee prepares a draft of the year’s goals and plans for the EMS. There are approximately eighty plans for one campus, and the committee is in charge of implementing forty of these plans. For example, awareness-raising activities such as energy conservation and recycling, environmental education activities for children, campus greening activities, environmental measures for campus traffic, creation and sale of eco-goods, flower bed maintenance and so on. For the internal audit, which is C (check) of the PDCA cycle, students form a team of auditors with faculty and staff to audit more than 120 laboratories every year. After the review (Act) by the top management, they undergo an external examination. The students also accompany the examiners and take minutes. The students are not only responsible for the core tasks of EMS operation, such as preparing plans and being auditors, but are also in charge of a wide range of activities, including awarenessraising activities. About 200 to 300 students, divided into more than twenty groups, put their plans in writing and submit them to the Environmental ISO Planning Committee. Once the plan is approved for implementation, it is executed using the university budget and university facilities. From these activities, students gain experience in a variety of areas, including proposal and report writing, leadership, meeting management, liaison with personnel inside and outside the university, production and design, public relations, scheduling and schedule adjustment. There are many groups that carry out such projects, and students gain practical experience in this organizational structure. Granting Credits and Qualifications for Student Activities The Student Committee takes the initiative in carrying out tasks that might normally be done by faculty or other professional staff of the university. In order for the students to carry out

399

40

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

their duties, they need to acquire knowledge about EMS and business skills, and the university offers a subject called EMS Practicum. Students take Practicum 1 in their first year and learn specialized knowledge about ISO 14001, EMS, and environmental laws and regulations, and they practice practical skills such as how to conduct internal audits. They also learn business skills, such as how to plan, write proposals, type emails, conduct meetings and play the role of a leader. In the second year, students take Practicum 2, in which they actually become the leader of a group of about ten people and lead the group. They are also responsible for creating proposals and conducting audits. In this way, they actually apply what they have learnt in the first year. In their third year, the students become more active as the executive members of the committee. If they continue their activities until December of their third year, they will receive an internal qualification from the President called the Chiba University Environmental Energy Management Practitioner and retire from the committee. Although this is an internal qualification, they can put it on their resumes, and hence they can use it when they start job hunting in their fourth year. The Student Committee also Works as a Non-Profit Organization The Student Committee obtained non-profit organization (NPO) status in 2009. This has enabled the Student Committee to work both as an on-campus organization and as an NPO. All the members, the President and all the officers are students. There are three main reasons for becoming an NPO: first, to use the knowledge and expertise gained from on-campus activities to expand their activities to the local community; second, to gain hands-on experience in corporate management, including legal and accounting matters; and third, to manage their budget and facilitate various environmental activities. Specific activities include holding eco-classes for children at local elementary and junior high schools and environmental events, conducting forest conservation activities and making recommendations such as writing third-party opinions for environmental reports of companies and other universities. Implementing Collaborative Projects between Students and Companies This item was not included in the Chiba University Method until now. However, looking at the results of recent projects, it can be said to be a major feature of Chiba University, and so for the first time it has been included as a fifth feature. Two projects are introduced in Collaborative Projects with Corporations for more information on what kind of projects are being carried out. Outcomes There are four main outcomes of the student-led EMS. These are environmental load reduction, cost reduction, improvement in social reputation and practical education effect. Each of these will be briefly explained. Environmental Impact and Cost Reduction Effect Comparing the year 2004, before Chiba University obtained ISO 14001, and the recent year 2019, with the accreditation, the university has significantly reduced its environmental impact, despite the increase in both floor space and the number of constituents (Table 21.1). As a result,

400

Student-led Environmental Management

TABLE 21.1  Environmental Impact before and after Acquisition of ISO 14001, Chiba

Energy Input

Water Consumption

General Waste

Total (1000GJ)

Per Floor Area

Total (1,000㎥)

Per Floor Area

Total (t)

Per Floor Area

2004

459

1.31

392

1.12

1564

4.46

2019

417

1.09

135

0.35

733

1.91

Fluctuation

-9.1%

-16.9%

-65.6%

-68.5%

-53.2%

-57.2%

Source: Author.

the university has been able to reduce its costs. All of the figures have dropped dramatically, particularly in the first three years. Before the acquisition, the annual cost of utilities for the entire campus was 1.1 billion yen (US$9.5 million), but in three years, the cost has been reduced by about 140 million yen (Chiba University Environmental ISO Secretariat, 2009, p. 20). Effect of Improving Social Reputation Students’ involvement in environmental activities has attracted a great deal of attention from the public, which has helped to promote the university. It has received widespread attention from both inside and outside Japan, and the university has received inquiries and requests to observe our activities from universities across the country and overseas. The project has also received a lot of media coverage, with over a 100 newspaper articles on the project to date. In addition, in recent years, the university and the Student Committee has received various awards both in Japan and abroad.1 National universities in Japan are managed by receiving subsidies from the MEXT. Under such circumstances, the university was pleased to receive the following evaluation from the National University Corporation Evaluation Committee of the MEXT in the ‘Evaluation Results of Business Performance for the Third Mid-Term Target Period’. A summary of evaluation is given below: First, the university considers the operation of ISO 14001 (environment)/50001 (energy) itself as a practical education for students, and the Student Committee is taking the initiative in developing various activities. Next, for the second year in a row, the Student Committee received the International Green Gown Award, a global award system, in recognition of its sustainability activities in cooperation with companies such as Keiyo Bank. MEXT, 2021b, pp. 4, 15, 23) Effect of Practical Education The university established a Student Committee in 2003, and students took the initiative in establishing and operating an EMS, which was certified ISO 14001 in 2005. Since then, the student-led EMS has been in operation for sixteen years. The Student Committee is a large organization with about 200 members in three grades (from a total undergraduate number of 10,500).

401

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

In May 2021, a questionnaire survey was conducted among the graduates of the Student Committee with the certificate and the then fourth-year students after their retirement, and 125 students responded. The objective of the survey was to establish how the activities of the Student Committee affected the students’ awareness and abilities. First, the respondents were asked to indicate what they had actually experienced in terms of the activities of the Student Committee (Table 21.2). The results showed that many students had experienced being an internal auditor, running meetings, promoting activities, preparing documents and planning. In response to the question, ‘Did you have experience as a leader in the Student Committee?’, 118 students (94.4%) answered that they did.

TABLE 21.2  Activities of the Student Committee, Chiba (multiple answers possible)

Experience

Number

Internal auditor

100

80.0

Management of meetings

99

79.2

Awareness-raising activities such as energy saving and sorting

91

72.8

Writing documents such as plans, reports and minutes of meetings

91

72.8

Environmental measures at university festivals

88

70.4

Participation in local environmental events

88

70.4

Presentations at meetings

82

65.6

Planning and implementation of events

80

64.0

Lecturing at ISO basic training

80

64.0

Writing articles for environmental reports

67

53.6

Environmental education activities for children

64

51.2

On-campus environmental surveys

52

41.6

Presentations at off-campus environmental conferences, events, etc.

49

39.2

Conduct environmental classes at primary and secondary schools

46

36.8

Planning and production of eco-goods

46

36.8

Greening activities (flower bed maintenance, green curtains, etc.)

43

34.4

New project designs, proposals and implementation

43

34.4

PR activities using SNS and print media

35

28.0

Design of products

28

22.4

Composting of fallen leaves

22

17.6

Legal and accounting services

16

12.8

Consulting for companies

15

12.0

Support activities for disaster areas and reconstruction

14

11.2

Website operations and updates

11

8.8

Writing third-party opinions for environmental reports

11

8.8

4

3.2

Others Source: Author.

402

％

403

Student-led Environmental Management

TABLE 21.3  Student Committee Engagement: Skills and Learning Outcomes, Chiba

(multiple answers possible) General Academic SelfNumber Ability Skills and Management Knowledge and Self-Control Knowledge of ISO standards and EMS Leadership, teamwork and responsibility

〇 〇

Knowledge of the environment and sustainability

〇

％

100

80.0

90

72.0

88

70.4

Ability to carry out activities and execution skills

〇

78

62.4

Communication skills and self-expression

〇

73

58.4

Business skills, common sense and manners 〇

72

57.6

Initiative, proactivity and challenging spirit

〇

59

47.2

Ability to discover issues and solve problems

〇

55

44.0

Logical and critical thinking skills

〇

48

38.4

Sense of social responsibility, discipline and ethics

〇

48

38.4

Self-management skills, stress control and endurance

〇

47

37.6

39

31.2

36

28.8

24

19.2

〇

23

18.4

〇

22

17.6

17

13.6

1

0.8

Ability to adapt to change and flexibility

〇

Basic academic skills and information literacy

〇

Ability to self-govern

〇

Legal knowledge Ability to continue to learn Creativity and innovation None of the above apply to me

〇

Source: Author.

The questionnaire asked, ‘What do you think you have learned or improved through the activities of the Student Committee?’ (multiple answers allowed) (Table 21.3). These can be broadly classified into three categories2: general ability, academic ability and knowledge, and sense of self-management and self-control. In the general ability category, there are communication skills, leadership and teamwork, creativity, problem-solving skills, action skills, initiative, assertiveness, thinking skills, responsiveness and business skills. Academic skills and knowledge include basic academic skills, specialized knowledge and ability to continue learning. The last category, sense of self-management and self-control, includes self-reliance, self-management as well as a sense of discipline and social responsibility.

403

404

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Not very useful 4%

Not useful at all 1% Very useful 39%

Fairly useful 56% FIGURE 21.1  Value of student committee activities in employment, Chiba University. Source: Author.

In the results, no item in the sense of self-management and self-control category exceeded 30 per cent, but many items in the academic skills and knowledge and general ability categories exceeded 50 per cent. In addition, ninety-four people who answered the questionnaire, excluding those who are currently students, were asked, ‘Did your activities in the Student Committee as a student help you in your work after entering the workforce?’ to which 95 per cent of the respondents answering that it was useful (Figure 21.1). Universities are unique organizations, in that at least a quarter of the students are replaced every year. Chiba University has succeeded in maintaining the number of students by positioning the Student Committee within the EMS organization under the direct control of the President and by creating a system that awards credits and qualifications for student activities. In addition, the university’s EMS is maintained by having students take on the core tasks necessary for the operation of the EMS and by having them carry out a wide range of environmental activities planned by students. Students gain a variety of experiences in these activities, including managing meetings, implementing plans and taking on leadership roles. As a result, the university has been able to reduce its environmental impact as well as save costs, which has resulted in an increase in its reputation. In addition, students have been able to acquire the skills required for human resource development at the university, and this has had a positive impact on the university’s core business of practical education. Latterly, the committee has expanded its remit to include working on projects between students and companies, and this element is discussed in the next section. Projects in Cooperation with Companies Cooperative Project with Mitsubishi Oji Paper Sales Co. Ltd. In 2015, the Student Committee began working with Mitsubishi Oji Paper Sales Co. Ltd. on a project to raise awareness of forest conservation and proper use, and to encourage recycling of

404

Student-led Environmental Management

used paper. Until then, used paper from the university had been collected free of charge by a contractor, but the students proposed to the university to collect the paper for a fee, which led to a change in the collection scheme. Using the proceeds, the company and the students developed products such as book covers and notebooks with original designs using recycled paper and thinned wood and distributed or sold them to students and faculty members to raise awareness of recycled paper. Since 2019, the project has been established to distribute bookmarks made from thinned wood to new students at the joining ceremony. Every year, the students come up with the design. The purpose of this project is not only to raise awareness of the environment using thinned wood, but also to educate students about reading. Cooperative Project with the Keiyo Bank Ltd. Chiba University and the Keiyo Bank Ltd., a major local bank, signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation in 2012. In 2017, Keiyo Bank and the Student Committee launched an eco-project called ‘7 Colors of the Rainbow from Chiba to the Future’ to contribute to reducing the environmental impact of the region and raising environmental awareness. This is a project in which students and the bank work together to develop initiatives to help the environment and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and to reach out to the community. There are three main projects. 1. Support for the Student Committee’s environmental activities, for example, promoting Chiba University’s sustainable campus at domestic and international symposia. 2. Students to provide consulting services to companies to obtain Eco-Action 21 (EA21), a Japanese eco-standard established by the Ministry of the Environment to promote the introduction of EMS among small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). While Keiyo Bank will introduce the client companies, the students will provide consulting services to help them obtain EA21 certification. 3. Seven student-initiated projects, which intended to hold events and other activities to raise environmental awareness among local residents, Keiyo Bank officials and students. Keiyo Bank will be in charge of arranging each project, while students will be in charge of creating the content and running the event. So far, the following eight projects have been carried out. ○ Environmental seminar for corporations ○ Eco event for children ○ Locally grown vegetables for local consumption ○ Clean volunteer activities programme, including local beach clean-up events and seaweed regeneration projects ○ Collection box for small home appliances ○ Environmental education through films ○ Eco information release ○ Keiyo Bank Eco Challenge, where students visited Keiyo Bank branches and proposed eco-friendly ideas that could be implemented there From projects with Keiyo Bank, the activities developed over the past three years have contributed to ten SDG goals (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17). In addition, more than 400 students were involved in the project, and more than 3,000 citizens and others were educated about eco-awareness. There were thirty-two press releases and forty-four media reports related

405

406

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to this project (National University Corporation Chiba University, 2021b). In 2020, due to Covid19, the students were not able to participate in face-to-face activities and had to change to mainly online activities, but they were able to implement almost all the projects and contribute to seven SDGs (2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17). They also worked to distribute eight press releases. In April 2021, Keiyo Bank established the ‘Keiyo Bank Group SDGs Declaration’. One of the three priority items in the declaration is environmental conservation, and this project was included in it. The Three Transformational Changes Resulting from Student Involvement This chapter outlines the benefits to the university, Student Committee members and outside parties of the approaches used at Chiba University. In this final section, the extent to which this has brought transformational benefit to students, universities and companies is discussed. The information on which this is based was collected by questionnaire completed by 125 former Student Committee members, 610 university staff members as well as through interviews with the two companies presented above and the university administrators. Changes in Students When former Student Committee members were asked, ‘Has your awareness and interest in the environment and sustainability changed as a result of your activities in the Student Committee?’, more than 90 per cent of the respondents indicated that their awareness and interest had improved (Figure 21.2). Likewise, about 80 per cent of the respondents had improved awareness and interest in working in society (Figure 21.2). One of the reasons for this is that they are often involved with university and company personnel through their activities. More than 90 per cent of the Student Committee members are also involved with faculty and staff, with whom students generally have little contact except for classes and seminars. In addition, more than half of them have had experience of getting involved with people outside the university, such as companies, people in the community as well as people from other universities. It can be said that these experiences not only helped them develop communication and business skills, but also helped them get a sense of where they might imagine themselves after graduation (Table 21.4).

The environment and sustainability Working in society 0%

20%

40%

60%

Greatly improved

Slightly improved

Slightly decreased

Greatly decreased

80%

Not changed

FIGURE 21.2  Changes in awareness and interest from student committee engagement, Chiba University. Source: Author.

406

100%

Student-led Environmental Management

TABLE 21.4  Student Committee Stakeholders, Chiba

Have Been in Contact With

Number

faculty members on campus

115

92.0

staff members on campus

113

90.4

people outside the university such as companies and NPOs

95

76.0

younger than themselves at the time

82

65.6

people from other universities

79

63.2

adults from the community

66

52.8

people from the government

53

42.4

people from overseas

23

18.4

1

0.8

don’t remember

％

Source: Author.

30 0%

43 20%

40%

Very influential Not much impact Never done any job hunting yet

39 60%

7 6 80%

100%

Fairly influential No effect at all

FIGURE 21.3  Impact on job hunting and career choices, Chiba University. Source: Author.

About 60 per cent of respondents (n=73) noted that their activities on the Student Committee had an impact on their job hunting and career choices (Figure 21.3). Of those, fifty-five responded freely about what specific impact it had on them. The responses were categorized into the following three categories. (A) Became more aware of the environment and social contribution 1. A change in perspective when choosing a company: ‘Consideration for the environment became one of the criteria for choosing a company.’ 2. A change in their awareness of their career path: ‘I have come to value social contribution more than the pursuit of profit.’ ‘I now want to be involved in building a sustainable society.’ 3. Influenced the actual place of employment: ‘I got a job at a company that edits and produces environmental reports.’ ‘I got a job at an ISO-related company.’ ‘I joined a company that handles highly environmental products.’

407

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education



4. Influence after joining the company: ‘I was able to smoothly serve as the main auditor of the internal audit of the company’s quality management system.’ (B) Influence on career paths other than environmental aspects 1. More options to consider in terms of career paths: ‘I started to think about careers other than my major.’ ‘Working with people from companies deepened my understanding of occupations and changed my aspirations from a civil servant to a private company.’ 2. The concrete experience of working on the committee influenced their career path: ‘I became involved in activities related to children and came to want to work with children.’ ‘I became involved in system development through my experience managing a website.’ ‘I wanted to become an organizational HR consultant because I felt the power of an organization to lead people to do great things and I enjoyed it.’ 3. Influence on the image of work: ‘I was able to draw an image of myself working as a member of society.’ ‘The committee activities in general became my original experience in thinking about the purpose of working and the axis of job hunting.’ 4. Gained a better interest and understanding of themselves: ‘I became attracted to activities on a large scale.’ ‘I learned about my strengths and weaknesses.’ (C) Use and strength in job hunting In Japan, the fiscal year starts in April. In general, university students start their job-hunting activities in March of their junior year, participating in company information sessions and submitting entry sheets for interviews, and in June of their senior year, they actually have interviews and begin the selection process. In order to get a job, the entry sheet and interview are very important. Of the 114 former Student Committee members who experienced job hunting, 93 (81.6%) answered that they used their experience in the Student Committee in their entry sheets, interviews and so on (total of ‘used a lot’ and ‘used fairly well’). Specifically, there were comments such as: I was able to gain interest in this activity during the interview and received a smooth job offer. I was able to talk about my ability to take action during the interview based on the facts of the activity. I was highly evaluated when I talked about the ideas and experiences I learned from the committee in the interview. Changes in Companies This section summarizes the impact on companies of the collaborative project between students and companies, based on interviews conducted with each company in April 2021 regarding the projects with the two companies mentioned above. The first interview was with Keiyo Bank, Ltd and the second with Mitsubishi Oji Paper Sales Co. Ltd. 408

409

Student-led Environmental Management

THE KEIYO BANK LTD. Presented below is an interview with Furuya Suguru, who was General Manager of the corporate business division at Keiyo Bank, who was a key member of this project at its inception and was involved in the project for four years.

1. Why did you decide to cooperate with the Student Committee? In July 2012, Keiyo Bank and Chiba University signed an agreement for comprehensive cooperation. Since then, we have conducted joint research and conducted courses using donated funds, but due to various hurdles to cooperation, we were unable to create a good example of industry–university cooperation. As we continued to exchange information with Chiba University, we learnt about the Student Committee and became interested in its activities. As a result of our discussions, we decided to cooperate with them because of the following merits: (1) it is an initiative that can contribute to regional revitalization and the environment and is in tune with the times, (2) the activities are easy to understand, (3) we can directly help the students’ activities in terms of both activities and funds and (4) it is linked to Keiyo Bank’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.

2. Perceptions of the results of the project This project was a good example of collaboration with Chiba University, and the effects of the collaboration exceeded our initial expectation. The student-initiated project had a variety of targets, including within Keiyo Bank, customers, local residents, elementary and junior high schools, large-scale stores and tourist spots. The fact that all of them agreed with the purpose of the project and implemented it is proof that the environmental activities were easy to understand, and the content was excellent. I also realized that it is necessary and important for companies to support students’ various activities from both financial and environmental perspectives. Because of our efforts to reach out to a wide range of audiences, from children to adults, the project was introduced in many newspapers, TV programmes, magazines and other media, and the PR (public relations) effect of the project exceeded our expectations. As a result, the bank’s environmental efforts were well received and the bank was awarded a special prize in the ‘Principles for Action in the 21st Century’, a set of action guidelines for financial institutions to help build a sustainable society. For Keiyo Bank, this project has made a significant contribution to the enhancement of corporate value by contributing to the local community through industry–academia collaboration, proactively addressing ESG (environment, society and governance) issues, and contributing to the SDGs. We can evaluate that the effect of the collaboration was sufficient. I was frankly very happy to receive many acknowledgements from students through this project. Through this initiative, I felt that it is the mission of a company to provide students with opportunities to learn about society that they cannot normally

409

410

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

experience. I hope that this activity will continue steadily and grow into an activity that contributes more to the local economy.

3. Challenges of collaborating with students While we received a variety of proposals from students, there were many plans that were difficult to implement in reality. It took a lot of time and hard work to revise the plans into something that could actually be implemented. It was also difficult to negotiate with various parties and make preparations until we were able to implement the plan in a concrete manner.

MITSUBISHI OJI PAPER SALES CO. LTD. Presented here is an interview with Kunihiko Takahata, General Manager of the General Affairs and Personnel Department at Mitsubishi Oji Paper Sales Co.

1. Why did you decide to cooperate with the Student Committee? As a company that deals with paper made from wood, we believe that contributing to the environment is our social responsibility. There are two reasons why we decided to collaborate with students: first, we thought that having contact with students would give us an opportunity to get new ideas that we would not be able to notice in our daily work, as the environment surrounding the pulp and paper industry becomes more severe with the advance of paperless and electronic technology. Another reason is that although we acquired the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) forest certification in 2001, the recognition of the certification in Japan is low compared to Europe and the United States. Therefore, we wanted to let students who will be entering the workforce know about the FSC forest certification so that they would recognize the importance of using trees while protecting the forest, rather than cutting them down, and we also hoped that students who are familiar with social networking sites (SNS) and other information communication tools would be able to disseminate information. We saw on the website that Chiba University has a student-led initiative for environmental contribution activities, and we thought it would be a good opportunity for a new approach.

2. Perceptions of the results of the project Since we started working with Chiba University and providing products made from thinned wood, we have started to plan forest conservation activities in which our employees participate, , for example, the Ecosystem Academy activities promoted by our

410

Student-led Environmental Management

parent company to help people understand forest conservation from the perspective of the pulp and paper industry. In addition, our efforts with Chiba University have enabled us to interact with students from other universities. In some cases, our customers who handle catalogue media are concerned about the disposal of surplus catalogues and are considering shifting the publication of catalogues from paper to the internet. With the growing interest in the SDGs, many of our business partners are considering resource recycling, and we have introduced our efforts with your university to them. We believe that the merit of collaboration between companies and students is that it provides an opportunity for companies to plan new businesses by exposing them to students who have experience in the industry, perspectives and ideas that are not bound by common sense.

3. Challenges of collaborating with students Our contact is not a specialized department for this project, so we have to do it while working on other projects. In addition, students are replaced every year as they advance, so it is difficult to develop the project content.

Work on the environment and sustainability Student-led activities 0% Very good

20% Fairly good

40%

60%

Not so good

80%

100%

Not at all good

FIGURE 21.4  Initiatives at Chiba University. Source: Author.

Changes in the University Faculty and Staff Views on Initiatives at Chiba University From April to May 2021, a questionnaire was sent to all faculty and staff of Chiba University. Of the 610 respondents (response rate 17.9%), 98.9 per cent noted that it was a good idea for Chiba University to work on the environment and sustainability, and 97.6 per cent thought it was a good idea for students to take the initiative in operating the university’s environmental management system and conducting environmental activities (Figure 21.4). Faculty and Staff Changes at the University In a questionnaire on how Chiba University’s environmental management efforts have affected the lives of its faculty and staff, 66.6 per cent of the respondents answered that it has had a positive

411

412

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

impact on their daily lives at the university (Figure 21.5). The number of voluntary responses regarding the specific impact was 131 and included comments around the following areas:

1. Raising environmental awareness (the most common responses): ‘I started to save water and electricity naturally.’ ‘It made me interested in eco-activities.’ 2. The mental health of the workers: ‘I can now go to work comfortably every day because the environment on campus has been improved.’ ‘When the environment is improved, I feel that it leads to mental stability and healthy work.’ 3. The involvement of students has a positive impact on the teaching staff: ‘My eco-awareness has increased even more when I want to cooperate with students’ proactive efforts.’ ‘When students communicate, I become aware that I have to do it.’ ‘I don’t think the staff can avoid doing what the students are doing.’ 4. Spillover to home initiatives: ‘The awareness of environmental activities at work can be continued in my personal life.’ ‘The separation of garbage has made me more aware at home.’ 5. Negative impact of having a burden (only four respondents): ‘Although it is said that the students are the main players, the burden on the faculty is too great.’ ‘It takes a lot of time to prepare the documents and conduct the survey.’









When asked about the impact on the work and research activities of the faculty members, 42.8 per cent answered that it had a positive impact, which was significantly higher than the negative impact (3.8%), but lower than the percentage of a positive impact on their daily life at the university (66.6%) (Figure 21.5). The number of voluntary responses regarding the specific impact was 88.

1. Changes in environmental awareness: ‘I am now motivated to take initiatives related to the SDGs.’ ‘My awareness of paper saving, energy saving and waste separation has increased.’

Daily life at the university Work and research activities 0%

20%

Very positive influence Neither Very bad influence

40%

60%

80%

Little positive influence Little negative influence

FIGURE 21.5  Impact of Chiba University’s environmental management initiatives. Source: Author.

412

100%

Student-led Environmental Management









‘I am now naturally aware of environmental activities, such as trying to go paperless, and my work has become more efficient.’ 2. The impact on research: ‘I am now able to conduct research activities with a greater awareness of the environment than before.’ ‘I am increasingly addressing the environment as a familiar topic in my research education.’ 3. Effective use of research funds: ‘Energy saving efforts were strongly recognized, which led to cost reduction.’ ‘Wasteful research expenses were reduced.’ ‘Expenses have been reduced and can now be used for other budgets.’ 4. Positive impact of audits: ‘Regular audits by other parties in risky laboratories have contributed to the transparency of management.’ ‘I have become more conscious of the environment in the laboratory.’ 5. Negative effects due to a sense of burden (seventeen cases): ‘ISO-related work has increased, and I feel quite burdened. The time needed for research and education has been taken away.’ ‘It takes a lot of time and effort’, and ‘internal audits and other responses take up a lot of time, which inevitably affects normal operations.’ Management’s View of Changes in the University

This section is based on an interview conducted in March 2021 with President Takeshi Tokuhisa and Executive Director for Planning and Energy Management Supervisor Haruaki Nakaya, who are also the top management of Chiba University’s environmental management organization and the driving force behind the university’s management, regarding the impact of student-led EMS and collaborative projects between students and companies on the university’s operations. 1. On the topic of significance of Chiba University’s commitment to the environment and sustainability, President Tokuhisa said: I believe that universities can contribute to the SDGs by extending all kinds of education and research. The fact that the Student Committee is doing part of the SDGs that we promote as a university is very beneficial. It is very effective as an education for students. As for the university’s contribution to society, it is meaningful that the students are doing what the faculty originally did. Executive Director Nakaya added: Chiba University has been able to tackle environmental issues from various fields. Among them, we were quick to acquire ISO 14001 certification. I think it is good that students are acting as auditors for internal audits and lecturers for training programmes, which is typical of Chiba University. It is a good learning and experience for the students themselves. If the students don’t do it, the faculty members will have to do it, which helps the university in terms of manpower and cost. In addition,

413

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

for faculty members, being pointed out by students has a great impact. There is a sense of tension as those who teach the students are being taught by the students. In addition, there is no doubt that students who have been involved in EMS will go out into the world as people who have an understanding of sustainability. If they go to departments that make policy decisions, they will be able to play an active role as leaders. I hope that they will carry this spirit with them into their future careers. 2. Regarding the collaboration project between students and companies Keiyo Bank, President Tokuhisa stated: There are three advantages for the university in having students work with companies on projects. The first is that it is a social contribution by the university. As a national university, our stakeholder is the public, and this is a model case of disseminating the university’s knowledge to the public. Conventionally, faculty members contribute to society through their research, but through this project, Chiba University is able to do so through its students. Second, it is very meaningful for the education of students, as they are able to see the future and society through their involvement with companies, and also have the opportunity to have educational experiences that they could not have before, such as being able to use donations to visit overseas. Third, universities can reach out to audiences (business people and corporations) that they could not reach before, and this will change the way those audiences look at the university. The university’s knowledge can be communicated to the world. Cooperation with a single company is a common example of student internships, but cooperation with a bank is also good from a business perspective. While collaboration with a single company will only have an impact through the company and its products and services, banks have a large number of lenders and have a strong influence on them. Therefore, when universities hold public lectures and symposiums as part of their social contribution activities, the main audience has been senior citizens who have time and leisure, but by collaborating with banks, they can reach out to the business community and society as a whole through banks and beyond through companies.

Conclusions The Student Committee has won the Sustainable Campus Award sponsored by Campus Sustainability Network (CAS)-Net JAPAN thrice.3 It also received the ‘Best Student Activity Award’ at the annual conference of Asia Sustainable Campus Network (ASCN) (National University Corporation Chiba University, 2021c). Furthermore, globally, it has won awards in the award systems organized by ISCN and EAUC. In this way, Chiba University’s way of having students take the initiative in university EMS and having students develop projects in cooperation with companies is attracting attention in Japan, Asia and the world. The core catalysts for the transformational changes of Chiba University are two-fold: to involve students in the university’s sustainability activities in an organizational, institutional and educational way, and to have students collaborate with businesses. Regarding the first, 414

Student-led Environmental Management

Chiba University positioned the Student Committee as a part of the university organization, rather than a club, so that it can work as an official organization using the university budget. Furthermore, by making the activities of the Student Committee a part of the classes, the university is practicing active learning where students learn about the environment and practical knowledge in the classroom and put the learnt knowledge into practice through activities. In addition, the university has created a system that motivates students to participate and continue their activities by giving credits and certifying students who have been active for three years. Throughout the three years of activities, the students make repeated mistakes and gain experience, gradually gaining confidence and using it to help them in their job search and in their work after entering the workforce. For the university, since the students take the initiative in conducting environmental activities, it has the advantage of reducing the environmental impact while saving on personnel costs and budget, stimulating the faculty and achieving its mission as an educational institution to produce environmentally conscious human resources. When these environmental management activities on campus had become widespread, the Student Committee reached a turning point with the start of a major project with Keiyo Bank. Therefore, another catalyst is students collaborating with companies. For the Student Committee, working with companies had more advantages than they had imagined. In terms of activities, the bank’s intervention made it possible to achieve things that were previously thought of as impossible to do due to lack of a budget or attainable targets owing to lack of personal connections. There were also opportunities for students to learn about the strict rules of society, which was a great social learning experience for them. In terms of education, the practical activities regarding the SDGs and sustainability are themselves educational. In addition, it is a way for companies to promote their own sustainability efforts and for them to contribute to society by supporting the education of the students. For the university, it had the advantage of being able to contribute to the community by promoting sustainability socially and to reach a demographic that was previously difficult to approach. Moreover, projects in which students and companies collaborate have high PR benefits and are more likely to be reported by the media than stand-alone projects. Furthermore, given the advertising effect of the university and the company, it can also increase the communication and influence of sustainability to society. On the contrary, a student organization is a special kind of organization where the chairperson changes every year, and the core members are completely replaced. Therefore, in order to continue and evolve the same activities, it is necessary to make efforts to ensure a thorough handover. In addition, because students are more inexperienced than working adults are, they do not always understand the correct etiquette for email communication and manners, causing trouble for the companies. Moreover, due to the students’ lack of imagination, some of the projects that they do with companies are not transformative enough, and so it is necessary for the teachers and companies to enhance the content of the projects. As described, there are many challenges unique to students, but experiences of both failure and success can help students. Therefore, universities should actively involve students in on-campus sustainability activities and conduct activities to link students and companies, after considering such disadvantages. Since the establishment of the Student Committee in 2003, the students’ ability to think and practice has been impressive. Students have the power to promote sustainability at the university, 415

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

and they have the courage to work with companies without hesitation. The important thing is to believe in them and for the university to provide the environment for them. By supporting student organizations systematically, institutionally and educationally; providing opportunities for practical activities within the university; and involving companies in these activities, the university’s sustainability activities and sustainability education for students can be returned to society.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT





1. Creating an authentic action-based experience for students through the university committee for sustainability resulted in greater buy-in and motivation for students to engage with sustainability opportunities for the university. 2. Taking account of where students benefit from engagement was important, for example, the student-business advisory work undertaken benefited their employability skills while improving their sustainability skills and experience. 3. Ongoing guidance and advice in sustainability matters for students is considered crucial to their development and learning.

Notes 1 The Grand Prize for the Global Environment Award/Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s Award in 2015; the Minister of the Environment’s Commendation for Global Warming Prevention Activity in 2017; Sustainable Campus Excellence Awards/Excellence in Student Leadership Category Award in 2017 by the International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN); International Green Gown Awards 2017–2018/ Student Engagement Category Award in 2018 and also Highly Commended in 2019 by the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC). 2 For the competencies required of students, Okayama (2017) used the OECD’s ‘Key Competencies’; the Cabinet Office’s Human Potential; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s Basic Employment Skills; MEXT’s Knowledge-Based Society; 21st Century Citizenship; Bachelor Power; and Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills and Basic Skills for Working People by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. In addition, the study also reviewed the results of the Survey on the Employment Capability of Young People published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in 2004; the results of the Questionnaire on New Graduate Recruitment conducted by the Japan Business Federation in 2015; and the NCVER report defining generic skills titled ‘At a Glance’ (2003), which systematically summarizes generic skills and defines them in educational programmes. 3 The Campus Sustainability Network in Japan (CAS-Net JAPAN) was established in 2013. This is a network of Japanese higher education institutions that promote sustainable campuses and has been contributing to the creation of a sustainable society in Japan by exchanging information and providing an award system. And in 2015, the Asian Conference on Campus Sustainability (ACCS) was held with the participation of university networks in Korea, China and Japan. Thailand was added along the way, and the name was changed to ‘Asian Sustainable Campus Network (ASCN)’ in 2019 to contribute to building a sustainable and environmentally conscious society in Asia.

416

Student-led Environmental Management

References Chiba University Environmental ISO Secretariat (2009). ‘Chiba University Method 2002–2008 Construction and Operation of a Student-Led Environmental Management System’. https://kan​kyo-iso. chiba-u.jp/doc/1-4_cu_e​ms_r​epo.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan (MEXT) (2021a). ‘Release of the 2021 Basic School Survey (Preliminary Figures)’. Press Release. 27 August. https://www.mext.go.jp/ cont​ent/20210​824-mxt_c​hous​a01-000017​617-1.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan (MEXT) (2021b). ‘Results of the Evaluation of the Business Performance of National Universities and Inter-University Research Institutions during the Third Mid-Term Target Period (at the End of the Fourth Year), National University Corporation Chiba University’. https://www.mext.go.jp/cont​ent/20210​630-mxt_​hoji​nka00001​6313​_29.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021. National University Corporation Chiba University (2021a). ‘Chiba University Sustainability Report 2021’. https://www.chiba-u.ac.jp/gene​ral/appro​ach/envi​ronm​ent/files/2021_​all.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021. National University Corporation Chiba University (2021b). ‘Contributing to the 10 SDG Goals: ThreeYear Report on the Chiba University x Keiyo Bank Eco Project, in Which a Total of 400 Students Were Involved’. Press Release. 16 March. https://prti​mes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000​403.000015​177.html. Accessed 13 December 2021. National University Corporation Chiba University (2021c). ‘Chiba University Student Committee for EMS Receives Grand Prize at ASCN 2019 Annual Conference’. Press Release. 18 June. https://prti​ mes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000​352.000015​177.html. Accessed 13 December 2021. Okayama, S. (2017). ‘Present Situation and Development of Student-Centered Environmental Management System at University: Proposal of “Practical Internship in Campus” ’. http://opac. ll.chiba-u.jp/da/cura​tor/103​621/IFA_0​004.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2021.

417

418

418

419

22

Leveraging Excellence to Support Sustainable Development in Africa HARRO VON BLOTTNITZ

Introduction While disciplinary academic excellence is a key attractor for many in academia and a strong driver of the university model, it can have a problematic relationship with sustainable development (e.g. Max-Neef, 2005). While it generates deeply specialized knowledge communities, the boundaries between these can frequently lead to unintended consequences, such as technical advances that cannot be resolved within the generative discipline. Universities worldwide have responded by actively building inter- and transdisciplinary structures and capacities necessary to engage with the messy real-world problems of under- and unsustainable development (Wiek et al., 2011). Yet, despite these additions to university competencies, at a time of widespread adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2021), planetary futures remain in the balance. The final major human development push and the great transition towards environmentally sustainable human societies might still fail, slowed down by quarrelsome nationalism, human vices such as vanity, greed and gluttony, and internal divisions fuelled by historic wrongs not corrected. While universities globally have recognized the importance of the sustainability transition, deep transformational change remains uncomfortable for many, and human capital to enable sustainable development remains thinnest where the development deficits are greatest, particularly in many African countries. It is the aim of this chapter to inspect the implications of these twin challenges for university leaders concerned with sustainable development. The chapter starts by analysing what transformational change means in a situation where there is an unresolved legacy of oppression manifesting in deep inequalities. It then narrates three sustainable developmentrelated initiatives that played out at the University of Cape Town (UCT) over the past twenty years and under the leadership of four successive vice-chancellors.

Transformational Change in the South African University Context When transformation and change are mentioned in relation to sustainable development, the locus of analysis and intent is mostly the behaviour and motivation of the individual, often in relation to lifestyle choices (e.g. Jackson, 2005), or the structure and performance of institutions (e.g. Goodland and Daly, 1996). Granted, the question of ‘Who gets to speak, contribute and decide?’ 419

420

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

does constitute a field of enquiry in sustainable development studies, especially through the lens of gender, but also of ‘race’ and ‘first people’ (Mebratu, 1998; Schusler et al., 2021). The term ‘transformation’ carries a significantly different meaning in post-Apartheid South Africa, and at its universities. Contributing to a book aiming to set an agenda for transformational change related to ‘sustainability in higher education’ globally, it is important to clarify this difference in meanings at the outset of this chapter. Here, ‘transformation’ of the university is about changing both the composition of its academic staff (which still strongly reflects historical privilege) and the (concomitant) nature of academic enquiry and teaching. Such transformation requires engaging critically with colonial history, identity, culture and the relationship of the university to society (Vision 2030, UCT, 2021b). The staff transformation – from one heavily dominated by white males to one more representative of the demography of the country – is a massive shift considering people classified as ‘non-white’ under Apartheid make up more than 90 per cent of the South African population. Given the historic exclusions from quality basic and higher education, this ‘employment equity’ dimension of transformation is a process playing out over several generations, with student bodies already partially transformed but with the academy having to compete with business and government employers for talent. Providing leadership for such transformation of the staff is a massive challenge. There is large consensus on the overall desirability of such change, but it is difficult to enact at the local level. Here, a choice has to be made for just about every vacancy that is to be filled, in the face of shortterm operational needs, a desire to ‘maintain excellence’ and an applicant pool still skewed by historic inequalities in access to education. Of course, this challenge is not just one of replacing white staff in the small pool of universities that served the white youth, who enjoyed a 70 per cent access to university education in 1993 (Badat, 2010). Critically, it includes growing the number of study places (and hence faculty) for the large numbers of additional students that must be expected when raising the higher education participation levels of the other 90 per cent of the youth – for African students this had increased only marginally from 9 per cent in 1993 to 12 per cent in 2005 (Badat, 2010). It is in this latter regard that the state has failed to provide the resources required for growth of the higher education sector. However, this last observation is not a ‘get out of jail card’ for the elite universities in the country. As such, ‘transformation’ has featured in every five-year strategic plan of the UCT, from the idea of ‘growing our own timber’ coined by UCT’s first Black Vice-Chancellor Mamphela Ramphele in the late 1990s, to notably moving from the bottom to the top of the list of strategic objectives in the 2016–20 version of the university’s strategy (UCT, 2018). The question here is whether scholars in the sustainability sciences and university leadership attempted to link this uniquely South African transformation imperative to the evolving understanding of sustainable development, and if so, how? A complete response to this question is beyond the reach of this chapter. Instead, three case studies are offered where the author (HvB) has good insight. Readers from outside South Africa may find some vantage points for building partnerships for sustainable development (SDG 17). Three Sustainable Development Cases from the University of Cape Town The UCT is South Africa’s oldest university, and consistently ranks as Africa’s top university across multiple rating platforms. Its iconic main campus is situated directly on the perimeter of a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) world natural

420

Leveraging Excellence in Africa

heritage site, the Table Mountain National Park, and its 125-year research tradition includes strong elements of studying the natural world around it. For example, its avian demography research has recently been top ranked globally in its field; likewise, for the study of the southern oceans, UCT is on the global map. On the other hand, given the uniquely troubled social world in which the university operates, ‘development studies’ are a part of its institutional identity. Many of its research units carry ‘development’ in their names and in a recent university subject ranking, UCT appears in the top ten for development studies (QS World University Rankings, 2021). As such, if the emergence of sustainable development has been about reinterpreting ‘development’ to be compatible with natural systems, UCT has many of the ingredients for this meeting of the fields in place. Contrary to other leading global institutions, it has, however, not established a named school or structure for advanced or interdisciplinary studies of sustainable development. It is, however, worth noting that its Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, founded in 2011, may well be fulfilling such a function, especially when one notes that it counts among its honorary professors Carlos Lopes, former United Nations (UN) Deputy General Secretary, who was deeply involved in developing both the Agenda Africa 2063 and the UN SDGs. In 2021, UCT held a virtual SDGs Africa summit, a three-day event to seek to inspect what contribution higher education and research-intensive universities in particular can and should be making to the achievement of Vision 2063 and to the SDGs in Africa. The event had originally been planned for early 2020 but postponed due to the onset of the pandemic. The outcomes of this summit can be inspected (UCT, 2021a) and are not summarized here. Rather, the following sections review two cases that intertwine with the journey to this summit, as well as the summit’s design, to draw out some lessons on how a durable agenda for truly transformational change can be progressed over time, under changing leadership and through major upheaval. Case 1: Establishing an African Centre for Cities For a long time, the terms ‘development’ and ‘sustainable development’ applied to Africa would have conjured up images of village life, smallholder agriculture and relationships of humans with wildlife lost on other continents. Yet, urbanization is one of the most important megatrends shaping the future of African economies and societies. Africa has the fastest rate of urbanization globally, and its urban population will more than double over 2020–50, growing from 480 million to 1.2 billion urban dwellers (Muggah and Kilcullen, 2016). This growth must be understood against a backdrop whereby more than 50 per cent of urban households live in informal slum conditions, exacerbated by the fact that more than 60 per cent of employment is in the informal sector characterized by low and irregular income (Pieterse et al., 2018). By the early 2000s, urban scholars at UCT came to the realization that global intellectual blind spots to these alternative and growing African realities were becoming a serious impediment to sustainable development on the continent. Drawing on their own experiences of extended intellectual contestation between sociologically informed urban planning on the one hand, and technocratically limited engineering on the other, they were looking to build a durable academic agenda for African urbanism. The vice-chancellor at the time, Njabulo Ndebele, had an intimate understanding of urban Africa as evidenced by their writings (e.g. Ndebele, 1983), while the Dean of the newly merged Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment was looking for opportunities to make the merger between engineering and architecture more than a paper exercise. Out of

421

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

these endeavours came the establishment of the African Centre for Cities (ACC), championed by scholars predominantly not only from urban planning and human geography but also from engineering. A major coup was the ability to find and fund, in the person of Edgar Pieterse, an emerging scholar who could give impetus to the employment equity imperative. A few years after the establishment of the ACC, UCT set itself the aim of developing an ‘Afropolitan’ identity in its strategic plan of 2010, the first produced under the leadership of the next Vice-Chancellor Max Price (UCT, 2009). Described as ‘an intellectual meeting point and sought-after destination for scholars worldwide who have an interest in Africa’s place in the world’, this term led to significant discussion and introspection among faculty, and thus quietly shifted paradigms – an important step in transformation. This also provided a platform for the ACC to play a leading role in the founding and growth of the African Association of Planning Schools, aiming to capacitate and modernize training of urban planning professional across the continent. By the time the ACC celebrated its first decade in 2018, it had grown in stature into an organization that could draw a global audience to Cape Town for a three-day event, featuring over 300 papers, eighty panels and twenty roundtables. Yet, as Edgar Pieterse keeps reminding us (most recently at UCT’s 2021 Africa SDG summit which they co-chaired), in face of the scale of the African urban development challenge, all responses to date remain woefully inadequate. Analysis of Case 1: 1. What was the ‘art of the possible’ (for the institution/context)? The creation of a new research unit is well within the realm of what can be expected of faculty and university leadership, but the art includes developing a vision that enables finding funders and securing a lead scholar. 2. What elements were truly evocative, instrumental in the change, the key turning point? The paradigm was shifted by making clear just how urbanized Africa had already become and how deeply problematic this form of urbanism is. A larger, university-wide paradigm shift followed when developing the idea of an Afropolitan identity. 3. What barriers or issues (at individual, system, process, organizational, regional, national as appropriate) prevented further or more radical positive transformation? The disciplinary gulf was only partially overcome. The ACC continues to operate alongside the (urban) engineering disciplines, with only partial softening of disciplinary boundaries, in part through other research centres focused on urban transportation and land use, water research, climate change or energy poverty. 4. What are the key learning points? A single new term (Afropolitan) in a key document (university strategic plan) can help drive paradigm change. 5. Any reflections on how the transformational change might be scaled? There was a clear attempt to scale from the level of one new research unit, dealing with a continent-wide challenge, to the whole institution. The usage of the term Afropolitan did shift perspectives of many on Africa-relevant scholarship and aided in an internationalization drive, but arguably also hollowed out the initial idea. ACC itself was successful in scaling responses to the needs of African urbanism, through collaborations and multiple partnerships with institutions on the African continent.

Case 2: Visualizing Research Output According to the SDGs In its third decade, sustainable development globally proceeded from the 2012 stock-take of achievements and recalcitrant challenges (Rio+20) to forge a new agenda, in the form of the SDGs, formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2015 (United Nations, 422

Leveraging Excellence in Africa

2021). This event and the nature of the SDGs did not surprise seasoned faculty working on one or other topic of sustainable development. At UCT, several colleagues, globally recognized for their expertise, were involved in the lobbying for and drafting processes. But then the university executive made a remarkable contribution in 2016. Inspired by the historical gravity of the UN’s 2015 decisions, and then astonished by how well the global goals mapped onto the UCT’s then strategic direction, they decided to structure the 2015 research report (which is a statutory reporting requirement and usually makes for rather dry reading) according to the SDGs, rather than according to faculties and departments. The printed version was released as a collection of eleven booklets, complemented by online resources (UCT, 2016). Vice-Chancellor Max Price in launching the 2015 research report in September 2016 opined: When we decided to focus this year’s research and innovation report on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, we knew that it would give us a good opportunity to highlight the leading role our researchers play in solving the world’s ‘wicked’ problems from an African perspective. These, after all, were challenges identified after an extensive, thorough, global consultation process – and it turns out that they match our own strategic priorities in a striking way. UCT’s research community will now have a key role to play in the implementation of the goals, and many of our researchers are already advising policymakers, and providing an independent and critical voice to ensure that the goals are met as closely as possible and that their complexity is not lost in translation. (Quote as cited by von Blottnitz (2018), with texts provided by the UCT research office) The legacy of this change in structuring the research report and of the underlying analysis took some years to ferment and grow. One important angle is how UCT equated its internationalization goals with SDG 17 on partnerships. This formed a significant part of the rationale for engagement of UCT in three university networks: 1. The World University Network (WUN), with its dedicated work on sustainable development in Africa. 2. The International Association of Research Universities (IARU), which made UCT its eleventh member, and the first from the global south, possibly after being challenged at its seminal sustainability conference hosted by the University of Copenhagen in 2014 that it lacked membership from the south. 3. The African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA), which UCT co-founded with fifteen other research-intensive universities on the African continent. Analysis of Case 2: 1. What was the ‘art of the possible’ (for the institution/context)? The reinterpretation of a statutory reporting requirement to produce an instrument responding to a seminal global development certainly did push boundaries. It is an example of leadership being able to innovate at a crucial junction. 2. What elements were truly evocative, instrumental in the change, the key turning point? The short, graphical summaries that represented a wide array of ongoing work at the university addressed the university community, and the audience of the research report, in a powerful way. 423

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

3. What barriers or issues (at individual, system, process, organizational, regional, national as appropriate) prevented further or more radical positive transformation? UCT is organized by disciplinary specializations into departments and faculties. While it developed a policy on inter- and transdisciplinary research and postgraduate studies in the wake of the changes resulting from the recognition of the importance of the SDGs, the discipline-based organizational logic remains a barrier to faster uptake of problem-focused sustainability studies. 4. What are the key learning points? It is striking to see how effective a change in communication strategy and practice can be. This has indeed been recognized as a powerful leverage point to change systems (Meadows, 1999). 5. Reflections on how the transformational change might be scaled: By choosing to innovate, a reporting vehicle which all scholars have a duty and an interest in, scaling becomes possible across the institution.

Case 3: Designing an Africa SDG Summit at the Time of a Pandemic While the ten years of leadership by Max Price (2008–18) saw UCT intellectually grounded and globally connected, it created demand for more radical change from a new generation exactly twenty years after the country’s demographic transition. In 2015, the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ (RMF) campaign challenged the accommodations made in the peacefully negotiated transition of 1990– 94, surfacing amnesia on decades and centuries of colonial history out of which Apartheid had risen. In 2016 and 2017, students organized nationally, demanding free and quality de-colonialized education through the ‘Fees Must Fall’ campaign. Nationally, a generation of university leaders retired in the following years. UCT’s executive team became a strongly female-led one, with the face of an energetic Mamokgheti Phakeng on a selfie becoming one of the biggest prizes students could hope to scoop. In positioning for their term in office, Phakeng grappled hard with the long-standing duality of transformation versus excellence. They offered the university community a triangular interdependence of excellence, transformation and sustainability as the vision – affirming both the university’s long-standing upholding of (disciplinary) academic excellence and the employment transformation imperative but relating these through the premise that, in its social setting, the former can only be sustainable if the latter is achieved (Phakeng, 2016; UCT, 2019). As such, the use of ‘sustainability’ in that vision was primarily a concern for the future of the institution (much as some businesses have viewed sustainability as institutional viability) rather than one of putting sustainable development more centrally into the sights of the university. This has, however, evolved, and UCT’s new strategy, Vision 2030, states this explicitly: UCT’s research is committed to ‘unleashing knowledge in and for Africa’ and to play a key role in finding solutions for a more just and sustainable world (UCT, 2021b). In the latter half of 2019, a significant opportunity presented itself for UCT’s new leadership to not only demonstrate publicly where it stands on sustainable development in Africa but also leverage its membership of IARU to amplify the impact of related university work. In April 2020, it was UCT’s first time to host in Cape Town the presidents of the other ten IARU member universities. With the 2030 goals one decade away at the time and with South Africa trying to build momentum of its ‘new dawn’, planning started for a summit event based on the SDGs in the African context and the role of research universities in achieving these. Central to the summit’s design was another legacy of the 2010 strategic plan of the university, namely, to position itself at the pivot between global academic work and African university networks. This meant attempting 424

Leveraging Excellence in Africa

the difficult split of having one foot at the forefront of science and academic excellence and the other foot firmly in the space of social relevance and robustness, even in the face of (or precisely because of) huge knowledge and capacity deficiencies. Consequently, this summit event was to be an invitation-driven one, limited to 200 attendees, sampled from IARU, ARUA and WUN, and invited along the lines of six identified integrative themes. Alas, a month before this event, Covid-19 shut down the world. It is a credit to the research office and the executive that the event finally did take place, in a redesigned virtual way, in September 2021. A total of over 1,900 attendees took part in one or more of its sessions. It is worth stating (and thus linking transformational change once again to the question of who gets to speak on matters of sustainable development) that the leading UCT faces in many fora were no longer those of white males, with the opening keynote and closing remarks of Carlos Lopes being particular highlights. Analysis of Case 3: 1. What was the ‘art of the possible’ (for the institution/context)? Having purposefully built its membership in appropriate university networks, the opportunity to host leadership of one of these presented a significant opportunity for the university to surface an agenda and to leverage members of the various networks. 2. What elements were truly evocative, instrumental in the change, the key turning point? As the event never took place in the originally envisaged form, it is difficult to guess what may have occurred at an in-person gathering. 3. What barriers or issues (at individual, system, process, organizational, regional, national as appropriate) prevented further or more radical positive transformation? Developing an intellectual agenda for such an event was challenging, simply for the difficulty of getting a large number of senior faculty from across multiple research units related to the topic into the same room – but this was achieved multiple times, in both the original and the revised planning sessions. 4. What are the key learning points? When bringing such a variety of expertise and perspectives on sustainable development together, everybody learns a lot. 5. Reflections on how the transformational change might be scaled: The attempt to work across three networks for contributions, but to curate the event largely from within, should have scaling effects both outside and inside the organization. Time will tell.

Pivoting between Global and African Knowledge Networks The purpose of the three cases reviewed here is to interrogate how a durable agenda for transformational change can be held over time, under changing leadership and through major upheaval. These cases have been narrated by the author (HvB) as an academic who has been at the institution for over twenty years, observing and participating in the evolving sustainability initiatives of the institution, while making contributions to disciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching and to research on topics of sustainable development in emerging economies. Four observations arise from these cases: 1. Each generation of leadership comes with an agenda. While outward looking and important to project ‘fresh starts’, there also is strength in continuity. In the case of the UCT and its engagement with sustainable development, there has been that continuity around an ‘Afrika agenda’. 2. Threads in the institution can drift apart but knowing where they are and bringing them together creates continuity and allows for the emergence of new possibilities. This goes 425

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

beyond looking for ‘star academics’ and giving them new tasks, to a deeper understanding of the paradigms they represent. Organizing a major event that calls on the thought leaders of those paradigms to ‘show up’ has been a valuable investment in building social capital to support the institution’s sustainable development commitment. 3. Transformational change is as much about challenging people to reinspect their own paradigms as it is about replacing an over-represented group of people with those historically excluded. The notions of building an Afropolitan university and of pivoting between global and African research networks has changed the paradigm of teaching and research for many established academics at UCT. Yet it took ten to fifteen years to get to a point where many of the lead contributors at a major event on the topic of sustainable development in Africa started to represent the diversity of the communities that the university ought to be representing. 4. The sustainable development agenda has always been both local and global, and increasingly for those at the UCT working in this field, this old slogan is manifest in the habit of tapping colleagues globally to come to the party where African network partners locally identify the biggest needs. Internationalization and networking have become much easier – the key challenge is to combine socially relevant and robust approaches with cutting-edge innovation.

Conclusions As the world grapples with the fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has put achievement of the SDGs by 2030 out of reach, strongly reversing socio-economic gains of the past decades (Benedek et al., 2021), and time running out to decarbonize energy systems and to stop human expansion into nature, an agenda for transformational change is indeed urgently needed. Such an agenda, of course, has been around for a long time, also in higher education, and it keeps being updated. However, it competes with many other agendas, and that is one of the fundamental challenges – whenever a crisis occurs, the ‘longer-term’ sustainable development efforts, whether to eradicate poverty or arrest greenhouse gas emissions, seem to drop to the bottom of the list. This chapter offered three key contributions regarding an agenda for transformational change, by narrating and inspecting a thread of three events at UCT: 1. This agenda must align with other socio-economic agendas. In the particular case reviewed in this chapter, the employment equity transformation imperative in South African universities should be interpreted as an example of actions needed to redress historic wrongs, actually as a precondition for sustainable development. 2. University leadership must be willing and able to seize moments that arise when important agendas brought to it by its scholars coincide with opportunities spotted or created by leadership. 3. The capacity to respond to sustainable development challenges in Africa remains woefully inadequate, but it is for African institutions (including its universities) to define what that means and then to tap into global knowledge networks to build the necessary responses.

426

Leveraging Excellence in Africa

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT





1. Contextualization and meaningful identity with the Afropolitan perspective helped the university engage with the sustainable development agenda through its research and teaching. 2. Connecting the university’s research reporting to the UN SDGs enabled the institution to focus on strengths and identify gaps in scope and impact at local, regional and international levels. 3. Across Africa, there are substantial socio-economic and environmental challenges; solutions for these need to come from within the continent as well as from international sources and the university’s local and global networks can support such collaborations.

References Badat, S. (2010). The Challenges of Transformation in Higher Education and Training Institutions in South Africa. Johannesburg: Development Bank of Southern Africa. Benedek, D., Gemayel, E. R., Senhadji, A. S., and Tieman, A. F. (2021). ‘A Post-Pandemic Assessment of the Sustainable Development Goals’. IMF Staff Discussion Notes No. 2021/003, pp. 12–13. International Monetary Fund. doi: https://doi.org/10.5089/978149​8314​909.006. Goodland, R., and Daly, H. (1996). ‘Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-Negotiable’. Ecological Applications, 6 (4), pp. 1002–17. Jackson, T. (2005). ‘Live Better by Consuming Less? Is There a “Double Dividend” in Sustainable Consumption?’ Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (1–2), pp. 19–36. Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). ‘Foundations of Transdisciplinarity’. Ecological Economics, 53, pp. 5–16. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. South Carolina: The Sustainability Institute. Mebratu, D. (1998). ‘Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Historical and Conceptual Review’. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, pp. 493–520. Muggah, R., and Kilcullen, D. (2016). ‘These Are Africa’s Fastest-Growing Cities – and They’ll Make or Break the Continent’. World Economic Forum. https://www.wefo​rum.org/age​nda/2016/05/afr​ica-bigg​ est-cit​ies-fragil​ity/. Accessed 1 November 2021. Ndebele, N. (1983). Fools and Other Stories. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Phakeng, M. (2016). ‘Without Transformation, Excellence Is Unsustainable’. Address at the Launch of the 2015–2016 Research Report. https://www.news.uct.ac.za/arti​cle/-2016-11-16-with​out-tra​nsfo​rmat​ionresea​rch-exc​elle​nce-is-unsust​aina​ble-mam​okge​thi-phak​eng. Accessed 1 November 2021. Pieterse, E., Parnell, S., and Haysom, G. (2018). ‘African Dreams: Locating Urban Infrastructure in the 2030 Sustainable Developmental Agenda’. Area Development & Policy, 3 (2), pp. 149–69. QS World University Rankings (2021). ‘By Subject’. https://www.topu​nive​rsit​ies.com/uni​vers​ity-ranki​ ngs/uni​vers​ity-subj​ect-ranki​ngs/2021/deve​lopm​ent-stud​ies. Accessed 4 November 2021. Schusler, T. M., Espedido, C. B., Rivera, B. K., Hernández, M., Howerton, A. M., Sepp, K., Engel, M. D., Marcos, J., and Chaudhary, V. B. (2021). ‘Students of Colour Views on Racial Equity in Environmental Sustainability’. Nature Sustainability, 4, pp. 975–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41​893-021-00759-7. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Development (2021). ‘The 17 Goals’. https://sdgs. un.org/goals. Accessed 15 October 2021. University of Cape Town (UCT) (2009). ‘The Strategic Plan for the University of Cape Town 2010– 2014’. https://www.uct.ac.za/sites/defa​ult/files/ima​ge_t​ool/ima​ges/328/expl​ore/strate​gicp​lan/uct_st​rate​ gic%20go​als.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2021.

427

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

University of Cape Town (UCT) (2016). ‘Research & Innovation 2015–2016’. http://www.uct.ac.za/sites/ defa​ult/files/ima​ge_t​ool/ima​ges/328/resea​rch/publi​cati​ons/repo​rts/UCTRO072_Researc​h_Of​fice​_Ann​ ual_​Repo​rt_2​015-2016_​LOW_​Res.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2021. University of Cape Town. (UCT) (2018). ‘UCT’s Strategic Planning Framework 2020 Vision’. http:// www.uct.ac.za/sites/defa​ult/files/ima​ge_t​ool/ima​ges/328/about/strate​gic-plan/Str​ateg​icPl​an_2​020.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2021. University of Cape Town (2019). ‘Excellence, Transformation and Sustainability. The Vice-Chancellor’s Vision for the University of Cape Town’. https://www.news.uct.ac.za/downlo​ads/repo​rts/VC_​Visi​on_S​ ingl​ePag​eLay​out.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2021. University of Cape Town (UCT) (2021a). ‘SDGs Africa Summit 2021; Documents and Readings’. http:// www.sdgsa​fric​asum​mit.uct.ac.za/sas/docume​nts. Accessed 1 October 2021. University of Cape Town (UCT) (2021b). ‘Vision 2030’. https://www.news.uct.ac.za/ima​ges/userfi​les/ files/publi​cati​ons/UCT_​Visi​on_2​030.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2021. Von Blottnitz, H. (2018). ‘Connecting Research to the SDGs: Insights from the University of Cape Town 2015 Research Report; Global Priorities, Educated Solutions: The Role of Academia in Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals’. Keynote Address in a Special Session at the Annual Conference of the International Sustainable Campus Network, 11–13 June, Stockholm. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., and Redman, C. L. (2011). ‘Key Competencies in Sustainability: A Reference Framework for Academic Program Development’. Sustainability Science, 6, pp. 203–18.

428

429

23

A University’s Transformational Change Agenda JIM LONGHURST, GEORGINA GOUGH AND IAN BROOKS

Introduction The University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE) occupies three campus locations in the City of Bristol and in South Gloucestershire. It has over 30,000 students, some 4,000 staff and a 2019–20 income of approximately £300 million (US$400 million) (UWE, 2020a). Students come to UWE from all parts of the UK, and there is a growing number of international students from over 140 countries worldwide studying here. UWE currently has four faculties covering Arts, Creative Industries and Education, Business and Law, Environment and Technology, and Health and Applied Sciences. The university has invested over £300 million on projects as part of its campus masterplan, with recent developments including the new School of Engineering building (opened 2021), Business School building (2017), Students’ Union (SU) building (2015), ongoing redevelopment of the Bower Ashton Campus, creation of a city campus (2018) and student accommodation on Frenchay Campus including a 900-bed hall of residence designed to PassivHaus standard. UWE makes a major contribution to the development of Bristol and the wider region, seeking to do so in the most sustainable manner possible to meet the ambitions and mission of Strategy 2030 to transform futures (UWE, 2020b). The university’s environmental management system is certified to ISO 14001–2015 standard (UWE, n.d. b) having initially been certified to the 2004 standard; its certification covers both the estates management activities and the academic endeavours of the university. From 2016 onwards, the university has been accredited to the Students Organising for Sustainability Responsible Futures Mark (Students Organising for Sustainability, n.d.). Its sustainability credentials include being a signatory of the Talloires Declaration (Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, n.d.), the United Nations (UN) Principles of Responsible Management Education (n.d.), the SDG Accord (n.d.) and the UN Race to Zero for Universities and Colleges (n.d.). The university seeks to ensure that sustainability considerations are present in its teaching, research and community engagement activities. It has sought to create a culture, organically and then consciously through strategy in which sustainability can be discussed and enabled. Critical to this approach has been a highly effective partnership with the SU and with national and local sustainability organizations.

429

430

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

How though has the university undergone its own transformational journey? What internal actions and external drivers have influenced staff, students and senior managers to enable a complex and widespread sustainability engagement to be present within the university community? In answering these questions, this chapter reviews the key drivers over the past thirty years that have enabled UWE to develop its approach to sustainability. Initially, environmental considerations were a component of specific degree programmes and related research but today the institution seeks to embed sustainability across campus management, curriculum, research and community engagement.

Transforming UWE Engagement with Sustainability The Early Actions Like many universities during the 1980s and early 1990s, UWE offered degree programmes addressing planning, environmental management and biological aspects of the broad environment and sustainability agenda. This focused on activity within individual departments and faculties but lacked strategic coherence. The 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was perhaps the first global event that raised awareness of the multiple challenges facing society (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992a). One significant output of the summit was the agreement on Agenda 21, an action plan for sustainable development implementation at local, national and global levels (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992b). In the UK, recognizing the key role of further and higher education’s (HE) response to Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit outputs, the government commissioned the Toyne Report on environmental responsibility (Toyne, 1993) and went on to publish its first Sustainable Development Strategy in 1994 (UK Government, 1994). UWE’s response was largely bottom– up, with staff in the Faculties of Applied Sciences, Built Environment and the Business School organizing local initiatives to green activities and promote and enhance environmental education and research. In parallel, staff and students began to contribute to Agenda 21 initiatives and actions across the city region, particularly in Bristol and South Gloucestershire. Staff engagement in environmental and sustainability activity at faculty level prompted the university to develop its first Environmental Policy, approved by the Academic Board in 1994. This policy focused on regulatory compliance but hinted at a wider recognition of the interrelated nature of the sustainability agenda with social, cultural and economic matters. This policy, with minor updates, remained the university’s public commitment to environmental matters until mid-way through the first decade of the twenty-first century. First Decade of the Twenty-First Century In the early part of this decade, sustainability actions started with local initiatives in departments and faculties that gradually generated a cross-institutional awareness and a more systemic engagement with the agenda emerging from 2004. Senior leaders, particularly Deans, saw the opportunity for coordination of internal and external engagement and a university Sustainability Committee was established, becoming the Sustainability Board in 2004. This structure continues to this day as the principal coordinator of action and approver and supporter of sustainability initiatives. In parallel, staff became more actively involved in national, regional and local 430

Transformational Change Agenda

sustainability undertakings, for example, board membership of Sustainability Southwest and The Natural Step UK. An important development in 2005 was the establishment of a sustainability team in the Facilities Department tasked to lead and manage the sustainability elements of campus management and to provide inputs to the wider agenda within UWE. Emerging from the work of the board and the energy and enthusiasm of the sustainability team, 2005 also saw the development of UWE’s first Sustainability Action Plan (UWE, 2005), followed by the Environmental Purchasing Plan (UWE, 2006a) and in 2007, UWE’s first Sustainability Strategy (UWE, 2007) prioritizing integrated action across the domains of campus, community, research and estates. External engagement continued across the decade sharing sustainability knowledge and learning from others. Activities that helped shape UWE’s understanding of the opportunities and challenges included staff chairing the Great Western Research Sustainability Panel (see, e.g., UWE, 2006b) and chairing the Higher Education Academy’s (HEA) Advisory Board for the Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences Subject (GEES) Centre (see Chalkley, 2001, for more on GEES). Local sustainability engagement found a new emphasis in 2007 with the establishment of the Bristol Green Capital Partnership (n.d.). UWE staff have been heavily involved in this citywide partnership from the outset and have twice chaired the Partnership Board. Also, important here was the 2007 launch of the Bristol Environmental Technology and Services Partnership, later Low Carbon SW (Companies House, n.d.). UWE became a founding member of this initiative, and its involvement continues to this day with the successor body, the Future Economy Network (n.d.). Both these structures have provided important opportunities for student placements, internships, staff research and knowledge exchange as well as wider community and business engagement possibilities. In recognition of the important role the curriculum plays in developing awareness and understanding of the sustainability challenges, the Sustainability Board initiated an institutional review of sustainability within the university’s modular scheme. Reporting in 2007, this review revealed substantial elements of sustainability considerations across the modules in the scheme but also identified gaps and partial recognition of the environmental, social, cultural and economic components of sustainability within some parts of the scheme. To reinforce the good elements identified and to address the weaknesses, the Sustainability Board recommended the establishment of a cross-university Knowledge Exchange for Sustainability Education (KESE) group with membership from each academic department, the sustainability team and the SU (UWE, 2008). In establishing KESE, the university reflected upon an appropriate definition of education for sustainable development (ESD) and adopted the UNESCO definition current at that time (see Table 23.1). KESE was formally established in 2008 and charged with the promotion and enhancement of ESD in both the formal and informal curriculum. The terms of reference for the KESE group specified the production of an annual action plan and a reporting route to both the Sustainability Board and to the Learning and Teaching Committee of the university (see Appendix 23.1). The first KESE Action Plan was launched in 2009, with a report on progress and an action plan for the subsequent year produced annually. Meanwhile, from 2007 to 2011, the university’s sustainability research and knowledge exchange activities were drawn into a Research Institute for Sustainability, Health, and Environment, bringing together research on planning, architecture, water, air and carbon management, environmental law, public health, ecology and conservation, 431

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

TABLE 23.1  Education for Sustainable Development Description, UWE

Education for sustainable development: is based on the principles and values that underlie sustainable development; deals with the well-being of all four dimensions of sustainability – environment, society, culture and economy; uses a variety of pedagogical techniques that promote participatory learning and higher-order thinking skills; promotes lifelong learning; is locally relevant and culturally appropriate; is based on local needs, perceptions and conditions, but acknowledges that fulfilling local needs often has international effects and consequences; engages formal, non-formal and informal education; accommodates the evolving nature of the concept of sustainability; addresses content, taking into account context, global issues and local priorities; builds civil capacity for community-based decision-making, social tolerance, environmental stewardship, an adaptable workforce and a good quality of life; is interdisciplinary. Source: UNESCO (n.d.) cited in Longhurst et al. (2015).

and business and economics. Current research in these areas is available in the university’s ‘Research with Impact’ web page (UWE, n.d. d) Second Decade of the Twenty-First Century: Strategy 2020 In 2010, UWE launched Strategy 2020 (UWE, 2010), setting the institutional and wider context for a decade of action to transform the university. The strategy headlined a range of curriculum, research and campus development actions particularly through its commitment to creating graduates ready and able to realise their full potential, make a positive contribution to society and their chosen field of employment or further study, and play their full part in the development of a sustainable global society and knowledge economy. (UWE, 2010) Strategy 2020 provided the authority to develop a new sustainability plan for the decade. After two years of development work, the university published its new Sustainability Plan entitled Positive Footprints (UWE, 2014) to deliver the sustainability ambitions vested in Strategy 2020. The new plan, co-produced with staff and students, outlined the university’s sustainability aims for the period 2013–20. It defined the mechanisms by which sustainability was embedded within the university’s day-to-day operations and decision-making processes and set out how the Strategy 2020 ambition of advancing the health and sustainability of its locality and region could be supported alongside the explicit contribution of ESD to Strategy 2020’s priority for ready and able graduates. Importantly, the plan provided a guidance framework for the development of a sustainable estate infrastructure, especially important as the university was embarking upon a master planning process ultimately leading to some £300 million (US$400 million) of capital investment over the decade. The university submitted its Sustainability Strategy to the UK 432

Transformational Change Agenda

and Ireland Green Gown Awards 2010 and won the Continuous Improvement and Institutional Change award by the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC, 2010). Throughout 2010–20, the KESE group submitted an annual report and action plan to the Learning Teaching Student Experience Committee and the Sustainability Board highlighting opportunities, achievements and barriers to progress. From its inception in 2008, the KESE group had sought to provide opportunities for ESD within each taught programme in UWE. By 2015, the university’s internal audit processes indicated that this had been achieved with recognizable sustainability considerations present in all taught provision. As part of the annual audit for ISO 14001 certification, this was verified externally by third party investigation. Engagement of research and knowledge exchange with sustainability was enhanced in the early part of the decade by the award to UWE of a multimillion-pound contract to establish the Environmental Technology Innovation Network for the Southwest, funded by the Regional Development Agency, the Department of Communities and Local Government, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Innovation Network was led by UWE and delivered by a consortium of universities, third-sector bodies and local authorities, with the specific purpose of supporting the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the environmental technology sector. Internal coordination of sustainability within the university was enhanced by the appointment in 2011 of an Assistant Vice-Chancellor (AVC; author JWSL) with specific responsibilities for environment and sustainability and the chairing of the Sustainability Board. This was closely followed by the appointment of the first senior lecturer in ESD in UK Higher Education (author GKG), with specific responsibility for leading the KESE group. Several new developments followed these appointments, including the start of an annual ESD conference, the production of specific teaching resources to support ESD in the curriculum and the incorporation of ESD consideration in the Academic Development Programme for new staff. Internal coordination of ESD was further enhanced by the instigation of an annual meeting with each Head of Department to review progress and to explore support needs and further developed through a meeting with each Faculty Executive to ensure coordination and coherence of agreed actions. In the early part of the decade, an important outcome of the work of the Sustainability Board was the development and approval of the university’s first Ethical Investment Policy (UWE, n.d. c), with responsibility for the policy jointly held by the AVC and the Director of Finance. Although UWE had no investments in stocks and shares, then or now, it was important to produce a comprehensive policy that provided clarity about risks and requirements for ethical investment in the unlikely circumstance that the university would begin an investment programme. This policy is reviewed annually and updated; banking practices and pension payments were brought within the purview of the policy. In common with all sustainability policies, statements, plans and reports, this policy is published on the university sustainability webpages (UWE, n.d. e). In 2012, the AVC was appointed to the HEA’s ESD Advisory Group and later became chair. This role helped to create the circumstances in which the HEA and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) could collaborate to develop UK Higher Education’s first authoritative guidance on ESD QAA (QAA and HEA, 2014). The AVC chaired this collaboration between the agencies and academic and student members. The sector-wide guidance was published in 2014 from which date UWE began to examine how to incorporate the precepts of the guidance within its processes and procedures. Responding to the new Sustainability Plan and the 2014 launch of the QAA–HEA ESD Guidance, UWE developed a guide for staff outlining the role of the 433

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Quality Management Framework in supporting and enabling ESD within curricula. External recognition of UWE’s growing sustainability engagement came in 2014 when the university joined the Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future as a signatory of the Talloires Declaration (Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, n.d.). Over the early part of the decade, the university had developed its environmental management system and in 2014 achieved certification to ISO 14001–2004 standard, covering campus management and ESD within the university curricula. Within the SU, support for sustainability had been growing across the decade. Notable developments included appointment of a full-time sustainability coordinator, supported initially by a special award from the university, the development of a Green Team student group, establishment of a Sustainability Committee of students mirroring the university’s Sustainability Board and an elected Sustainability Officer post within the SU establishment (SU at UWE, n.d. a). The transformational success of these developments became clear through accreditation to Responsible Futures and recognition for five years in a row as the number one SU in the UK under the National Union of Students Green Impact Scheme (SU at UWE, n.d. b). From 2010 onwards, the university supported Bristol City Council’s ambition to achieve the status of European Green Capital (n.d.). This was awarded for the calendar year of 2015 and the university became fully involved in the design and delivery of the programme of activities. The vice-chancellor served on the Board of Bristol Green Capital, providing oversight and direction for the programme, while UWE launched its own Green Capital Strategy to engage staff and students in the activities. UWE, in partnership with the University of Bristol, led a successful bid to the Higher Education Funding Council for England for a two-year Green Capital Student Capital project designed to enhance student engagement in citywide sustainability projects, placements and volunteering. This set a target to engage students in 100,000 hours of sustainability action across the year; by the end of the project, students at the two universities (Bigg et al., 2018) had recorded over 135,000 hours. In 2015, UWE staff served on Bristol City Council’s (BCC) Resilience Sounding Board and helped produce Bristol’s Resilience Strategy (BCC, 2016). This was undertaken as part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative (Rockefeller Foundation, n.d.). In 2016, the university undertook various sustainability developments including installing the largest single roof mounted photovoltaic array in the HE sector on its Frenchay Campus and moving its external electricity supply to be Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGO) certified as 100 per cent renewably generated. That year, UWE hosted EAUC’s 20th Annual Conference where the university displayed its integrated approach to sustainability in campus operations, curriculum, research and community engagement. Alongside the conference, the Frenchay Campus hosted the Whole Earth exhibition – ‘a powerful exhibition of the environmental and sustainability challenges’ that we face (UWE, 2015). UWE’s support for sustainability in the city region saw the university become a founding funding partner of a newly constituted Bristol Green Capital Partnership Community Interest Company and UWE’s AVC become the interim chair and later board member. UWE supported the development of Bristol’s One City Office, in turn responsible for the development of the One City Plan (Bristol One City Office, n.d. a) structured around the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and later supported development of the One City Climate Strategy (Bristol One City Office, n.d. b).

434

Transformational Change Agenda

With the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 (United Nations General Assembly, 2015), UWE began to consider how the SDGs could be used as a lens to view sustainability practices and how institutional actions could be reported against the set of seventeen goals. In 2016, UWE launched the first phase of an institution-wide SDG Mapping Project, exploring the contribution of faculties and research centres to meeting the SDGs (Gough, 2017). Later, the project expanded to document the contribution of individual undergraduate and postgraduate taught provision. These initiatives were showcased when UWE hosted the UN Global Compact SDGs roadshow in 2016. In 2017, UWE and the SU became the first UK institution to sign the SDG Accord (n.d.). By 2016, UWE had made significant progress on meeting the aims of the Sustainability Plan and in 2017 published a refreshed Sustainability Plan 2.1 (UWE, 2017) and developed a new Environmental Sustainability Policy. UWE’s Sustainability Plan 2.1 directed university action to: 1. Reduce and manage operational environmental impacts. 2. Support the entire student body to develop competencies, skills and attributes to enable them to cope with an adverse future in their professional and private lives. 3. Engage in research to address global and local challenges. 4. Support the local community in responding and adapting to the climate and ecological emergency. 5. Support national agencies in their sustainability engagement. These initiatives supported the university in its transition to certification against the ISO 14001– 2015 standard. The refreshed Sustainability Plan charged the KESE group to develop the ESD agenda across the institution progressively enhancing the presence of ESD in the discourse of the university, providing opportunities for students to explore sustainable development in the context of their discipline and ensuring that ESD continued to be embedded at the programme level. The group also played a key role in supporting staff development concerning ESD. In 2018, Advance HE, through a Collaborative Approach to Teaching Excellence award (Advance HE, 2018), recognized the work of KESE. Support for national initiatives include the QAA and Advance HE appointing UWE’s AVC as co-chair of the Advisory Group charged with updating the 2014 ESD guidance for HE. ESD experts from across Great Britain came together over a two-year period to review and update the guidance. UWE also provided a board member for the EAUC, later providing the chair and an EAUC Climate Commissioner. Local community engagement activities continued with five members of UWE appointed to the Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change (n.d.), and a special University Advisory Group was established to support South Gloucestershire’s Climate Emergency Action Plan (n.d.). Physical transformation of the UWE estate continued over the decade with significant investment on all three-campus locations. Developments addressing UWE’s carbon management included commissioning of a new Combined Heat and Power (CHP) station and district-heating network on the Frenchay campus alongside substantial efforts to improve energy efficiency and thermal comfort in the building stock.

435

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

From Achievements in Strategy 2020 to Ambitious Aims in Strategy 2030 Towards the end of the Sustainability Plan 2013–2020, UWE reviewed its progress and remaining challenges. In the report, it noted that despite a significant increase in student and staff numbers and a substantial increase in the footprint of UWE’s estate, the plan had met its goals (UWE, 2021d). In the report’s foreword, Vice-Chancellor Professor Steve West said, I’m incredibly proud of the progress UWE Bristol has made through the Sustainability Plan 2020. In so doing, we responded to both the climate and ecological emergency and the expectations of our students for sustainability to be embedded into their higher education experience. We will build on this fantastic progress, and, over the coming decade, UWE Bristol will continue to play a key role in driving the remarkable transition to a decarbonised and regenerative economy in the west of England and beyond. Our students and our future students will be the generations most affected by the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss, so we must continue to find ways to prepare them for the challenges that lie ahead, and through our outstanding learning, research and enterprise find and demonstrate the socially just solutions to this most fundamental of global challenges. (UWE, 2021d) In 2020, UWE adopted an institutional Strategy 2030 (UWE, 2020b) which inter alia commits the whole university to ‘work to address the urgency of the climate and ecological emergency and strive to fulfil our role in the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals’. Strategy 2030 sets out seven strategic sustainability commitments for the university to meet in the decade. 1. Net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2030. 2. Clear targets and plans to reduce water and energy use, cut waste generation – including food waste – and support biodiversity, thus working towards a circular economy. 3. Eliminate all but essential single-use plastic by 2025. 4. Establish all our campuses as clean air and smoke-free zones. 5. Secure year-on-year improvement in sustainable travel. 6. Work with our students to explicitly address climate change and environmental challenges in the curriculum. 7. Support research that addresses climate change, environmental challenges and biodiversity. Strategy 2030 provides the authority and context for the development of UWE’s new Climate Action and Sustainability Strategy 2030. This in turn enables the development of a suite of action plans covering the following areas: ESD, Sustainability Engagement, Sustainable Food, Transport, Carbon and Energy Management, Clean Air, Circular Economy including plastics, and Biodiversity (UWE, 2021c). Concern by staff and students led UWE’s Board of Governors (2020) to declare a climate and ecological emergency, and that year saw the establishment of an internal Changing Climate Research Network to promote cross-university engagement with the climate challenge and designation of a Climate Action and Sustainability Research Beacon. Recent community engagement activities include UWE students supporting the development of the Global Goals Centre in Bristol and MSc in Environmental Management students working with the Bristol Green Capital Partnership to prepare a Climate Action Guide for SMEs. 436

Transformational Change Agenda

Recognizing the importance of collaborative engagement with the climate emergency, UWE has signed the Global Climate letter, later the UN Race to Zero campaign for universities and colleges (UWE, 2021c), committing to verifiable, time-dated action to address the climate emergency in operations and other institutional activities. External recognition of UWE’s sustainability credentials continued in 2020, with the award of a UK and Ireland Green Gown in the ‘Total Reporting’ category and in 2021 winning the Green Gown in the ‘Tomorrow’s Employees’ category. The SU continued their impressive run of awards, designated for a fifth year in a row as the leading SU in the National Union of Students (NUS) Green Impact Awards. These awards are way markers of the university’s engagement in the sustainability journey and provide a moment for celebration and an opportunity for reflection on the efficacy of strategy and the need for new action. The year 2021 saw the launch of the QAA–Advance HE ESD Guidance (QAA, 2021) and UWE’s Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee resolving to: 1. Adopt and implement the ESD guidance within all taught provision. 2. Use the quality management system to assure itself that the ESD guidance is embedded. 3. Use the external audits undertaken as part of the ISO 14001 certification and Responsible Futures accreditation as third-party verification of the presence and use of the guidance within the curriculum. Following the opening of the award-winning new School of Engineering building, designed, and built as BREEAM Excellent, work has now commenced on a new student accommodation block designed to PassivHaus standard. Support of civic engagement continues with the launch of the Skills for Clean Growth (UWE, 2021b), a new programme of support for businesses in the West of England funded by the West of England Combined Authority.

Leadership and Governance The governance of the former Sustainability Plan and the new Climate Action and Sustainability Strategy was delegated by the Vice-Chancellor to the Sustainability Board. This meets five times a year and is chaired by the AVC for Environment and Sustainability. Membership includes the PVC Research and Business Engagement alongside a further member drawn from the Directorate, the Senior Leadership team, on a rotating basis, the Director of Estates and Facilities, a representative of the faculty Deans, the President and a Vice-President of the SU, an Associate Dean (Teaching and Learning), an Associate Dean (Partnerships), the chair of KESE and the chair of the Climate Action and Sustainability Group. In attendance are the Action Plan Leaders, the SU Sustainability Officer and representatives from all three recognized trade unions. Students and staff attend as observers. The terms of reference are presented in Appendix 23.2. The board takes its authority from and reports to the Directorate, Academic Board and the Board of Governors. At each meeting, the board reviews progress with the themes and targets of the strategy. It undertakes regular reviews of policies, including the Environmental Sustainability Policy and the Ethical Investment Policy, approves action plans, reviews progress with the commitment to the UN to Principals of Responsible Management Education (PRME) across the institution and provides governance of the whole institution certification to ISO 14001–2015 standard and the Responsible Futures accreditation. The Sustainability Board takes operational 437

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

responsibility for the implementation of the actions that follow from UWE’s Board of Governors that declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency in January 2020.

Societal Benefits UWE’s teaching, research and estate management practices contribute directly to local, national and international societal benefits. With some 7,000 graduates a year and research addressing key societal challenges, UWE makes a significant contribution through its sustainability actions. Its civic engagement is diverse, with staff and students leading or supporting local organizations or initiatives such as the Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change, Bristol Green Capital Partnership, the Global Goals Centre, the Natural History Consortium, South Gloucestershire Council’s Climate Action and Bristol’s Going for Gold Sustainable Food Award. This local action extends nationally and internationally, with research activity addressing most of the social, environmental and economic SDGs and with staff advising enterprises on sustainability improvements. UWE’s business support includes a new green skills scheme, online resources for SMEs, business advice clinics, an entrepreneurs’ support programme and a team of enterprise advisers. Together, these provide an array of societal benefits, which is perhaps best illustrated by Oxford Economics study (Oxford Economics, 2015) showing that in Strategy 2020 UWE’s direct and indirect expenditure supported one in seventy-nine jobs in the West of England area. UWE has influenced thousands of university suppliers to engage with sustainability, and the university spends more than £60 million (US$80 million) per year within a fifty-mile radius, and 49 per cent of its expenditure was with SMEs in 2019–20 with more than 10 per cent of the supplier base (more than seventy suppliers) being charities or social enterprises. UWE recognizes that the biggest sustainability impact of HE is the lifetime impact of its graduates. If the university develops a sustainability ethos in its students, it is likely that they will minimize their footprint on the planet in both their professional and private lives. UWE continues to develop our capacity to prepare our students for the sustainability challenges in their life course through each one of our programmes of study.

Sharing of Practice Our approach has been the subject of numerous presentations, peer-reviewed publications and paper or video case studies (see, e.g., Bigg et al., 2018; Cimil et al., 2017; Fiselier and Longhurst, 2018; Fiselier et al., 2018; Gough and Longhurst, 2015, 2018; Longhurst, et al., 2015; Longhurst and Gough, 2018; Price et al., 2021), and these are available through UWE’s research repository or sustainability website. Our sustainability ethos is one of collaboration and partnership, willingly sharing our failures and successes as well as helping others with their own unique sustainability journeys. In 2020–1, we assisted a neighbouring further- and higher-education provider, to share lessons learnt. The experience of the university is transferable to both a national and international stage. While the direction and rate of UWE’s sustainability journey is unique to the institution, the learning experiences are relevant to a broad range of institutions. The annual graduate cohort who will live and work across the world amplifies this reach. UWE’s impact at the local level is also worthy of note, through its sustainable procurement work directly influencing up to 6,000 university suppliers in many industrial and business sectors, a significant number of whom are 438

Transformational Change Agenda

SMEs and form the hinterland of the university. UWE’s national reach is amplified by national engagements such as the Climate Commission, the EAUC or co-chairing the development of the 2021 ESD guidance from QAA and Advance HE.

Case Studies Departmental Translation of University Strategy: The Case of Computer Science The Department of Computer Science and Creative Technologies (CSCT) is a case study of transformational change within UWE. Computer Science as a discipline does not have a strong history of engagement with matters of sustainability. The caricature of a computer science student is one whose preoccupation is with coding, algorithms and gaming. The typical approaches within computing are to define the scope boundary of a problem as tightly as possible and to stay within that scope. This is antithetical to sustainability where we need to consider global interactions and to account for the externalized impacts of systems and businesses. CSCT is now at a point where every student is aware of the SDGs (United Nations General Assembly, 2015) and where the curricula of a number of its degree programmes have been mapped towards the SDGs (Gough, 2017). It is one of the few Computer Science departments in the UK that has a mandatory sustainability module (Sustainable Business and Computing) on one of the BSc programmes. It might be argued that Computer Science is not part of the sustainability problem. The carbon footprint of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector is relatively small, at less than 2 per cent of global emissions (Malmodin and Lundén, 2018), and it is one of the easier sectors to decarbonize by switching to electricity from renewable sources. However, the major impacts come in what ICT can enable as illustrated by the relationship to individual SDGs. Video conferencing can enable reductions in the carbon footprint of meetings by replacing travel (SDG 13); Cancer Care Informatics enables the delivery of improved health outcomes (SDG 4); and Smart City initiatives are key to the delivery of sustainable city transport (SDG 11). The department is becoming increasingly good at teaching the benefits that may be described as ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S) or Tech for Good. It is a topic that industry and professional bodies are now keen to promote. Recent progress in the department builds on a foundation of two decades of engagement by its staff with the community in Bristol and supported by UWE policy and strategy. There is a real advantage to being based in a city with a reputation for sustainability and a well-developed network of activists and community organizations. The department is well known in the city for its CAKE programme – Community Action and Knowledge Exchange (UWE, n.d. a). This is a major thirty-credit module for final-year students where they work in teams to deliver digital projects for community organizations. These teams create websites, digital media strategies, ICT feasibility studies, package selections and similar projects. Every year there are more community organizations applying to participate than the department has capacity. This unit exemplifies transformational change – for the local community with ICT projects that enhance their capacity to deliver sustainability, for students in what they learn about the needs of the city in which they live but might not otherwise encounter and for the university in developing relationships with organizations that are transforming the city for the better. 439

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

The department first hired a Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Information Technology (IT) in 2015, and the initial focus was on introducing students to sustainability issues and concepts in their first week at university (Brooks, 2019). The impact of this can now be traced through to graduates choosing to work in IT companies committed to sustainability. Now, there is more teaching on sustainability embedded across the department’s degree programmes – not just in the taught curriculum but also in coursework, for example, using air quality measurement data sets in units on data analysis and presentation. There are also an increasing number of student dissertations on topics related to IT and sustainability. For example, using a social media Smart Meter to identify high carbon footprint activities in the city by analysing social media content or assessing the impact of moving applications from the university’s own servers into cloud provision. There is also a current PhD student researching the use of the SDGs as requirements in Systems Engineering (Brooks, 2020). The university strategy on sustainability provides institutional impetus for integration of sustainability into the department, building on a long-standing commitment to community outreach by many staff and programmes. Perhaps the next step in this sustainability journey is to engage more with the issues of how ICT enables activities that are damaging to sustainability (#Tech4Bad). This is a less comfortable discussion and one the ICT sector is less enthusiastic to engage with but one that academia needs to engage in a critical debate with the ICT sector. Faculty Translation of University Strategy: The Case of Bristol Business School In 2017, UWE Bristol opened a new, £55 million (US$75 million) Bristol Business School building to serve 5,500 students in the Faculty of Business and Law (FBL). The building, at the heart of the Bristol Frenchay campus, has developed an important role in interdisciplinary working at UWE. The café in the atrium has become popular with staff and students from across the faculties and provides a space for the serendipitous interdisciplinary encounters that are such a source of value for a university campus. Interdisciplinary working is necessary to deliver holistic sustainability improvement (see, e.g., Longhurst et al., 2015). The interdependencies within the SDGs demonstrate this. FBL is an instructive case study in interdisciplinary working towards sustainability, with many of its programmes mapped for their engagement with the SDGs (Gough, 2017). Bristol Business School and Bristol Law School, the two key departments in FBL, have a history of active engagement with the KESE group. The Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group in the Law School has an international reputation, and staff play a significant role in international projects, such as the Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Razzaque and Visseren-Hamakers, 2019). Staff from the group also teach on programmes in other faculties – Faculty of Environment and Technology (FET) and Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences (HAS). Bristol Business School has also hosted interdisciplinary projects such as Greenpreneurs (Aben et al., 2016), a collaboration developed and delivered as a pilot short course in 2016 to train entrepreneurs starting up green businesses; the team comprise FBL and FET staff. The teaching approach was based on the approach used in the BA Team Entrepreneurship programme at UWE. It was funded by Erasmus Plus, led by Mondragon Innovation and Knowledge with Turku University of Applied Sciences as another partner institution. The pilot run at UWE

440

Transformational Change Agenda

drew on an interdisciplinary network in Bristol including practitioners in sustainable banking, renewable energy, construction and brewing. Some of the teaching took place at Filwood Green Business Park in Bristol, where UWE staff were on the Advisory Board. Several alumni from that first pilot have gone on to play significant roles in sustainability in Bristol’s networks. While it was difficult to develop a successful funding model for further delivery of the course, the teaching materials are available online (Rajala et al., 2017). Bristol Business School is also the host department for the Sustainable Economies Research Group. This group was created with a deliberate aim of supporting interdisciplinary research, with members from across UWE’s faculties bringing expertise such as ecosystems services and social sciences to the core economics research strength. Despite these good examples of interdisciplinary research and teaching, there are barriers that create practical obstructions to interdisciplinary working. One frustration has been the interfaculty accounting processes for staff teaching across disciplines. This can have the effect of hindering the willingness of departments to support staff teaching in other faculties because of bureaucratic and opaque process of internal accounting and recognition of the contribution. Bristol Business School is equipping students who will run businesses that thrive in a netzero carbon world. They will need the core business and management skills but with an added interdisciplinary understanding of sustainability – economic, social and environmental. They benefit from learning in the context of the city of Bristol – a city which has a declared target of becoming net-zero by 2030, well ahead of the UK national target. UWE staff are members of many of the committees and organizations in the city that are planning and delivering this structural change. This engagement in local transformation enriches the interdisciplinary experience that students receive in preparation for their careers. University-Wide Curriculum Initiatives Critical to transformational change in and through HE are the curriculum and academic staff. In relation to sustainability, an Associate Professor in ESD and a KESE advocate for ESD both at a strategic level and in practice. KESE is charged with supporting the transformation of the curriculum and enhancing the sustainability capabilities, capacities and competences of academics across the institution (in line with expectations of UNESCO, 2020) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Steering Committee on ESD (2011). One important output of the close cross-university working engendered by the KESE group was the development of a cross-institution MSc in Sustainable Development in Practice, which was launched in 2012. This programme has staff and module contributions from each of the four faculties of the university. Over time, KESE members have become agents of change within their own academic departments and beyond. The group began as a collective of individuals who were interested in ESD from across the institution. However, a deliberate change in approach to the constituency and management of this group was enacted during 2014–16. Representative roles for each academic department were created to ensure coverage across all disciplines of discussions about ESD and to create a mechanism by which central commitments and intentions could be disseminated to departments and, critically, vice versa. These roles were voluntary at first but as they became critical to the institutional sustainability journey, department heads made

441

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

formal workload allocations. Monthly meetings support team working where members share approaches to engagement successes and challenges. This has proved invaluable, especially for departments who are just beginning their engagement and can learn from the journey of colleagues to implement best practices more rapidly. In addition to representatives from all academic departments at UWE, the KESE group includes staff from SU. Supported by partnership with the SU, students themselves have been involved in numerous ways with the sustainability work of KESE and the broader institution. They have unanimously welcomed involvement in these activities, noting that it has helped them develop deeper understanding of their own discipline and appreciation for ways in which their knowledge can be applied to global challenges. Interdisciplinary appreciation between students and staff is a further outcome of these discussions, and student involvement in KESE work has helped to transform our approach to and expectations for ourselves. Through presentations at various UK and international events, conferences and institutions, UWE’s work has helped transform the way in which other institutions approach their ESD work. Through transparency of process, success and failures, we hope to have enabled more rapid and successful change within the HE sector. Further, through our curriculum work, we hope to be contributing to transformation in all of the organizations, professions and sectors in which our graduates end up being employed. Quantified measurement of such impact is impossible, but through alumni stories, we shall continue to monitor ways by which we are supporting prosustainability change and where there are best opportunities to do more. For the past six years, UWE has been engaged in mapping curriculum, research and other projects against the SDGs. This initiative encourages reflection on pedagogy and on the purpose of each of the university’s programmes of study; identification of opportunities for curriculum and programme enhancement; improvement to the student experience; development of staff capacity; and partnership working with students and industry to identify appropriate future directions for our teaching and learning. With no obligation for staff or students to engage with our SDG activity, and an institutional objective for 100 per cent of programmes to be engaged, the KESE team takes an extremely flexible and creative approach to encouraging colleagues and students to contribute to this work. The team also strives to work in a way that maximizes outcomes, impact and supports the widest possible degree of staff and student engagement. After determining that a single, predefined approach to the mapping would not succeed in engaging a diverse range of colleagues, it established a system whereby each team member considers their local context but the whole team shares experience of specific approaches. Critical to the success of this approach has been leadership and a willingness by staff to explore and test ways of collaborative working. The team has actively engaged multiple stakeholders in a mutually supportive process of SDG mapping from the outset. The SU has been a key partner in the university’s SDG work. Induction, training and development activity for SU presidents, elected officers and course representatives explicitly address the SDGs. The SU’s latest Action Plan was framed around the SDGs, and KESE’s ongoing engagement with the SU has enabled students to co-produce the SDG maps with members of the team. KESE has worked to ensure that all staff and student groups within the university are involved in the planning, implementation and review of its SDG work. This exchange of sustainability knowledge has enabled a deeper level of change within the organization than we could have achieved alone. We invite professional service staff at all levels to our discussions and events, 442

Transformational Change Agenda

across all of our campuses. In this way, we are able to share our ambitions and activities, to draw ideas and feedback from stakeholders and to inspire other members of the university community to reflect on their engagement with the issues represented in the SDGs. Carbon Management Case Study The university has been working to reduce its carbon emissions for at least the past twenty years, but action and outcomes accelerated during the Strategy 2020 period. At the end of Strategy 2020, the university achieved a 55 per cent reduction in emissions compared to a 2005–6 baseline and achieved its reduction target (UWE, 2021a). Effort is focused on achieving the university’s ambition to achieve a net-zero outcome by 2030. A baseline emission has been calculated according to the methodology of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scopes 1, 2 and 3. The 2019–20 estimated emission is 67,738 tonnes, a 15 per cent reduction on the previous year. However, some categories of emission are not yet fully accounted for, and some assumptions need to be verified. The 2019–20 period is abnormal as for four months of the year UWE was in lockdown, and prior to this international travel was on hold. A key performance indicator (KPI) has been included in the Corporate Scorecard based upon the annual CO2 emission (Scopes 1–3) expressed per full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and student. In 2019–20, this equalled 2.415 tCO2e per FTE. As 2019–20 is an abnormal year, the use of this value as a baseline from which to track progress needs further consideration. Institutional strategy has been defined through the Net Zero 2030 target in Strategy 2030 underpinned by the Climate Emergency Declaration (UWE, 2021a). A Carbon and Energy Management Plan (UWE, 2021a) has been developed using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (n.d.) and incorporating the Science Based Targets Initiative (n.d.) approach. This is structured using the carbon management hierarchy of avoid, reduce, replace and offset, and it is supported by a suite of operational action plans covering Water Management, Sustainable Travel, Circular Economy, Sustainable Food and Biodiversity (ibid). Work to understand offsetting opportunities is underway. A Scope 3 Reduction Plan is in development, supported by a new Sustainable Purchasing Policy. Work continues to refine UWE’s understanding of the total emissions picture. Currently, it excludes carbon emissions associated with working from home which will count as part of Scope 3 and has uncertainties regarding commuting, catering and cloud computing. Each of these will be addressed in ongoing work to improve measuring and reporting supported by the implementation of new energy measurement software. Investments that have supported carbon management include the CHP, PV installations and purchase of renewably generated electricity. During 2019–20, UWE completed the installation of the CHP plant and district-heating network to provide low carbon heat and electricity to the Frenchay Campus. The combined £2.5 million (US$3.1 million) investment will deliver savings of £1,000 per day and annual savings of 683 tonnes of CO2e. Natural gas fired engines will initially power the district-heating network. In the future, it provides the opportunity for other lower, net-zero or zero carbon technologies to be added, in addition to extending the network to supply more areas of the campus. To achieve the net-zero target a decision on an alternative fuel, such as biomethane or hydrogen, will be required otherwise the associated emissions will need to be offset. During 2019–20, PV installations generated 490 MWh across UWE Bristol sites, saving 114 tonnes CO2e and £73.5k from the utility bill. PV installations continue to be added 443

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

to the estate, with the most recent being on the new School of Engineering building. From 2014, the university purchased 100 per cent renewable electricity, assured through the REGO scheme. In October 2019, UWE signed a power purchase agreement, securing direct purchase of wind power from four UK windfarms to cover 20 per cent of electricity purchased by UWE Bristol for the next ten years. In a first for public-sector energy users, UWE has worked in collaboration with nineteen other universities to secure this clean electricity contract. New campus developments are a visible sign of UWE’s net-zero ambitions. The new student accommodation designed to meet the PassivHaus standard will deliver a 74 per cent reduction in carbon compared to conventional designs and will help reduce commuting greenhouse gas emissions by providing some 900 bedrooms on campus. The new School of Engineering building has achieved a BREEAM Excellent certification, thus demonstrating its high-quality environmental credentials. Additions to the estate, such as the Enterprise Park buildings, can have a significant impact on the carbon emissions reduction pathway. In this case, the purchase introduced a new emission source into the estate. An important part of the approach to carbon management is engagement with staff and students to raise awareness and encourage active engagement in the reduction of carbon emissions. Work with staff has focused on climate cafés, designed to raise awareness of issues and actions, which provide a forum for discussion and a chance to develop ideas on how the group can make change within its own activities and sphere of influence. These fora have been held in various faculties and services that in turn have generated self-sustaining activity within the various teams, for example the 100 sustainability commitments initiative by teams in Estates and Facilities. Curriculum initiatives addressing the Strategy 2030 ambition of ‘working with our students to explicitly address climate change and environmental challenges in the curriculum’ are structured and implemented via the ESD Action Plan supported by the cross-university KESE group. Carbon literacy training is being developed for staff and students and is being infused into the curriculum. As part of introduction to academic year 2019–20, a carbon literacy session was developed in partnership with the SU and offered to new and returning students; about 100 students registered for the event. UWE postgraduate students are undertaking numerous MSc projects addressing carbon management challenges in both Bristol and South Gloucestershire. The university also has a wide range of professional courses addressing carbon management. Notable among these is the enhancement short courses for Built Environment students and professionals; including the spring 2020 massive open online course (MOOC), studied by over 1,600 Built Environment professionals from around the world. A similar enhancement course for students had over 1,000 attendees. The SDG Mapping project has enabled staff groups to consider the climate impacts of their provision and the opportunities to address these negative impacts in the curriculum. Adaptation also applies to curriculum, as it develops to meet the employment opportunities of a low carbon future. The Changing Climate Research Network and the Climate Action and Sustainability Research Beacon support research initiatives addressing the Strategy 2030 ambition of ‘research that addresses climate change, environmental challenges and biodiversity’ (UWE, 2020b). The 2020–21 staff sustainability survey revealed the wide range of research, both funded and unfunded, being undertaken across the four faculties of the university. UWE staff are supporting climate emergency action in local authorities. A University Advisory Group is aiding South Gloucestershire’s Climate Emergency Action Plan, while five staff are members of the Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change (UWE, 2020b) who facilitate the development 444

Transformational Change Agenda

of Bristol’s One City Climate Strategy. Staff are also working to support three climate-related initiatives led by the Bristol Green Capital Partnership. UWE staff have contributed to the work of the Climate Commission for UK HE and Further Education, including development of the Climate Action Toolkit for HE (Climate Commission for Higher and Further Education, 2020 A programme of working covering actions to 2030 has been established that will track and manage the delivery of the sustainability and climate ambitions of the university. Progress with the university’s net-zero ambition is reported annually in the public Sustainability Report (UWE, 2020d). There are significant challenges to be overcome in arriving at a net-zero university but is within grasp. At some point in the decade, UWE will have to offset residual emissions and is actively investigating how this can be done in the most effective and strategically beneficial way. Adaptation to the future climate has not received the same attention as mitigation but action must be ramped up across the rest of the decade to protect health, buildings, infrastructure and nature on each of our campuses. The long-term aim is to reduce emissions from each scope to as low as is reasonably practicable with a small residual requiring offsetting. To do so requires sustained technological and behavioural change interventions, as outlined in this study. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions can be managed to a very low level by 2030. Among other actions, this will require the CHP engines to be fired on biomethane or hydrogen. Managing Scope 3 emissions will be challenging, but the university is putting in place the mechanisms to engage with this issue. The important point to note is that UWE’s Scope 3 emissions are made up of other parties’ Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, and national and international action will be directed at reducing these emissions. UWE will continue to embed carbon awareness into all areas of the university to build staff knowledge and awareness so that they can make conscious decisions in their area of influence recognizing the carbon impact of these decisions. By including carbon literacy in the curriculum and supporting the development of a future-facing, climate-aware curriculum, we will help prepare graduates for the climate challenges of tomorrow, enabling them to develop resilience and adaptability in the face of such change.

Conclusions This chronological review of UWE Bristol’s engagement with the environmental and sustainability agenda of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century has charted and discussed the factors enabling the transformational sustainability agenda within the university. Significant among these factors have been the interests and enthusiasm of staff, the expectation of students and the strategic leadership of senior staff. In the past two decades, the strategic direction has become clearer and embedded within the overarching university strategy that in turn has set clear targets and timescales for action. Recognizing the important external signals, such as the UN SDGs or public concern about the climate and ecological crises, alongside the clearly articulated views of students and staff, the university has been willing to embrace a change agenda designed to improve its sustainability performance. Importantly, it has learnt from failure to fully embed sustainability within decision-making or to carry through sustainability ambitions when faced with short-term cost challenges or value engineering decisions. External Certification to ISO 14001 and Responsible Futures accreditation has highlighted where sustainability gains might have been made from university actions and investments, and this has helped with reorientation of strategy. Throughout the university’s transformational change process, a critically important 445

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

element has been the partnership with the SU. The SU has embraced the sustainability agenda, transforming its own engagement with the issues as well as reshaping its processes and procedures to enhance sustainability outcomes. We strive to engage with the 30,000 students, 4,000 staff and numerous research, teaching and commercial partners of the university to share our sustainability story. Our external accreditations have identified the strong involvement of our various communities in the sustainability journey, but we recognize that there is much more to do particularly as the community of staff and students changes on an annual cycle. Strategy 2030 now charts the course for UWE across the decade. Sustainability is at the heart of the strategy through which UWE will work to address the urgency of the climate and ecological emergency and strive to fulfil our role in the achievement of the SDGs.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT

1. Key to the university success has been having a dedicated sustainability champion on the university’s senior leadership team, the partnership with the Students’ Union and engagement with national and local sustainability organizations. 2. As sustainability initiatives and actions have become more widespread throughout the university sector, it will be harder to claim distinctiveness in this area without concerted innovation. 3. Sharing and disseminating academic research, practical successes and pedagogical innovations around sustainability can serve to enhance the reputation of the originator university and enable furtherance of the sustainability agenda by others in the sector.





APPENDIX 23.1  Knowledge Exchange for Sustainability Education Group Initial Terms of

Reference and Reporting Relationships. KESE Initial Terms of Reference and Reporting Relationships Purpose To support the delivery of the university’s sustainability strategy and learning teaching and assessment strategy. Objectives To provide strategic direction to, and oversight of, activities contributing to ESD in the curriculum. To develop networking and institutional learning opportunities in ESD. To periodically refresh our understanding of the progress of ESD nationally and internationally through benchmarking with other institutions. To identify opportunities for new programmes and/or short courses in ESD. To provide periodic updating of institutional developments and practices in the form of reports to the Sustainability Board, Academic Standards and Quality Committee and other UWE fora. To provide advice and support for the training and development of UWE staff for and in ESD.

446

Transformational Change Agenda

APPENDIX 23.2  Sustainability Board Terms of Reference

Purpose To enhance the sustainability practices and developments of the university in all its educational and operational endeavours and thereby to build up the reputation of the university and its attractiveness to current and future students and staff as a place of study or employment. To consider contemporary and emergent sustainability risks, opportunities and challenges and to advise the university on appropriate actions. Terms of Reference To support the achievement of Strategy 2020’s objectives. To support implementation of Strategy 2030’s aims and objectives. To guide, support and develop the university’s integrated approach to embedding sustainability in all of its endeavours. To oversee implementation and achievement of the current sustainability plan. To oversee development and implementation of the Climate Action and Sustainability Strategy 2030. To advise the Vice-Chancellor, Academic Board and the Board of Governors on progress with the plan and matters pertaining to risk and reputation. To share good practice and promote continuous improvement. To assure the university that the requirements of ISO 14001–2015 certification are met. To assure the university that the requirements of Responsible Futures accreditation are met. To support the implementation of the PRME across the university. To advise on the sustainability implications of current and future policies and practices. To advise on the continuing appropriateness of the Ethical Investment Policy. To establish appropriate procedures to ensure effective communications within the university on issues discussed and decisions taken by the board.

References Aben, I., Brooks, I., Esnaola, A., Jarvis, C., Lopez Perez, S., Prieto Alonso, J., and Rajala, M. (2016). ‘GreenPreneurs’, in D. Remenyi (ed.), Innovation & Entrepreneurship Teaching Excellence Awards: An Anthology of Case Histories. Academic Conferences & Publishing International, pp. 1–13. Advance HE (2018). ‘Collaborative Approach to Teaching Excellence Award’. https://www.heacad​emy. ac.uk/cate-2018?page=1. Accessed 21 November 2021. Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (1990). ‘Talloires Declaration’. http://ulsf.org/ talloi​res-decl​arat​ion/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Bigg, M., Brooks, I., Clayton, W., Darwen, J., Gough, G., Hyland, F., Longhurst, J. W. S., Tierney, A., Tweddell, H., Walsh, A., and Willmore, C. (2018). ‘Bridging the Gap: A Case Study of a Partnership Approach to Skills Development through Student Engagement in Bristol’s Green Capital Year’. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3 (1), pp. 417–28. Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change (n.d.). ‘About BACCC’. https://theba​ccc.org/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Bristol City Council (2016). ‘Bristol’s Resilience Strategy’. https://www.bris​tol.gov.uk/docume​ nts/20182/1308​373/Bris​tol+Res​ilie​nce+Strat​egy/31a76​8fc-2e9e-4e6c-83ed-56024​21bb​3e3. Accessed 5 December 2021. Bristol Green Capital Partnership (n.d.). ‘Bristol Green Capital Partnership’. https://bris​tolg​reen​capi​tal. org/. Accessed 5 December 2021.

447

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Bristol One City Office (n.d.). ‘One City Climate Strategy’. https://www.bri​stol​onec​ity.com/one-city-str​ ateg​ies/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Bristol One City Office (n.d.). ‘One City Plan’. https://www.bri​stol​onec​ity.com/about-the-one-city-plan/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Brooks, I. (2019). ‘ICT Sustainability from Day One: Introducing New Computer Science Students at a UK University to Sustainability’. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2382/ICT​4S20​ 19_p​aper​_15.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2021. Brooks, I. (2020). ‘The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Systems Engineering: Eliciting Sustainability Requirements’. 7th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S2020). Bristol: ACM, p. 8. doi: 10.1145/3401335.3401359. Chalkley, B. (2001). Introducing the National Subject Centre: What’s It All About?’ Planet, 1 (1), p. 3. Cicmil, S., Gough, G., and Hills, S. (2017). ‘Insights Into Responsible Education for Sustainable Development: The Case of UWE, Bristol’. International Journal of Management Education, 15 (2), pp. 293–305. Climate Commission for Higher and Further Education (2020). ‘Climate Action Toolkit for HE’. https:// www.eauc.org.uk/cli​mate​_com​miss​ion. Accessed 21 November 2021. Companies House (n.d.). ‘Low Carbon Southwest CIC. Company Number 07323285’. https://find-andupd​ate.comp​any-info​rmat​ion.serv​ice.gov.uk/comp​any/07323​285. Accessed December 2021. Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges (2010). ‘Green Gown Awards 2010 Winners’ Brochure’. https://www.sus​tain​abil​itye​xcha​nge.ac.uk/green_gown_a​ward​s_20​10_w​inne​rs_b​roch​ure. Accessed 5 December 2021. European Green Capital (n.d.). ‘2015 – Bristol’. https://ec.eur​opa.eu/envi​ronm​ent/europ​eang​reen​capi​tal/ winn​ing-cit​ies/2015-bris​tol/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Fiselier, E., and Longhurst, J. W. S. (2018). ‘A Critical Evaluation of the Representation of the QAA and HEA Guidance on ESD in Public Web Environments of UK Higher Education Institutions’, in W. Leal Filho (ed.), Implementing Sustainability in the Curriculum of Universities. World Sustainability Series. New York: Springer, pp. 223–46. Fiselier, E. S., Longhurst, J. W. S., and Gough, G. K. (2018). ‘Exploring the Current Position of ESD in UK Higher Education Institutions’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19 (2), pp. 393–412. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2017-0084. Gough, G. (2017). ‘UWE Bristol and the UN SDGs’. http://www2.uwe.ac.uk/servi​ces/Market​ing/ about-us/pdf/Sus​tain​abil​ity documents/UWE_and_SDGs_Display_full_set_of_maps.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2021. Gough, G. K., and Longhurst, J. W. S. (2015). ‘Embedding Sustainability across the Curriculum via Collaboration: A Review of Progress in the University of the West of England’, in W. Leal Filho, U. M. Azeiteiro, S. Caeiro and F. Alves (eds), Integrating Sustainability Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula: Innovative Approaches, Methods and Tools. New York: Springer, pp. 513–27. Gough, G. K., and Longhurst, J. W. S. (2018). ‘Monitoring Progress towards Implementing Sustainability and Representing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Curriculum at UWE Bristol’, in W. Leal Filho (ed.), Implementing Sustainability in the Curriculum of Universities, New York: Springer, pp. 279–90. Greenhouse Gas Protocol (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://ghgp​roto​col.org/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Longhurst, J. W. S., and Gough, G. K. (2018). ‘Towards a Sustainable University. A Case Study of the University of the West of England, Bristol’, in G. Passerini and N. Marchettini (eds), Sustainable Development and Planning X (WIT Transactions on Ecology and Environment). Volume 217. Southampton: WIT Press, pp. 807–20. Longhurst, J. W. S., Gough, G. K., Hills, S., and Grant, M. (2015). ‘Developing a Holistic Approach to Implementing Education for Sustainable Development across a Higher Educational Institute: A Longitudinal Study of the University of the West of England, Bristol’, in W. Leal Filho, U. M. Azeiteiro, S. Caeiro and F. Alves (eds), Integrating Sustainability Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula: Innovative Approaches, Methods and Tools. New York: Springer, pp. 528–32.

448

Transformational Change Agenda

Malmodin, J., and Lundén, D. (2018). ‘The Energy and Carbon Footprint of the Global ICT and E&M Sectors 2010–2015’. Sustainability, 10 (9), p. 3027. Oxford Economics (2015). ‘The Economic Impact of the University of the West of England’. https://www2. uwe.ac.uk/servi​ces/Market​ing/about-us/pdf/UWE-econo​mic-imp​act.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2021. Price, E. A. C., White, R. M., Gough, G., Preist, C., Baughan, P., Hayles, C. S., Mori, K., and Longhurst, J. (2021). ‘Supporting the Role of Universities in Leading Individual and Societal Transformation through Education for Sustainable Development’. Discover Sustainability, 2, p. 49. Quality Assurance Agency and Advance HE (2021). Education for Sustainable Development Guidance. QAA: Gloucester. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/qual​ity-code/educat​ion-for-sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent. Accessed 21 November 2021. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and Higher Education Academy (HEA) (2014). Education for Sustainable Development: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers. QAA: Gloucester. Rajala, M., and the Greenpreneurs Project Team (2017). Greenpreneurs: A Handbook for Trainers. http:// greenp​rene​urs.eu/resu​lts/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Razzaque, J., and Visseren-Hamakers, I. (2019). ‘Global Assessment: Chapter 6: Options for Decision Makers’, in Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), p. 260. Rockefeller Foundation (n.d.). ‘100 Resilient Cities Initiative’. https://www.rockef​elle​rfou​ndat​ion. org/100-resili​ent-cit​ies/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Science Based Targets Initiative. (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://scie​nceb​ased​targ​ets.org/. Accessed 21 November 2021. SDG Accord (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.sdgacc​ord.org/. Accessed 21 November 2021. South Gloucestershire Council. Climate Emergency Action Plan (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://beta.southg​ los.gov.uk/clim​ate-emerge​ncy-in-south-glou​cest​ersh​ire. Accessed 21 November 2021. Students Organising for Sustainability (n.d.). ‘Responsible Futures’. https://www.sos-uk.org/proj​ect/resp​ onsi​ble-futu​res. Accessed 21 November 2021. Students’ Union (SU) at UWE (n.d. a). ‘Home Page’. https://www.thest​uden​tsun​ion.co.uk/union/sus​tain​ abil​ity/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Students’ Union (SU) at UWE (n.d. b). ‘Green Impact Scheme’. https://www.thest​uden​tsun​ion.co.uk/ union/sus​tain​abil​ity/award_​winn​ing/. Accessed 21 November 2021. Toyne, P. (1993). Environmental Responsibility: An Agenda for Further and Higher Education. Report of a Committee on Environmental Education in Further and Higher Education. London: HMSO. UK Government (1994). Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy, CM 2426, London: HMSO. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992a). ‘Agenda 21’. https://sus​tain​able​ deve​lopm​ent.un.org/cont​ent/docume​nts/Agend​a21.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2021. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992b). ‘Home Page’. https://www.un.org/ en/conf​eren​ces/envi​ronm​ent/rio1​992. Accessed 21 November 2021. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Steering Committee on Education for Sustainable Development (2011). Learning for the Future: Competences in Education for Sustainable Development. ECE/CEP/AC.13/2011/6. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (n.d.). cited in Longhurst, J. W. S., Gough, G. K., Hills, S., and Grant, M. (2015). ‘Developing a Holistic Approach to Implementing Education for Sustainable Development across a Higher Educational Institute: A Longitudinal Study of the University of the West of England, Bristol’, in W. Leal Filho, U. M. Azeiteiro, S. Caeiro and F. Alves (eds), Integrating Sustainability Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula: Innovative Approaches, Methods and Tools. New York: Springer, pp. 528–32. United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations. http://www.un.org/ga/sea​rch/view_​doc. asp?sym​bol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed 21 November 2021. United Nations Race to Zero for Universities and Colleges (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.educ​atio​nrac​ etoz​ero.org/. Accessed 21 November 2021.

449

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

University of the West of England (2005). Sustainability Action Plan. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2006a). Environmental Purchasing Plan. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2006b). ‘UWE Success with Great Western Research’. https://info. uwe.ac.uk/news/uwen​ews/news.aspx?id=874 Bristol: UWE Bristol. Accessed 5 December 2021. University of the West of England (2007). Sustainability Strategy. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2008). Education for Sustainable Development Baseline Study: The State of Play at UWE. Report for the Sustainability Board. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2010). Strategy 2020. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2014). Sustainability Plan 2013–2020. Positive Footprint: Phase 2. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2015). ‘Whole Earth? Exhibition Unveiled at UWE’. https://info.uwe. ac.uk/news/uwen​ews/news.aspx?id=3195. Accessed 5 December 2021. University of the West of England (2017). Sustainability Plan 2017–2020. Positive Footprint: 2.1. Bristol: UWE Bristol. University of the West of England (2020a). ‘Annual Report and Accounts’. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/ struct​ure-and-gov​erna​nce/financ​ial-info​rmat​ion. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2020b). ‘Strategy 2030’. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/val​ues-vis​ionstrat​egy/strat​egy-2030. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2020c). ‘Annual ESD Report and Action Plan’. https://www.uwe. ac.uk/about/val​ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/strat​egy-lea​ders​hip-and-plans/pol​icy-and-strat​egydocume​nts. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2020d). ‘Annual Sustainability Report, 2019/20’. https://www.uwe. ac.uk/about/val​ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/strat​egy-lea​ders​hip-and-plans/pol​icy-and-strat​egydocume​nts. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2021a). ‘Carbon and Energy Management Plan 2020–2030’. https:// www.uwe.ac.uk/about/val​ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/strat​egy-lea​ders​hip-and-plans/pol​icy-andstrat​egy-docume​nts. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2021b). ‘Skills for Clean Growth’. https://blogs.uwe.ac.uk/ resea​rch-busin​ess-inn​ovat​ion/uwe-bris​tol-annou​nce-upcom​ing-ski​lls-for-clean-gro​wth-progra​ mme-for-smes-in-the-west-of-engl​and/. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2021c). ‘Sustainability Action Plans’. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/ val​ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/strat​egy-lea​ders​hip-and-plans/pol​icy-and-strat​egy-docume​nts. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (2021d). ‘Sustainability Plan – End of Plan Report’. https://www.uwe. ac.uk/about/val​ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/strat​egy-lea​ders​hip-and-plans/pol​icy-and-strat​egydocume​nts. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (n.d. a). ‘CAKE’. http://go.uwe.ac.uk/cake. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (n.d. b). ‘ISO 14001–2015 Standard’. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/val​ ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/iso-14001-certif​icat​ion. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (n.d. c). ‘Ethical Investment Policy’. https://www2.uwe.ac.uk/servi​ ces/Market​ing/about-us/pdf/Sus​tain​abil​ity%20do​cume​nts/Ethi​cal-Inv​estm​ent-Pol​icy.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (n.d. d). ‘Research with Impact’. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/resea​rch/resea​ rch-with-imp​act. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England (n.d. e). ‘Sustainability Policy and Strategy Documents’. https://www. uwe.ac.uk/about/val​ues-vis​ion-strat​egy/sus​tain​abil​ity/strat​egy-lea​ders​hip-and-plans/pol​icy-and-strat​ egy-docume​nts. Accessed 21 November 2021. University of the West of England Board of Governors (2020). ‘Declaration of a Climate and Ecological Emergency’. https://www2.uwe.ac.uk/servi​ces/Market​ing/about-us/pdf/Polic​ies/UWE-Bris​tol-Board-ofGovern​ors-Decl​arat​ion-of-Clim​ate-and-Eco​logi​cal-Emerge​ncy-v3.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2021.

450

451

24

Role of Anchor Institutions towards Community Development ASHISH JOSHI

Introduction Social and demographic conditions continue to shift for most people in the twenty-first century, with urbanization a dominant global trend. The knowledge ecosystem of cities may include several universities, academic hospital centres and research institutes, with linkages across sectors. The multifaceted needs of cities and the complex relationships between cities and these institutions increase the responsibility of the higher education institutions (HEIs) to participate actively in their communities (Taylor et al., 2013). HEIs play a significant role in improving cities’ economic growth, social status and developing solutions through collaboration across diverse stakeholders. They also have an essential role in successfully implementing the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Caputo et al., 2021). Higher education contributes to advancing the SDGs and incorporates the principles, values and practices of sustainable development (SD) into education and learning, highlighting the importance of education to sustainability (Wals, 2014). HEIs can play a significant role in enhancing SD by integrating the principles of sustainability in research, teaching, service and knowledge creation (Sterling, 2013). Despite the significance and relevance of the principles of sustainability, integration into the organizational culture, academic curricula or programme offerings of HEIs remains limited (Leal Filho et al., 2018). Indeed, there is little research evaluating HEIs’ economic and social impact. While several initiatives or programmes at individual institutions assess the effects of higher education research on a city, there is a lack of conceptual frameworks that reflect their impact. HEIs need to plan and act to solve the complex social and economic challenges of the twenty-first century (Rieckmann, 2012; Brundiers et al., 2021). To do so, they need to facilitate multisector collaboration, guide co-creation and employ a participatory approach through broad stakeholder engagement with people and organizations across diverse scientific or societal backgrounds to solve complex reallife problems (Giesenbauer and Müller-Christ, 2020). HEIs and society are essential drivers of organizational transformation (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008). Participation between stakeholders across fields and sectors is key (Disterheft et al., 2015; Hoover and Harder, 2015; Leal Filho et al., 2019). This relies on responsible leadership, facilitating collaboration and finding new ways to innovate (Davis and Goedegebuure, 2017, p. 226). Effective partnerships are essential for community-based solutions to address social and 451

452

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

economic inequalities. The concepts of disruption, innovation, paradigm shift and design thinking have become guiding principles for engaging in this emerging collaborative cross-sector work. Anchor Institutions and Their Characteristics Aspen Institute first coined the term ‘anchor institution’ in a 2001 study (Meagan, 2017). They include significant urban infrastructure that is unlikely to move (Fulbright-Anderson et al., 2001). Characterized as place-based institutions (Harkavy et al., 2014), anchor institutions play an essential role in building thriving communities and local economies (Taylor and Luter, 2013). They tend to be large, locally embedded institutions, typically non-governmental public sector, cultural or other civic organizations of significant importance to the economy (Taylor and Luter, 2013). The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines anchor institutions as having regional significance and serving as a critical economic driver (Choice Neighborhoods Grant Program, 2012, p. 10), as organizations that generate jobs, create business opportunities and develop their city/region’s human, social and cultural capital. The mission of anchor institutions reflects community engagement and social service, being grounded in the current and future well-being of a specified place (Smallbone et al., 2015). Universities along with their academic medical centres and hospitals are identified as anchor institutions (Taylor and Luter, 2013). Similarly, the Democracy Collaborative classifies non-profits as potential anchors, including cultural institutions, sports teams, churches or libraries (Democracy Collaborative, n.d.). Characteristics of Anchor Institutions Anchor institutions are mission-oriented and possess local connections towards community engagement and social service. They contribute to the creation of more equitable cities, often being the largest employers and having substantial purchasing power (Birch et al., 2013). Anchor institutions have four significant properties that serve as a valuable framework for understanding their potential role and purpose. 1. Institutional mission: They possess a social-purpose mission and have social and cultural influence in the community. 2. Institutional size: They employ large numbers of people and have significant purchasing power. 3. Spatial immobility: Their mission and commitment result in the institution being tied to a specific location. 4. Corporate status: They are typically non-profit. The economic, intellectual and human capital of an anchor institution puts it in a unique position to improve and enrich the surrounding community. The impact on the community is especially visible when an anchor institution aligns its resources and strategies to benefit the communities working in partnership with other key place-based stakeholders from sectors such as government, business and faith, as well as from community-based organizations and residents.

Role of Universities as Anchor Institutions Universities have various roles, such as being centres of knowledge and hubs of innovation, experimentation and critical discussion. They are significant employers and landholders, 452

Anchor Institutions and Community

contributing to the physical characteristics and the economic impact of their location. The majority of the universities are located in urban centres and generate significant economic activity in a city. They do so via academic research, service provision and the attraction of a large student body (Goddard et al., 2014). Researchers began to study the possibility of universities as anchor institutions in the 1990s (Table 24.1). Universities as place-bound organizations have significant ties to their local communities (Birch et al., 2013; Taylor and Luter, 2013; Goddard et al., 2014) and bring key advantages (and some disadvantages) to the community. These benefits include purchasing power, local hiring initiatives, research and teaching functions, and real estate ownership (Harkavy and Zuckerman, 1999). Global studies have shown tremendous positive regional economic impacts of universities through innovation and knowledge transfer. A city needs to create an environment of innovation with policies that facilitate entrepreneurship to capture fully the benefits of its HEIs. However, educational innovations are changing how individuals learn and the perceptions of place-based learning. Online learning enables students to engage with university programmes beyond a city’s boundaries. Similarly, while close physical proximity is an essential element of business–university engagement, it is not the only requirement (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006).

Impact of Anchor Institutions on Community Development Anchor institutions can play an important role in elevating community conditions through a series of multilevel strategies and economic investment. These include the creation of workforce training and living-wage jobs with benefits, creating and improving affordable housing, increasing local safety and access to parks, and many others. Universities serve as community anchors when they make decisions that leverage economic, human and intellectual capital (Hodges and Dubb, 2012). Intellectual capital is the most fundamental benefit HEIs can offer to their communities (Shaffer and Wright, 2010). HEIs can partner with the private sector, supporting community and economic development, and are often among the largest employers in their cities. These partnerships exist through teaching, research and service, capacity-building practices, and programmes and services. Universities are creative catalysts for change and their work can lead to improvements in communities, with some embedding civic engagement across all institutional activities. A primary goal should be to fully engage the university’s resources, including human, cultural and educational, in mutually beneficial partnerships. Key stakeholders of an anchor institution typically include state and federal governments, students, parents, alumni, businesses, foundations and donors. Programmes of engagement need stable, recurring funding. Examining the impact of HEIs on cities is critical. For example, the Greater University Circle Initiative brings together Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals and the Cleveland Clinic to boost income and opportunities for the 60,000 residents of seven low-income neighbourhoods (Wright et al., 2016). They work collaboratively to generate sufficient resources and funds to buy, hire and live locally. HEIs have increasingly undertaken active measures to contribute to SD (Amaral et al., 2015). HEI engagement with SD has significantly increased, promoted through the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005–14), which aimed to integrate the principles of SD into all aspects of HEIs (Findler et al., 2019). There is a need to include SD in 453

454

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

TABLE 24.1  Evolution of the Role of Universities as Anchor Institutions

Phases

Acts

Description

Outcome

The First Era

The Morrill Act of 1862

Government allocated land for the creation of land-grant colleges. Facilitated curriculum changes intended to extend higher education beyond liberal arts and theology.

Failed to achieve its initial purpose of bolstering local industry. Fostered connections between the university and the regional economy.

The Second Era

University and the urban laboratory (early twentieth century)

Universities engaged with local neighbourhoods to address physical and social ills, e.g., Settlement House Movement.

Decreased community partnerships around social issues.

The Third Era

Universities as a tool for urban renewal (urban renewal era)

University anchors pursued direct intervention in neighbourhoods. Universities were perceived as inward-looking campuses and as isolated academic centres.

Resulted in limited trust in university–community interactions during this period.

The Fourth Era

University– community partnerships

Universities emphasized outreach, including civic engagement, academic-based community research, and service-learning as a means of intellectual neighbourhood engagement and service delivery.

Strengthened the role of civic engagement and university–community partnership. Two significant events happened: The US Department of HUD established the Office of University Partnerships (OUP) and Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPCs). The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities was convened in 1996.

The Fifth Era

University anchors and neighbourhood revitalization

University anchors worked as city developers and planners.

Neighbourhood revitalization beyond community partnership.

Source: Author.

454

Anchor Institutions and Community

education for students and staff. However, education for sustainability is geographically unequal, and more efforts are needed to reduce the differences around the world (Samuelsson and Park, 2017; Nagendra et al., 2018; Singer-Brodowski et al., 2019). Some universities work as partners with their surrounding communities to create communities of practice to solve community problems. This enables the university to form relationships that are more productive with community stakeholders and function as an anchor institution. The goal is to establish effective collaboration to create shared solutions between HEIs and local stakeholders. For example, the Sustainable Toronto project involving the University of Toronto, York University, the City of Toronto as well as local environmental groups is a community-based research initiative engaging community members and outside researchers, resulting in various advantages for the community (University of Toronto, n.d.). For HEIs to contribute to positive change in their communities and cities, they need to examine and change (as appropriate) their organizational cultures and structures, and embed civic engagement across the organization. Several frameworks highlight the breadth of skills, assets and opportunities an anchor institution possesses and identify ways to leverage those opportunities for neighbourhood improvement. 1. Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC, n.d.) identifies key role for anchor institutions in urban communities (Figure 24.1). Key roles proposed by the ICIC include: ○ Core institutional role: The university provides education and services and serves as an innovation hub. It facilitates and leverages talent, capital and business development and growth.

Core instuonal role

Public purpose role

Acon Plan Iniave

Economic role

Physical role

FIGURE 24.1  Proposed functions of the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. Source: Author.

455

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education



2.

3.

4.

5.



456

○ Economic role: The anchor can access its role as an employer, purchaser of goods and services, and resource for workforce development. ○ Physical role: The university acts as a real-estate development. ○ Public purpose role: The university possesses the talent and expertise to build community capacity and infrastructure. Adopting an anchor strategy can heighten HEIs community roles as purchaser, employer and workforce developer (see Figure 24.1). The Democracy Collaborative (n.d.) framework offers a broader community impact perspective than the ICIC approach. Understanding and evaluating the roles of anchor institutions in place aims to measure and interpret their impact on the community. The indicators include economic development, local and minority hiring, procurement, business incubation, affordable housing, and arts and cultural development; community building and education of youth; in addition to health, safety and environment, addressing public safety, healthy neighbourhoods and environmental stewardship. HEIs offer access to knowledge networks to create a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship (Arbo and Benneworth, 2006). The Anchor Learning Network (n.d.) is a Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (CUMU) member-only learning community created and managed in partnership with the Democracy Collaborative. The member institutions commit to an anchor mission to apply their economic power and human capital in a long-term partnership with their local communities and to improve mutual well-being. Participants in an Anchor Learning Network explore opportunities for advancing anchor mission strategies in multiple areas – hiring, workforce development, small business and innovation centres, purchasing, supplier diversity, affordable housing and community investing – while gaining an understanding of how to advance racial equity through anchor work. Coalition of Urban Serving Universities (CUSU, n.d.) partnered with the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) to establish an Office of Urban Initiatives. The coalition includes public urban research universities, representing all US geographic regions across twenty-four states. The organization is committed to achieving equitable and sustainable economic, health and educational outcomes for historically marginalized and disenfranchised student populations on campus and within our urban communities. Universities employ various types of economic approaches based upon the capital they are investing in including financial, physical, intellectual and human – most of these approaches are not mutually exclusive. Financial capital: Universities leverage financial capital through three main types of anchor institution initiatives: ○ Create housing programmes that aim to improve housing stock and raise the market value of homes in a neighbourhood. For example, the University of Pennsylvania and Syracuse University offer mortgages backed by the university to faculty who live in specific neighbourhoods, and both universities purchased and renovated properties for resale within those communities (Hodges and Dubb, 2012; Wittman and Crews, 2012). ○ Prioritize local businesses when purchasing goods and services. ○ Establish and fund community development corporations and non-profits with goals related to community and economic development of a targeted neighbourhood or constituency.

Anchor Institutions and Community

6. Physical capital: Real-estate development is perhaps the most visible component of anchor institution initiatives in urban development (Friedman et al., 2013). 7. Intellectual capital: Universities employ the expertise and discovery capabilities of students and faculty to foster competitive business hubs through technology transfer or business incubators (Wittman and Crews, 2012). Academic engagement can also apply faculty expertise for the purposes of community and economic development. Academic engagement is categorized into four typologies including ○ Service learning ○ Engaged research ○ Consulting services ○ Commercialization 8. Human capital: Universities invest their own financial, physical and intellectual capital in anchor institution initiatives for local economic development. They also invest various resources in local communities’ human capital, including partnerships with health organizations, support for local school systems, hiring of local applicants, crime reduction or cultural vitality (Hodges and Dubb, 2012). Forming an anchor collaboration takes effort and time to get institutions to see their common interests and potential alignment. However, there are several challenges to navigate to create successful partnerships comprising anchor institutions (Table 24.2). TABLE 24.2  Challenges and Possible Solutions towards Establishing Anchor Collaborations

Challenges

Possible Solutions

Hiring local and disadvantaged workers who have the requisite training and experience.

Ensure collaborative groups are working with workforce development partners to recruit and train future employees, re-assess their job requirements for accuracy as well as build out career ladders.

Building trust, shared intention and buy-in between all the players.

Identify potential obstacles and opportunities.

Resolving organizational structure issues.

Identify organizations that should serve as the collaborative, and who should be involved, and how the collaborative should be funded and staffed.

Facing anchor engagement challenges.

Build partnerships with anchor institution staff at all levels of the organization.

Scaling up the impact.

Identify the infrastructure needs essential to generate the outcomes and the impact needed.

Using data to benchmark impact.

Assess the impact on change that is being made in the communities.

Moving the work forward.

Identify a core group of members who will consistently champion and advance work within institutions and move towards action and implementation.

Change within institutions.

Identify policies, assumptions, biases or communication structures.

Source: Author.

457

458

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Measuring the Impact of HEIs as Anchor Institutions on Sustainability HEIs are key drivers for the development of sustainable societies. The role of HEIs in achieving SD was highlighted for the first time in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (United Nations, n.d.). Lozano et al. (2013) reported HEIs’ commitment to SD across a variety of national and international declarations and charters. As anchor institutions, universities can embrace community building in order to build a sustainable ecosystem that promotes equity and provides direct benefit to local residents. Anchor institutions can be important partners in implementing strategies for a more resilient regional economy and widening access to economic opportunities. Several strategies can be employed to advance economic inclusion. These include: 1. Invest in local neighbourhood development for sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). Anchor institutions make substantial investments to enhance the quality of the physical environment of their surrounding neighbourhoods, including in transportation, community safety, commercial corridors, and social and cultural centres. These investments can help to grow local businesses and concentrate jobs where anchors are located. 2. Building an innovation economy to reduce inequalities (SDG 10): Anchor institutions have a direct link to the innovation economy. They help to create spin-off companies from their research and support the knowledge economy through less formal interactions between researchers and the business community. An absence of an equity lens in the innovation economy, however, can place working families at an economic disadvantage and deepen inequality. Opening up opportunities in the innovation economy to individuals from lowincome communities and communities of colour is vital to a region’s ongoing economic competitiveness. 3. Partnerships for goals (SDG 17): Anchor institutions spend billions a year on the contracting and procurement of goods and services offered by local, small, minority-owned and womenowned businesses, rather than out-of-state or international companies. 4. Good jobs and economic growth (SDG 8): Anchors can deepen their economic impact by creating pathways to jobs for local residents from low-income communities by providing workforce training, hiring incentives and career development. Anchor institutions can partner with local community organizations to provide training programmes, educational opportunities and hands-on workshops in green development or lend their expertise in green programmes to building developments and rehabilitations.

Innovative Approach towards Community Development using the SMAART Model The SMAART (Sustainable Multisector Accessible Affordable Reimbursable and Tailored) Model is a framework created to solve real problems with real solutions (Figure 24.2). This dynamic and flexible approach has been implemented across sectors and under different circumstances and has helped change many lives for the better. It facilitates the collection and processing of multifaceted, multilevel, multidimensional community-level data into meaningful and contextually relevant information (Figure 24.3). It is a human-centric and impact-driven

458

459

Anchor Institutions and Community

Sustainable

Use real data and evidence to ensure that developed solutions are sustainable

Multisectoral

Integrate non-health determinants with health data to influence outcomes

Accessible

Make Information and services accessible to all

Affordable

Create solutions that are affordable to all

Reimbursable

Return on investment with cost-effective solutions

Tailored

Meeting needs of the individuals across diverse setting

FIGURE 24.2  SMAART Model (Joshi et al., 2021).

FIGURE 24.3  Data and information knowledge framework of the SMAART Model (Joshi et al., 2021).

459

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

ANCHOR INSTITUTION SDG 17

Improve health and well-being (SDGs 3 & 6)

Ideation

Community based

Human centred

Technology enabled

SUSTAINABLE SDG 11

University setting

Evaluation

Inputs

SMAART Hub Multisector engagement

Implementation

Multisector engagement

Individuals trained (SDG 4)

Innovation

Outputs

Product creation (SDGs 5 & 8)

Intervention Job creation (SDGs 1, 2, 5 & 8)

DATA, INFORMATION

Community setting

KNOWLEDGE CREATION

FIGURE 24.4  SMAART Hub as a facilitator between university and community settings to advance the SDGs. Source: Author.

solution with the goal of enhancing the health and well-being of diverse communities across the globe (Joshi et al., 2017). The SMAART model employs a ‘middle-out’ approach, that is, a bridge between a top–down and bottom–up approach. It allows data-driven and evidence-based policies to be made based on community data and the participation and engagement of community, which is essential to the SMAART Model. It permits the design, development and evaluation of human-centred, sustainable, multisector, accessible, affordable, reimbursable and tailored solutions to be implemented in community settings. The SMAART model addresses interaction across various SDGs such as no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17) (Joshi et al., 2019) (Figure 24.4). The SMAART Hub can act as an anchor institution for community development. The concept of SMAART Hubs is to develop a digitally empowered hub, driven by data and based on community Research, Innovation, Skills, and Entrepreneurship (C-RISE). SMAART Hub is a non-profit incubator aimed to advance the achievement of the SDGs across diverse community settings 460

Anchor Institutions and Community

through data-driven, evidence-based multisector collaborations, innovations, interventions and programmes. It was developed based on the SMAART model and combines principles of data; information and knowledge; human-centred approach and information processing theory; and humanistic, behavioural and learning theories (Joshi et al., 2019). The vision of the SMAART Hub was rooted in the concept of bringing social and economic transformation through multisector collaboration, broad and diverse stakeholder engagement, design and development of human-centred interventions, innovative and entrepreneurial initiatives, imparting skills and training that is essential for job readiness and for creating sustainable employment opportunities in local communities where the hubs are established. The goal of these hubs is to commit towards local community development through communityenabled research, innovation, skills and entrepreneurship and employment creation. Case Study of SMAART Hub, New Delhi, India An example of a SMAART Hub is the Foundation of Healthcare Technologies Society (FHTS1), a non-profit incubator established in New Delhi, India. It aims to use community-level data to design human-centred interventions, programmes and innovations that will help address social, economic and health inequities across local community settings. More than 95 per cent of the employees within the SMAART hub are women coming from varied family structures. The SMAART Hub plays an important role as an anchor institution by focusing on data-driven decision-making and translating research findings into practice to enhance community health and well-being (SDG 3). The hub has the potential to be adopted by universities or HEIs who plan to commit themselves towards becoming an anchor institution. These hubs can be developed by different universities as extended centres to provide communities with the essential support to improve their health and overall well-being. The SMAART Hub also facilitates the collaboration of universities with local communities through partnerships and multi-stakeholder engagement to conduct community-based research and assess individuals’ needs. These partnerships are facilitated through collaborative funded and unfunded projects. Based on research findings, SMAART Hub designs and develops human-centred, technology-enabled interventions, innovations and community programmes that translate research findings into practice to help advance the achievement of SDGs in the local communities (Figure 24.5). The SMAART Hubs are now being expanded to be developed in the other parts of India including in Chennai (Tamil Nadu state), and Dehradun (Uttarakhand state). Since 2016, FHTS has been implementing using the SMAART model to address social, economic inequalities across urban slum settings in New Delhi (Joshi et al., 2019). Nearly thirty-eight urban slum locations were identified, and efforts were put in to enhance good health and well-being, create skills and training initiatives for the individuals in the local community, generate products locally as well as create employment opportunities in local settings. Examples of the different community initiatives driven by this SMAART Hub include Health for All, INSPIRE and RISE that aim to address several SDGs across local community settings. These initiatives are outlined briefly: 1. Health for All (SDG 3): Swasthya Pahal (Health for All) is an innovative communitybased programme, facilitated through an interactive, multilingual, standalone and internetenabled touch screen computer-based programme that aims to enhance self-management of 461

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Community engagement

SMAART Hub as an Anchor Institution

University setting

APPROACH

COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

OUTCOMES

Community data

Health for all

Improve health and well-being SDG 3

Human centred

INSPIRE

Impart essential skills and training SDG 4

Technology enabled

DIK principles

Multisector engagement

RISE products

Generate local employment

Enhance SDGs

Innovative product creation SDGs 5 & 8

Sustainable job creation SDGs 1, 2 & 8

FIGURE 24.5  Framework of the SMAART Hub. Source: Author.

non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including diabetes, hypertension and obesity among individuals living across diverse community settings (Joshi et al., 2021). This community programme facilitates the collection of individual subjective and objective data using the SMAART informatics platform. Algorithms (‘if and then’ rules applied to problem-solving) were applied to the garnered data to generate an electronic evidence-based report called a SMAART health card that identifies the risk factors of participants across multiple variables and provides tailored recommendations and reinforcement. More than 8,000 individuals across diverse settings have been screened using this platform, and the platform won the 2018 runner-up Digital Commonwealth award. 2. Interactive Novel Support Programme for Innovation, Research, and Entrepreneurship (INSPIRE; SDG 4): The INSPIRE initiative aims to address population health challenges of the twenty-first century by enhancing academic and non-academic skills of students during their field practicum, research thesis or experiential learning. The INSPIRE experiential learning programme is conceptualized as a project-based approach to provide learning opportunities to students and practitioners. Project-based learning is a skills-based teaching approach that engages students in collaborative real-world problem-solving. Projects are organized around a driving question, and students then engage in tasks and discussions that help them answer the question at hand. Mentorship is an integral component of INSPIRE and provides students with an opportunity to gain field experience, conduct primary research, engage in real-world technological innovations as well as design, implement and evaluate solutions to enhance the well-being of individuals, communities and the environment they live in. In addition, students develop employability skills such as leadership, effective communication, team building, project management, budget planning and manuscript writing. 462

Anchor Institutions and Community

3. Research, Innovation, Skills, and Entrepreneurship (RISE; SDGs 5, 8, 10): The RISE initiative aims to empower individuals aspiring to make the world a better place through research, innovation, skills and entrepreneurship. The importance of research-based analysis in the generation of new products is the key. RISE works after change agents within the local community setting are identified. An assessment of local community needs was conducted to identify the requirements and community data gathered on social determinants with the help of the change agents. Based on the needs and requirements identified, innovative products are created to fulfil these needs. The local workforce is provided with the essential skills and training and provided with access to the necessary resources to create these products. This helps in creating stipend opportunities, preparing a job-ready workforce and creating employability. RISE addresses the following SDGs: good jobs and economic growth (SDG 8), reduced inequalities (SDG 10) and gender equality (SDG 5). RISE addresses the problems of employability and limited skills, supports research-driven product innovation and creates new employment opportunities in a local community setting. 4. Local employment generation (SDGs 1, 2, 8): All these research-driven community initiatives led to the creation of employment opportunities within the SMAART Hub, facilitating the training of individuals to develop their talents and help make them more employable and self-reliant, supporting the development of a sustainable environment of gainful employment experience. Challenges during SMAART Hub Implementation Several challenges were encountered during the inception of the implementation of the SMAART Hub. Initially, as it was a conceptual model it was difficult for people to comprehend. Given community engagement and research were the predominant pillars of the SMAART Hub, building community trust was a major hurdle. The majority of the individuals perceived that several universities, institutions or community-based organizations had come and collected data or undertaken research and then never came back. In addition, it was hard to understand who to engage within the local community as there were several leader groups, with different political affiliations; lack of resources and funding hindered the advancement of the initiatives. Developing partnerships with local communitybased organizations was challenging, as they sometimes perceived the activities of SMAART Hub as competing with their own interests. Regular, clear communication was critical to keeping them informed and building trust. A lack of transparency, even if unintended, raises mistrust and misinformation. Key Learnings Ongoing stakeholder engagement with local community leaders as well as partnerships with frontline or community health workers who were trusted were the most important ways to overcome these initial challenges (Table 24.2). Orienting individuals within the community about the benefits of the activities of the SMAART Hub in a public forum was useful and garnered trust among the community as they could openly ask any questions and seek clarification. Identification of change agents within the community helped tremendously in navigating the local communities (Figure 24.6). 463

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Identify communities in need of support and change Design and implement SMAART interventions for the community

Engage diverse stakeholders within the community

Determine what interventions would benefit the community

Identify ‘Community Change Agents’

Gain community need insights and collect useful data to inform SMAART interventions FIGURE 24.6  Operationalization of the SMAART Model. Source: Author.

In addition, collection of data was followed up by brief community presentations about the data findings, and continuous inputs were taken from the individuals within the community. Based on the data findings, and stakeholder input, innovative human-centred solutions were developed. Some of the examples of community initiatives, such as Health for All, were immediately able to see the benefits to the community as those who had difficulty to access basic health information were able to successfully use it within their community.

Conclusions Higher education research often fails to substantially consider questions related to the importance of place and geography. However, as largely place-based organizations with significant ties to their local communities (Birch et al., 2013), they are well placed to support community-led research. As anchor institutions, they can serve a social purpose and use their economic might and intellectual and other resources to support local communities and businesses. Even small changes in an institution’s financial policies can create substantial social and economic benefits in the local community. Empirical evidence exists regarding the degree to which institutions actively operationalize a social justice mission. The engaged university movement has developed and evolved over the 464

Anchor Institutions and Community

past few decades through programmes such as service learning (Watson et al., 2011; Kronick and Cunningham, 2013) and community schools affiliated with HEIs. Researchers have not substantially considered how these initiatives might translate and work in another – especially in an urban – setting. Anchor institutions can be powerful partners in developing and implementing equitable economic development and sustainability strategy for the region. They are large and can drive innovation regionally, focusing on development and job growth, and many have a social mission as they are organized around a social purpose. HEIs need to adopt a truly transformative and realistic anchor mission. This requires leadership and staff to align internal operations with community engagement as well as greater coordination across campus and beyond, expanding the set of external stakeholders and joining place-based initiatives. In a growing number of places, local and regional organizations are engaging HEIs as important partners to advance sustainability and the SDGs through organizational activities aligned with the core elements of the HEI.

KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT





1. For many universities, place-making and the role of being an anchor institution sit comfortably with their academic mission and the pursuit of sustainability across various dimensions. 2. Universities can serve a broader social purpose and use their economic and intellectual resources to create value in local communities without risk to academic rigour and institutional reputation. 3. The anchor institution model offers key research and learning opportunities for students and faculty.

Appendix 24.1 Anchor Learning Network Members The thirty-one CUMU members that have committed to the Anchor Learning Network are as follows: • Augsburg University • Buffalo State, SUNY • California State University, Los Angeles • Case Western Reserve University • Cleveland State University • College of Staten Island • Drexel University • Florida Atlantic University • Georgetown University • Indiana University Northwest • Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) • Johns Hopkins University 465

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

• Loyola University Chicago • Marquette University • Medical College of Wisconsin • Metropolitan State University • Metropolitan State University of Denver • Rutgers University–Camden • Rutgers University–Newark • Towson University • University of Chicago • University of Denver • University of Louisville • University of Maryland, Baltimore • University of Michigan–Dearborn • University of Missouri–St. Louis • University of San Diego • Virginia Commonwealth University • Wagner College • Weber State University • York University (Canada) Source: https://www.cum​uonl​ine.org/cumu-and-the-democr​acy-collab​orat​ive-part​ner-to-lau​nchanc​hor-learn​ing-netw​ork/ (Accessed 12 December 2021). List of USU Member Institutions • California State University, Fresno • California State University, Los Angeles • California State University, Northridge • Cleveland State University • Florida International University • Georgia State University • Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis • Morgan State University • Oklahoma State University • Portland State University • Rutgers University–Newark • San Jose State University • SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University 466

Anchor Institutions and Community

• Temple University • Ohio State University • University of Akron • University of Alabama at Birmingham • University of Memphis • University of Texas at San Antonio • University of Toledo • University at Albany, SUNY • University of California, Riverside • University of Central Florida • University of Cincinnati • University of Colorado, Denver • University of Houston • University of Illinois at Chicago • University of Massachusetts Boston • University of Nevada, Las Vegas • University of New Mexico • University of New Orleans • University of North Carolina at Charlotte • University of North Texas • University of Texas at Arlington • University of Texas at El Paso • University of Washington Tacoma • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee • Virginia Commonwealth University • Wayne State University Source: https://www.usuco​alit​ion.org/memb​ers (Accessed 12 December 2021).

Note 1 www.fhts.ac.in.

References Amaral, L. P., Martins, N., and Gouveia, J. B. (2015). ‘Quest for a Sustainable University: A Review’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16 (2), pp. 155–72. Anchor Learning Network (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://www.cum​uonl​ine.org/cumu-init​iati​ves/anc​hor-miss​ ion-ini​tiat​ive/. Accessed 10 January 2021.

467

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Arbo, P., and Benneworth, P. (2007). ‘Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review’, OECD Education Working Paper No. 9, OECD Publishing. https:// Eco​nPap​ers.repec.org/RePEc:oec:edu​aab:9-en. Bercovitz, J., and Feldman, M. (2006). ‘Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development’. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, pp. 175–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10​961-005-5029-z. Birch, E., Perry, D. C., and Taylor, H. L. (2013). ‘Universities as Anchor Institutions’. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17 (3), pp. 7–15. Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., and Doucette-Remington, S. (2021). ‘Key Competencies in Sustainability in Higher Education – Toward an Agreed-Upon Reference Framework’. Sustainability Science, 16, pp. 13–29. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2. Caputo, F., Ligorio, L., and Pizzi, S. (2021). ‘The Contribution of Higher Education Institutions to the SDGs – An Evaluation of Sustainability Reporting Practices’. Administrative Sciences, 11, p. 97. Choice Neighborhoods Grant Program (2012). ‘77 Federal Register (10 May 2012)’. http://www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-10/pdf/2012-11305.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2021. Coalition of Urban Serving Universities (CUSU) (n.d.) ‘Home Page’. https://www.usuco​alit​ion.org/. Accessed 10 January 2021. Davis, H., and Goedegebuure, L. (2017). ‘Governance for Sustainability in Higher Education’, in D. Singh and C. Stückelberger (eds), Ethics in Higher Education: Values-Driven Leaders for the Future. Geneva: Globethics.net Education Ethics, pp. 217–30. Democracy Collaborative (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. http://commun​ity-wea​lth.org/str​ateg​ies/panel/anch​ors/ index.html. Accessed 10 January 2021. Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U. M., and Leal Filho, W. (2015). ‘Sustainable Universities – A Study of Critical Success Factors for Participatory Approaches’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.030. Findler, F., Schönherr, N., Lozano, R., Reider, D., and Martinuzzi, A. (2019). ‘The Impacts of Higher Education Institutions on Sustainable Development: A Review and Conceptualization’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20 (1), pp. 23–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-07-2017-0114. Friedman, D., Perry, D., and Menendez, C. (2013). ‘The Foundational Role of the Universities as Anchor Institutions in Urban Development’. Washington, DC: Coalition of Urban Serving Institutions. Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C. I., Hoshikoshi, A., and Mishra, A. (2008). ‘An International Comparative Analysis of Sustainability Transformation across Seven Universities’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, pp. 295–316. doi: 10.1108/14676370810885907. Fulbright-Anderson, K., Auspos, P., and Anderson, A. (2001). ‘Community Involvement in Partnerships with Educational Institutions, Medical Centers, and Utility Companies’. A Paper Prepared by the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, January, Baltimore, Maryland. Giesenbauer, B., and Müller-Christ, G. (2020). ‘University 4.0: Promoting the Transformation of Higher Education Institutions toward Sustainable Development’. Sustainability, 12, p. 3371. doi: 10.3390/ su12083371. Harkavy, I., and Zuckerman, H. (1999). ‘Eds and Meds: Cities Hidden Assets’. https://www.brooki​ngs. edu/wpcont​ent/uplo​ads/2016/06/09_c​ommu​nity​_dev​elop​ment​_rep​ort.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2022. Harkavy, I., Hartley, M., Hodges, R. A., Sorrentino, A., and Weeks, J. (2014). ‘Effective Governance of a University as an Anchor Institution: University of Pennsylvania as a Case Study’. https://www.nette​ rcen​ter.upenn.edu/sites/defa​ult/files/Effective_Governance_of_a_Universi​ty_a​s_an​_Anc​hor_​Inst​itut​ ion-Raabe​_Pub​lish​ers.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2022. Hodges, R. A., and Dubb, S. (2012). The Road Half Traveled: University Engagement at a Crossroads. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

468

Anchor Institutions and Community

Hoover, E., and Harder, M. K. (2015). ‘What Lies Beneath the Surface? The Hidden Complexities of Organizational Change for Sustainability in Higher Education’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, pp. 175–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.081. Goddard, J., Coombes, M., Kempton, L., and Vallance, P. (2014). ‘Universities as Anchor Institutions in Cities in a Turbulent Funding Environment: Vulnerable Institutions and Vulnerable Places in England’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy, and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, 7 (2), pp. 307–25. Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) (n.d.). ‘Anchor Institutions and Urban Economic Development: From Community Benefit to Shared Value’. Inner City Insight Findings, 1 (2). http:// icic.org/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ads/2016/04/ICIC_​Anch​ors-and-Urban-Econ-Dev.pdf?58f​619. Accessed 3 January 2022. Joshi, A., Arora, M., and Malhotra, B. (2017). ‘Usability Evaluation of a Portable Health Information Kiosk Using a SMAART Intervention Framework’. Global Journal of Health Sciences, 9 (8). doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n8p153. Joshi, A., Arora, A., Amadi-Mgbenka, C., Mittal, N., Sharma, S., Malhotra, B., Grover, A., Misra, A., and Loomba, M. (2019). ‘Burden of Household Food Insecurity in Urban Slum Settings’. PLoS One, 14 (4), p. e0214461. Joshi, A., Kaur, M., Arora, S., Bhatt, A., Sharma, P., Kaur, H., Kumar, K., Arora, M., Malhotra, B., and Anshuman, A. (2021). ‘A Pilot Evaluation of Swasthya Pahal Program Using SMAART Informatics Framework to Support NCD self-Management’. Mhealth, 7, p. 55. doi: 10.21037/mhealth-20-110. Kronick, R. F., and Cunningham, R. B. (2013). ‘Service-Learning: Some Academic and Community Recommendations’. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17 (3), pp. 139–52. Leal Filho, W., Raath, S., Lazzarini, B., Vargas, V. R., de Souza, L., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O. L. G., Haddad, R., Klavins, M., and Orlovic, V. L. (2018). ‘The Role of Transformation in Learning and Education for Sustainability’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, pp. 286–95. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcle​pro.2018.07.017. Leal Filho, W., Shiel, C., Paço, A., Mifsud, M., Veiga Ávila, L., and Londero Brandli, L. L. (2019). ‘Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainability Teaching at Universities: Falling Behind or Getting Ahead of the Pack?’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, pp. 285–94. doi: 10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.05.309. Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., and Lambrechts, W. (2013). ‘Declarations for Sustainability in Higher Education: Becoming Better Leaders, through Addressing the University System’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, pp. 10–19. Meagan, M. E. (2017). ‘Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies: Comparing Theory to Practice’. Planning Theory & Practice, 19 (1), pp. 74–92. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1406980. Nagendra, H., Bai, X., Brondizio, E. S., and Lwasa, S. (2018). ‘The Urban South and the Predicament of Global Sustainability’. Nature Sustainability, 1, pp. 341–9. Rieckmann, M. (2012). ‘Future-Oriented Higher Education: Which Key Competencies Should be Fostered through University Teaching and Learning?’ Futures, 44, pp. 127–35. doi: 10.1016/j. futures.2011.09.005. Samuelsson, I. P., and Park, E. (2017). ‘How to Educate Children for Sustainable Learning and for a Sustainable World’. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49, pp. 273–85. Shaffer, D. F., and Wright, D. J. (2010). How Higher Education Institutions Are Working to Revitalize Their Regional and State Economies. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Singer-Brodowski, M., Etzkorn, N., and von Seggern, J. (2019). ‘One transformation Path Does Not Fit All – Insights into the Diffusion Processes of Education for Sustainable Development in Different Educational Areas in Germany’. Sustainability, 11, p. 269. doi: 10.3390/su11010269. Smallbone, D., Kitching, J., and Blackburn, R. (2015). ‘Anchor Institutions and Small Firms in the UK: A Review of the Literature on Anchor Institutions and Their Role in Developing Management and Leadership Skills in Small Firms’. Technical Report. UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

469

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

Sterling, S. (2013). ‘The Sustainable University: Challenge and Response’, in S. Sterling, L. Maxey and H. Luna (eds), The Sustainable University. Progress and Prospects. London: Routledge, pp. 17–50. Taylor, H. L., and Luter, G. (2013). Anchor Institutions: An Interpretative Review Essay. New York: Anchor Institutions Task Force. Taylor, H. L., McGlynn, L., and Luter, D. G. (2013). ‘Neighborhoods Matter: The Role of Universities in the School Reform Neighborhood Development Movement’. Peabody Journal of Education, 88 (5), pp. 541–63. United Nations (n.d.). ‘Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment’. http:// www.un-docume​nts.net/unche​dec.htm .Accessed 10 January 2022. University of Toronto (n.d.). ‘Home Page’. https://magaz​ine.utoro​nto.ca/resea​rch-ideas/cult​ure-soci​ety/ to-make-sust​aina​ble-cit​ies/. Accessed 10 January 2021. Wals, A. E. J. (2014). ‘Sustainability in Higher Education in the Context of the UN DESD: A Review of Learning and Institutionalization Processes’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, pp. 8–15. Watson, D., Hollister, R. M., Stroud, S. E., and Babcock, E. (2011). The Engaged University: International Perspectives in Civic Engagement. London: Routledge, pp. 1–28. Wittman, A., and Crews, T. (2012). ‘Engaged Learning Economies: Aligning Civic Engagement and Economic Development in Community-Campus Partnerships’. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Wright, W., Hexter, K. W., and Downer, N. (2016). ‘Cleveland’s Greater University Circle Initiative: An Anchor-Based Strategy for Change’. https://dem​ocra​cyco​llab​orat​ive.org/sites/clone.commun​ity-wea​ lth.org/files/downlo​ads/Cleve​land​Grea​terU​nive​rsit​yCir​cle-web.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2022.

470

471

Conclusion WENDY M. PURCELL AND JANET HADDOCK-FRASER

This handbook argues the case that universities per se and higher education (HE) in general are essential to catalyse and action the transformative change needed for sustainability and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015). In evidence of this bold assertion, it presents a variety of critically assessed accounts and case studies from higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world that reflect different local and national contexts, institutional archetypes and academic missions. While not an exhaustive account, it is clear that the HE sector is on a sustainability journey – some are just setting out, while others are further along – no one institution has yet arrived, or indeed really knows what that destination looks like! Yet, we can all perhaps appreciate what a world where no one is left behind (United Nations, 2015) might feel like and why adopting this goal is a shared agenda for humanity and one where HE can play its fullest part. The accounts in this handbook, the literature reviewed and frameworks applied show that for HE to advance sustainability and Agenda 2030 (United Nations, n.d.) HEIs must change – what they do, how they do it and with whom. In this way, HEIs become transformed through engagement with the sustainability agenda. This is why the handbook adopted the lens of transformational change. Enablers and constraints of change, in and by HEIs, are revealed in each of the chapters so that the sector at large can learn how best to accelerate and scale the pursuit of sustainability. In Part 1, we presented examples of how sustainability can be adopted as a driver of change within HEIs, as they react and respond to influencing factors outside the academy. In Part 2, we included accounts of how a university’s pursuit of sustainability can influence, effect and amplify change beyond the institution, working through and with others. The handbook explores why it is hard to embed sustainability concepts, coursework and operational approaches within HEIs and offers examples drawn from across the world of models, frameworks, practices and behaviours that are making a difference. It examines the way change is enacted, placing it into a range of theoretical constructs and as a point in time on the continuum of an HEI’s sustainability journey. Each chapter draws out elements that are truly evocative, can be replicated or easily adapted, and builds upon this through the narrative.

Endeavours and Challenges Each chapter is both heartening and humbling. Stories about how individual and collective agency was realized – sometimes despite the institution, while at other times enabled by strategic

471

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

clarity and dedicated funding. Accounts showcase how simple changes to a single course, or the launch of a community-based event, went on to become major initiatives that shifted learning paradigms, mindsets or repositioned an institution’s mission. We learnt about the fundamental role student’s play as agents of change, and the influence of institutional strategy, narrative and rankings. While paying all due homage to the efforts of those who directly contributed to the handbook and those working for sustainability across the global HE sector, it is clear that the relatively incremental and small-scale projects to date will not deliver on the new ways of thinking and acting demanded by the challenges of the Anthropocene – certainly not fast enough. Indeed, some of the ways HEIs have operated for years – some for centuries – are making it more complicated to bring disciplines together around a sustainability challenge. We learnt of institutional workload models that get in the way of collaboration internally and how external engagement work is not recognized fully in portfolios for tenure. We heard how lack of diversity, equity and inclusion was hampering the path of HEIs and how leadership capacity is tested by the many urgent and important challenges that call leaders’ attention. We also garnered insight into how sustainability may challenge what we understand to constitute academic excellence, whether this is a struggle to introduce new content into professionally oriented curricula or research that does not fit with funders’ discipline-based calls. We became aware that while people recognize the need to change, more must be done to facilitate the development of new skills and the means to do so; supporting a just transition is an essential part of this sustainability journey. Along the way, we gained insight into the many successes and opportunities to learn from failures. We saw the fierce resolve and patience it takes to effect change through complex organizations that reflect disciplinary communities and operate within multi-stakeholder ecosystems. We are very grateful to each of the authors for sharing a window on their world with us and, through the handbook, with the global HE sector. They do so modestly, not to brag but rather to enable others to learn what might work or not in a particular context or situation.

Unlocking the Potential for Transformative Change While absent from the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, n.d. b), HE is firmly part of the Agenda 2030 (United Nations, n.d. a.) – with the SDGs recognizing its central role in creating a world that leaves no one behind (United Nations, 2015). HEIs, through their core mission of teaching and learning, research and innovation, and civic and community engagement are delivering societal impact directly and indirectly through what those whom they educate go on to do, the outcomes of knowledge transfer and community work (Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021). While still an elite offering, HE is becoming more accessible with a greater proportion of the world’s people having at least a partial involvement in HE in the twenty-first century (Marginson, 2016), albeit access remains unequal (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2021). This expansion means that as the societal impact of HE grows so too does its responsibility to deliver on society’s needs. It is clear to us then that the pursuit of sustainability needs to be positioned as a core agenda for HE. Given the complexity of sustainability as a field, as well as the labyrinthine nature of the HE sector and HEIs, it is the case that the change process is almost as important as the destination itself. This handbook therefore offers an opportunity to learn from others, bringing those in the 472

Conclusion

sector into closer community with one another, and it helps to build capacity and capability by showing frameworks and theories of change as well as the struggles and benefits realized. It serves to recognize that change starts and ends with self, and so for an organization to change the people within it must change. So then, we learn of the interactions of the university senior management with communities of practice, arranged as disciplinary clusters or projects, how a strategy or even one word in such a document can unleash human creativity or perhaps fail to capture what is important to students. We also see what is not changing – helping students realize their potential, striving for excellence in research and pedagogic innovation, and supporting place-based and community initiatives. We learnt that the discretionary effort of faculty and staff, or the extracurricular activities of students – while important – are insufficient to sustain an agenda of change over time. HEIs must recognize and support these efforts, ensure promotion criteria reflect the sustainability agenda, certify academic credit is awarded and visible on graduate transcripts and so on – in short, they need to move sustainability from being a discretionary or marginalized activity to one that is an embedded core strategic agenda and central to the academic mission. They also need to create spaces where people and students from across the institution can come together with others across the stakeholder ecosystem to reflect, dialogue and learn together, to create the necessary trust capital upon which partnerships might emerge as well as to join up initiatives from well-meaning but typically disjointed sustainability projects. This might reflect coordination at a city-region on climate action or a global disciplinary community of practice to advance professional standards. Whatever the means or the mode, there is a fierce argument that HEIs must connect more – with one another and with the local and global communities they serve. HEIs can and indeed do catalyse change in wider society towards sustainability through their knowledge creation and dissemination as well as through the provision of leaders, professionals and entrepreneurs into society. Acting locally and globally, they can however do more to play a critical role in developing new systemic and transformative solutions for the grand challenges of our day by collaborating with others. With many HEIs part of a wider stakeholder ecosystem, working with the business and health sectors, with city and regional authorities, and with nongovernmental organizations, charities and social enterprises, they are anchor institutions. They can trigger meaningful change in others, in the places where they operate and interact, through the student body and in their future thinking. Students and alumni too can amplify the impact of HEIs and in turn become change makers across society. Universities offer a powerful means to help create a more sustainable future.

A Call to Action We agree wholeheartedly in the assertion made by the International Commission on the Futures of Education in their report (UNESCO, 2021) that education has the power to bring about profound change. It not only has that power, but it is also using it now and can materially ‘power-up’ going forward. This report invites us to ‘fully realize the transformational potential of education as a route for sustainable collective futures’ and calls for a new social contract for education that can repair injustices, while transforming the future (UNESCO, 2021). This handbook seeks to help HE as public endeavour and a common good do just that. 473

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

At the December 2021 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN, 2021) Meeting for University Presidents for the Asia-Pacific Region, Indonesia’s Minister of Education, Culture, Research and Technology Nadiem Makarim highlighted the interdependencies of education and innovation calling for a novel approach that will enable discipline-focused HE systems to become more problem-focused to address the challenges ahead. Sustainability and the SDGs are a way of drawing disciplines together around the shared purpose of tackling environmental, social and/or governance problems. The SDSN event drew out some key insights, many of which accord with observations in the chapters in this handbook. For example, how universities connect with business and community stakeholders to innovate around sustainability and the SDGs, the critical role of universities working with their cities and wider locale, and how they can connect with the education pipeline from schools to continuing and executive education. However, this handbook goes much further and evidences HE’s current suite of activities that are already making a difference in this direction and draws out ways in which they can do more and faster in the future. The way the activities of HEIs ripple and become amplified, whether it be through students as graduates or research knowledge that is transferred, made us think whether we might envisage the global HE system as a syncytium. This is a biological term that describes a cell formed by the fusion of many other cells, such as skeletal muscle, where each retains its own nucleus and thus unique identity but are organized to pull in the same direction (Shelton, 2015). As a metaphor for sustainability in HE, how would it be for each HEI to be both distinctive and part of a collective – moving in the same direction, towards sustainable development? United in our concerns about climate change and its inequitable impacts, the UN Decade of Action noted the limited time left to deliver on the SDGs’ shared vision to end poverty, rescue the planet and build a peaceful world by mobilizing ‘more governments, civil society, businesses’ to make the goals their own (United Nations, n.d. c). We add HE to this list of key delivery agents. As the pandemic health crisis quickly became a human and socio-economic crisis, the achievement of the SDGs and a move to embrace sustainability are all the more urgent and necessary. HE’s role in this regard is therefore even more important, and HEIs have agency to respond to this powerful call to action.

A Manifesto for Transformative Change While each chapter summarizes its key findings, we drew out three ‘Key Insights and Lessons Learnt’ at the end of each chapter more widely applicable across the sector. In this final section of the handbook, we curate ways that can serve to advance engagement of HEIs and enable the sector to take on the monumental challenges faced by humankind to effect the transformational change needed to deliver the SDGs and sustainable development. We are aware, as our readers will be, that there are no seemingly simple and magical solutions to this complicated problem (colloquially termed a ‘silver bullet’), and so we present our considerations as a manifesto for change. 1. Context and place matter. Each HEI has a unique heritage, culture, mission and vision and most exist in a location that similarly has its own distinctive story, assets and challenges. Where any one HEI starts on its sustainability journey reflects its own determination of its purpose and ambitions, its disciplinary and professional resources, and its risk appetite.

474

Conclusion

2. Mission matters. Sustainability is not a ‘third mission’ (Campagnucci and Spigarelli, 2020). Rather, it needs to be co-terminus with, and a means to realize, the mission of an HEI. Doing the right thing in this regard advances institutional reputation and academic excellence while meeting the social obligations of a university. 3. Leadership and strategy matter. Leadership is about creating the opportunity for others to thrive, with leaders found at every level in an organization. So, look out for leaders everywhere and create space where self-leadership can be realized and harnessed to deliver against a shared purpose of sustainability. Strategy is about choices – choosing what not to do as well as what to pursue – taking decisions today about a future that is inherently uncertain; so the key is to take the ‘right risks’ (Drucker, 1974). The strategy-making process of deep engagement and the strategy-story telling give permission to the creativity of people to align their efforts with the direction of travel towards sustainability. 4. Students matter. They represent the ‘why’ of HE and are stakeholders in the present and the future. They have high stakes in the unfolding future and are invested in change making. HEIs therefore need to find new ways to enable students to realize their agency and channel it for the betterment of society. It has a duty to help set them up for success that is lifelong, able to navigate uncertainty and champion equity. 5. Patience and resolve matter. This is a marathon, not a sprint. It is clear that change takes time and focus, and the chapters in this handbook reveal insights from pioneers and followers who have travailed. 6. Communication, dialogue and inclusion matter. How we talk about sustainability to unlock head, heart and hands and to create space for meaning making where everyone gets a seat at the table are material to deep transformative change. 7. Community building and partnerships matter. As the African proverb makes clear, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’ So too then, HEIs need to engage in radical collaboration to achieve impact and effect change that is both deep and wide. 8. Critical analysis and reflection matter. Western civilizations thought they had all the answers; clearly, they do not. Indeed, what we currently think is the right thing to do may not be so going forward. Therefore, we need to learn from others and maintain strategic agility. Universities must continue to challenge the status quo, to analyse norms and theories and to reframe a future for the common good – for humankind and the planet. 9. Size does not matter. HEIs need to permit, enable and support small-scale initiatives towards the sustainability agenda as well invest in major institutional initiatives. While there is a case for radical systemic change, not all change has to be radical to be transformative. Small-scale achievement of micro-ambitions – indeed, any effort that seeks to move us to a more sustainable future – is worth celebrating. As the fourteenth-century English proverb says, ‘Mighty oaks from little acorns grow’. 10. Universities and HE matter. We hope you agree! Therefore, we invite universities and HEIs to ‘Explore. Dream. Discover’1 in pursuing sustainability. While we see good (perhaps great) examples of how sustainability content is developed within courses and student experiences, as well as examples of progress towards research connections and multi-disciplinary centres, wholescale institutional reform at scale has not yet happened. It is

475

Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education

true that the sustainability agenda in HEIs has now reached beyond considerations of energy and the environment and includes social impact projects and attention to governance processes – this is important progress. It also sees HEIs engaged in collaboration with others, typically placebased but also working across sectors on key challenges. There is however a long way to go, and if international forecasts are correct, our time is running out. Given the incredible innovation and sense of responsibility to the future we see in HEIs, ably illustrated in this handbook, we remain hopeful and optimistic that the university sector ‘gets it’ and is well placed to move fast and at scale. It did so during the Covid-19 pandemic, as HEIs moved at pace to both deal with the crisis and innovate in a myriad of ways (Purcell and Lumbreras, 2021). Covid-19 brought a set of discontinuities, productivity accelerants and disruptions with a rapid shift to remote and hybrid work, digitization and innovation resulting in behavioural changes (Madgavkar et al., 2022). Can the sector now apply that same sense of urgency and focus to address the challenges of unsustainable ways of operating as humankind? Together with a growth mindset open to new possibilities, investment in capacity and capability, and alignment of efforts with purpose, we believe HE can advance the pursuit of sustainability in a timely manner to the betterment of society in support of a world that leaves no one behind (United Nations, 2015).

Note 1 This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but the attribution cannot be verified. The earliest documented publication of the quote is in H. Jackson Brown Jr.’s P. S. I Love You (Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1990). http://www.twai​nquo​tes.com/. Accessed 14 January 2022.

References Campagnucci, L., and Spigarelli, F. (2020). ‘The Third Mission of the University: A Systematic Literature Review on Potentials and Constraints’. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 161, pp. 1–31. Chankseliani, M., and McCowan, T. (2021). ‘Higher Education and the Sustainable Development Goals’. Higher Education, 81, pp. 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10​734-020-00652-w. Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper & Row. Madgavkar, A., Padhi, A., and Sven, S. (2022). ‘The CEO Agenda in 2022: Harnessing the Potential of Growth Jolts’. Report for McKinsey & Company. 13 January. https://www.mckin​sey.com/busin​essfuncti​ons/strat​egy-and-corpor​ate-fina​nce/our-insig​hts/the-ceo-age​nda-in-2022-har​ness​ing-the-potent​ ial-of-gro​wth-jolts. Accessed 14 January 2022. Marginson, S. (2016). ‘The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education: Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems’. Higher Education, 72, pp. 413–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10​ 734-016-0016-x. Purcell, W. M., and Lumbreras, J. (2021). ‘Higher Education and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating Disruption Using the Sustainable Development Goals’. Discover Sustainability, 2 (1), pp. 1–16. Shelton, P. (2015). ‘Stronger Together’. Blog. http://www.pat​tish​elto​nmd.com/blog/2015/4/17/stron​gertoget​her. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2021). ‘Galvanizing University Sector Support to the UN’s Decade of Action’. https://www.uns​dsn.org/galv​aniz​ing-uni​vers​ity-sec​tor-supp​ ort-to-the-un-s-dec​ade-of-act​ion. Accessed 14 January 2022. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020). ‘Towards Universal Access to Higher Education: International Trends’. https://www.ies​alc.une​sco.org/eng/wp-cont​ent/uplo​ ads/2020/11/Towa​rds-Univer​sal-Acc​ess-to-HE-Rep​ort.pdf. Accessed 7 January 2022.

476

Conclusion

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2021). ‘Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education’. International Commission on the Futures of Education. https://unes​doc.une​sco.org/ark:/48223/pf000​0379​707?1=null&quer​yId=N-EXPL​ORE27bb0​e7b-7c63-42fa-9ce9-0065a​0894​084. Accessed 14 January 2022. United Nations (2015). ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. https://www.un.org/sus​tain​able​deve​lopm​ ent/blog/2015/12/sust​aina​ble-deve​lopm​ent-goals-kick-off-with-start-of-new-year/. Accessed 7 January 2022. United Nations (n.d. a). ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. https://sdgs.un.org/203​0age​nda. Accessed 30 December 2021. United Nations (n.d. b). ‘Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015’. https://www.un.org/mill​enni​ umgo​als/. Accessed 7 January 2022. United Nations (n.d. c). ‘Decade of Action: Ten Years to Transform Our World’. https://www.un.org/sus​ tain​able​deve​lopm​ent/dec​ade-of-act​ion/. Accessed 14 January 2021.

477

478

478

479

Index

accountability 34, 41, 47, 130, 142–3, 163, 202, 254, 264–5, 299 action learning 15, 20, 77 action research 90, 94–5, 300 adaptive leadership 260, 264, 270–3, 299–300, 313–5 Africa 11–2, 37, 43, 63, 67, 97, 118, 130, 153, 204–5, 215, 227, 345–57, 368, 419–27, 475 African Research Universities Alliance (ARUA) 347–52, 423–5 agriculture 3, 15, 19–20, 67, 98, 122, 131, 157–8, 217, 228–30, 319, 327, 347, 352–4, 361, 372, 421 alumni 1, 7, 87, 176, 184, 201, 227, 237, 386–90, 441–2, 453, 473 anchor institutions 1, 27, 36, 266, 292, 297, 382, 451–8, 464–5, 473 anthropocene 13, 17, 28, 59, 472 Asia 1, 17, 37, 43, 173–8, 204, 308, 416, 474 Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) 56, 114, 199, 205, 299 Australasia 1, 12–14, 205, 350, 385–9 Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) 205, 389

141–2, 155, 157–64, 169–71, 176–90, 195–6, 200–1, 207, 215–6, 224, 227, 230, 243, 249–54, 259–73, 285, 288–90, 298, 302–10, 328–9, 345, 350–2, 355–6, 361–77, 381–94, 398, 406, 409, 414–5, 423–4, 429–31, 434–6, 451–65, 472–5 cooperative inquiry 87, 89–91, 94–5, 100–11 Covid-19 13, 26–7, 47, 87, 89, 95, 101, 109, 119, 173, 179, 196, 200, 219, 233, 259–60, 264, 267, 287, 321, 324, 330, 345–50, 353, 356, 372, 384, 391, 406, 425–6, 476 corporate social responsibility (CSR) 77, 298, 386, 390, 409 culture 12–13, 15, 18–28, 34–6, 47, 65–8, 76, 80, 91, 113, 133–5, 165, 191–5, 199, 215, 225–8, 252, 254, 260, 263, 266, 282–6, 291, 308, 313–5, 333, 348, 352, 355, 364, 371, 376, 389, 397, 416, 420, 429, 451, 455–6, 474 culture web 19–25 curriculum 12, 14, 19–24, 28, 44, 75, 85, 95, 104, 113, 119, 122, 131, 137–8, 144, 175–80, 184–5, 199, 206, 323–4, 329, 339, 363, 366, 374, 381–3, 391–3, 430–7, 440–6, 454

biodiversity 2, 3, 4, 26, 33, 43–9, 79, 88, 96–100, 175, 208, 297, 319–21, 326, 436, 440, 443–4 Brundtland Report 2, 154, 243 business schools 12, 49, 75, 85, 87–8, 97, 100, 205, 429–30, 440–1

developing countries 43, 112, 130, 319, 346, 361 Diffusion of Innovation Model 165 diversity 17, 27, 37, 47, 80, 89, 91, 100, 115, 121, 219, 223–4, 230, 282–3, 297, 303, 308, 319, 369, 371–3, 426, 472 divestment 46, 222–8, 233, 307 dual-process theory 16

Canada 4, 56, 61, 64–6, 215, 217, 225–7, 271, 361, 368, 385 carbon literacy 96–7, 444–5 change agent 8, 20–1, 226, 263, 268, 323, 335, 339, 366, 372–3, 463–4 circularity 153, 163–4 civic engagement 26, 121–2, 158, 261, 381–93, 437, 438, 453–5 civic university 14, 25, 68, 393 climate change 3, 4, 14, 33, 37, 46–9, 56, 64, 79, 87–8, 96, 109, 118, 163, 180, 187, 201, 205–9, 227, 231–2, 243–51, 270, 279–81, 284–9, 297–8, 308, 320–1, 345–7, 354, 369, 385, 422, 435–8, 444, 474 community 1, 22, 25–7, 35–6, 40, 45–6, 55–7, 61–8, 87, 90–104, 110, 113–5, 119–25, 130, 133, 137,

ecological university 13, 25–9, 297–8 education for sustainable development (ESD) 21, 22, 113, 129–31, 321, 331, 431–39, 441–4, 453 employability 7, 104, 123, 185, 196, 339, 382–5, 389, 390, 391–3, 416, 462–3 engineering 12, 61, 64, 116–21, 158, 161, 183–7, 192, 194–5, 228–30, 269, 272, 319, 322, 327, 330–2, 347, 350, 354, 372, 374, 383, 397, 421–2, 429, 437, 440, 444–5 entrepreneurship 57, 61, 65, 119, 153–65, 176, 190–1, 327, 334, 356, 440, 453, 456, 460–2 Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) 89, 200, 204–12, 262, 298–9, 309, 414–6, 433–5, 439

Index

Environmental Management System (EMS) 397–401, 404–5 Europe 11, 153, 186, 204, 227, 262, 265, 270, 284–7, 291, 298, 307–8, 321, 324, 328–9, 335, 349, 352, 410, 433–4, 441 European Green Deal 280–91 experiential learning 20, 36, 78–9, 84–5, 154, 175, 180, 368, 371, 374, 377, 462 extracurricular 89, 186–7, 366, 369, 381–94, 473 finance 35, 119, 170, 192, 207, 210, 265, 285, 288–90, 323, 329, 362, 433 food security 57, 66, 326, 346, 350, 354 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 6, 174 governance 33–9, 41–50, 109, 120, 125, 130, 137, 142–3, 169, 177–8, 190–1, 200, 216, 219, 224–7, 231, 254, 259–73, 279–87, 291, 298–300, 304–6, 313–4, 327, 346, 349, 352, 363–4, 367–8, 371–5, 409, 421, 437, 474–6 Green Academy 13–14, 19–24 Green Gown Awards 89, 207, 209, 217, 309, 287, 388–9, 393, 401, 433, 437 human capital 15, 137, 140, 271, 355, 367, 419, 452, 456–7 Indigenous 17, 24, 38, 49, 63, 66, 129, 223–4, 232, 235–8, 327 industry 3, 5, 14–5, 38, 44, 61, 65, 87, 99, 117, 121–3, 135, 142–4, 160, 163, 184–6, 191–2, 227, 269, 321, 346, 349–51, 354–7, 381, 409–10, 411–21, 439, 442 inequality 2, 3, 87–8, 95, 173, 187, 287, 326, 345, 351, 353, 363–5, 369, 370–6, 458 infrastructure 3–5, 20, 23, 109, 117, 120, 133, 142–5, 169, 178, 192, 218, 228, 232, 244, 249, 252–5, 268, 284, 319–21, 329, 346–51, 354–7, 367, 391, 432, 444, 452, 456–7 innovation 1–4, 8, 12, 16, 27, 33–4, 41, 44–50, 55–69, 116–7, 125, 129, 133–7, 143–5, 153, 157, 158–65, 175–6, 180, 186–7, 192–9, 207, 215, 218–9, 221–6, 231, 244–54, 259–72, 280–90, 297, 299, 305, 308–9, 313–4, 320–1, 334, 346–54, 366–8, 371, 373, 383, 426, 433, 440, 446, 452–65, 472–6 institutional theory 201, 202 intellectual capital 200, 453, 457 interdisciplinary 7, 17, 27, 28, 61–2, 116–20, 175, 187, 223–30, 284, 291, 329–31, 340, 348, 363, 369, 421, 425, 440–2

480

International Standards Organization (ISO) certification 246–7, 251, 298, 397–401, 407, 413, 429, 433–7, 445 International Sustainable Campus Network (ISCN) 36, 46, 169, 174, 298, 414 leadership skills 12, 75, 77, 85, 383 legitimacy theory 201, 202 living lab 12, 24, 36, 113–4, 180, 183, 186–9, 194–6, 266, 289–90, 304, 366–8, 373, 376–7 loop-learning 5–7 Middle East 42, 115, 117, 121 multidisciplinary 34, 46, 61, 119, 123, 158, 160, 165–6, 255, 322, 363, 368 neo-liberal 12–14 net-zero 244, 250, 443 networking 12, 46–7, 195, 199, 204, 207, 210, 225, 355, 384, 410, 426 non-governmental organization (NGO) 33, 35, 38–9, 110, 114, 121, 123, 164, 216, 323–4, 371 organizational change (OC) theory 58, 60, 64 organizational change 18, 20, 23, 56, 283, 299 outreach 18, 61, 97–8, 115, 122, 158–60, 164, 187, 192–4, 206, 323, 365–81, 392, 440 paradigm shift 144–5, 231–2, 348, 422, 452 partnership 4, 22–4, 26, 29, 34–44, 61, 66–8, 79, 129– 31, 139, 142–3, 158–66, 174, 187–8, 191, 194–5, 225, 230, 251–2, 270–2, 279–81, 284–6, 291, 297, 304, 309, 313, 319, 329, 347–57, 361–81, 386–7, 420–2, 429–31, 434, 436–8, 442–6, 451–63, 473–5 pedagogy 92, 103, 116, 361–5, 372–6, 442 People and Planet University League tables 89, 199, 263 plastic 118, 154, 170–3, 179, 224, 231, 325, 436 polycentricity 34–6 poverty 2–4, 37, 44, 79, 118, 129, 133–9, 142–3, 155, 158, 173, 187, 190, 279, 297, 311, 326, 345–7, 366, 371–3, 426, 460, 474 Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) 40, 75, 89, 205, 437 regenerative change 244 resilience 49, 110–2, 118–20, 153, 163, 175, 193, 249, 259, 262, 320–1, 369–71, 383, 386, 434, 445 resource recovery and reuse (RRR) 153–60, 162–6 scales of impact 216, 245–6, 253–4 skills development 186, 192–6

Index

smart cities 188, 192–6, 281, 354 social cognitive theory 164–5 social equity 33, 68, 163, 223, 250 social identity theory 203–4 social networks 93, 261–4, 268, 271–3 societal transformation 14, 129, 231, 361–77 socio-technical systems 2–5 South America 1, 37 stakeholders 1–7, 12, 18, 27–9, 33–5, 38, 40–2, 49–50, 67, 68, 93, 99, 114, 129, 135–9, 144, 153–4, 162–80, 192, 200–16, 224–5, 230, 259–71, 273, 281–92, 298–299, 307–14, 324–35, 348–9, 355–6, 362–76, 382–3, 392, 414, 442–3, 451–5, 451, 463–5, 472–5 strategic plans 22, 136–7, 254, 311 student association /union 24, 56, 392 student committee 397–410, 413–5 student experience 103–4, 114, 194, 211, 309, 389–92, 433, 437, 442, 475 student-led 46, 223–6, 369, 374, 387–8, 397–401, 410, 413 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1–4, 12, 33, 41–5, 49, 55–69, 76–80, 83–9, 97, 109–13, 117–21, 129–45, 163, 169–80, 187, 190, 193–7, 205, 216, 231, 259–67, 272–3, 279–82, 287, 297–300, 304–14, 330, 346–7, 353, 356, 361–2, 366–8, 373–7, 390, 405–6, 409–27, 434–46, 451, 460–65, 471, 472–4 sustainability reporting 56, 79, 174, 179, 311 Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) 56, 114, 199, 224

systems thinking 18, 20, 24, 76, 290, 300, 315, 321, 348 Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings 62, 114, 174, 199, 311 trade-offs 44, 81, 170, 178, 263 transdisciplinary 17, 35, 44, 61, 67, 120, 175, 230, 265, 281, 323, 331, 345–56, 363, 364, 369, 376, 419, 424 transformative leadership 90–1, 93–4, 98–102, 382 transformative learning 87–107 United Kingdom (UK) 7–9, 11–4, 19–20, 26–7, 87–9, 97, 189, 199–200, 205, 209–10, 262, 267–70, 300, 302, 307, 310–1, 429–35, 439–45 United Nations 1–3, 8–11, 33–4, 40, 42, 55–6, 67, 79–81, 87–9, 109, 113, 122, 129, 138, 144, 154, 163, 173, 187–8, 199, 243, 244, 258, 262, 279–80, 297, 321, 346, 362, 419–23, 429–30, 435–41, 451, 458, 471–6 United States of America (USA) 189, 199, 215, 226–7, 244–8, 302, 308, 333, 335, 361, 368, 410 urbanization 118–20, 153, 188–91, 196, 292, 326, 354, 421, 451 values-led 200, 202, 310 volunteering 99, 122, 309, 381, 382–96, 424 VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) 259, 261, 266–7 wicked problems 5–6, 18, 27, 33, 279, 282, 346

481

482

482