Abstract
Universities are rethinking their teaching and research programs and their whole third mission in response to the framework provided by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But how do universities walk the talk? What are the main strategies and activities undertaken by universities to implement the 2030 Agenda? While the higher education literature has documented the growing number of practices and strategies around SDGs, there have been few attempts to synthesize these scholarly resources. Moreover, the knowledge base revolves around an array of activities, which makes the literature seem fragmented. To fill this gap, the present paper conducts a systematic literature review and derives a method of categorizing activities that can support further knowledge growth. We classified 130 selected papers based on the type of university activities considered (research, teaching, third mission, and managing operations) and the level of the implemented action (macro, meso, and micro). Subsequently, we identified the main gaps in the literature and discussed future research avenues for addressing higher education’s role in accomplishing SDGs.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41307-022-00277-x.
Keywords: University, Higher education, Sustainable development goals, SDG, Systematic literature review, Sustainability
Introduction
A mounting number of higher education (HE) institutions are embracing sustainability as a core value in response to the Agenda 2030. Equipped with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, universities are rethinking teaching, research programs, and even the so-called third mission as part of their effort to navigate sustainable development (SD). But there is an open question as to how universities walk the talk: What are the main strategies and activities that universities have implemented so far to address the 2030 Agenda? While there is a growing literature around the activities that universities are undertaking in this regard (Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021), few literature reviews synthesize these scholarly resources. Reviews of this topic have mostly focused on: business schools (García-Feijoo et al., 2020); a single nation (Owusu-Agyeman, 2020); a single university mission (e.g., teaching and not research) (Alonso-Garcia et al., 2019; Chiba et al., 2021; Weiss and Barth, 2019); specific SDGs and issues like safe drinking water (Daly et al., 2021), or as a component of Education for Sustainable Development (and specifically SDG 4.7) (Ferrer-Estévez and Chalmeta, 2021).1 While they highlight important issues, these reviews do not provide a systemic perspective on current approaches and strategies that HEs have adopted to implement the Agenda 2030. Another stream of systematic reviews strictly focused on HE and SD without specifically referring to the Agenda 2030 (Findler et al., 2019; Vaughter et al., 2013). Findler et al.’s (2019) review provides a complete picture of HEIs’ SD strategies at multiple levels: “education, research, campus operations, outreach, campus experiences, institutional framework, and assessment and reporting” (p. 25). Meanwhile, the review by Vaughter et al. (2013) classifies the current literature on SD and HEIs according to three streams: institutional curricula, operational policies, and a measurement approach to sustainability. Other studies see SD through a fragmented environmental lens: for example, by emphasizing energy-saving activities, reducing greenhouse emissions, etc. (Amaral et al., 2015; Blanco-Portela et al., 2017). Taking these initial systematic reviews as a foundation, we specifically focus on current analyses of how HEIs are implementing the Agenda 2030.
We believe there are two reasons to run a complete review of current knowledge on the topic. First, a review of existing strategies allows us to monitor the activities that universities have implemented, which can help inform leaders, policymakers, and practitioners (Tranfield et al., 2003). Second, a systematic review can categorize extant research and thereby produce a complete picture of the theories, concepts, or methods circulating in the HE literature, which should support future research.
Therefore, we reviewed the current literature through a systemic approach (see Cao et al., 1999, 2004). We first categorized all extant research according to the type of SDG-related actions investigated: research, teaching, third mission, or management operations. Then, we further classified the selected articles through a three-level approach: micro, meso, and macro. This systemic framework permits us to assess whether current literature effectively captures the multi-level nature of the phenomenon. First, we summarize the main findings for each type and level of university activity investigated; second, we identify the main gap in the literature and discuss future research trajectories.
The remainder of the paper unfolds as follows: In Section 2, we present the methodology adopted to select the relevant literature, which is based on a replicable, scientific, and transparent three-step research process. In Section 3, we present the descriptive results. Section 4 depicts the framework used for clustering our results. In Section 5, we conclude by discussing future research directions for this topic.
Methodology
We adopted a systematic review method (Denyer et al., 2008; Tranfield et al., 2003) to discern relevant patterns in HEs’ strategies toward the Agenda 2030. Following a general scope, we conducted our research in the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases in order to capture a higher number of scholarly contributions. We chose those databases due to their reliable indexing (Martínez-López et al., 2018; Stahlschmidt and Stephen, 2020). We applied the following keywords to a search of titles, abstracts, and keywords: (Agenda 2030 OR SDG OR sustainable-development-goal*) AND (university OR higher-education OR college OR business-school*). We restricted the search to peer-reviewed articles, which are deemed to have a higher quality with respect to other contributions (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, 2004). We also focused on the areas of Economy, Business, Management, Social Sciences, and Education and Educational Research in order to find articles that would better fit our emphasis on HEIs’ strategy toward and management of SDGs. This procedure resulted in 635 hits in Scopus and 171 hits in WoS. After removing duplicate articles, we achieved a final sample of 698 papers. Furthermore, we excluded articles dealing with general sustainability issues, which entailed removing all articles published before 2015 (to match the year the Agenda 2030 was launched). Accordingly, the search period spanned from January, 2015 until March 31, 2021. We ignored off-topic journals that do not deal with the HE literature on SDGs (e.g., Social Indicators Research, Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, Library Management). Similarly, we did not consider papers that discussed SDGs outside the context of HE: for example, contributions to firms and Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs). Lastly, we ignored papers dealing with educational levels other than HE (e.g., general education, informal education, and primary and secondary school education). By applying these general inclusion criteria, we narrowed the sample to 175 articles. We then proceeded to read the articles and used some specific criteria to further limit the sample and excluded those that aligned with these criteria: (a) papers focusing on universities’ strategies for improving education quality in specific reference to SDG 4 targets; (b) papers evaluating students and teachers' perceptions about SDGs without referring to any teaching strategy; (c) papers concerning HE policymaking and planning at the national level. With these boundaries, we achieved a final set of 130 articles. Figure 1 represents the iterative process of selecting the sample.
In the second step, we analyzed and coded the 130 articles regarding the type of paper (conceptual or empirical); the method adopted (qualitative or quantitative); the context of the studies (the countries and higher education institutions (HEIs) analyzed); and whether they address a single SDG, a group of SDGs, or the entire profile of Agenda 2030 (which we labeled as overall). Moreover, we coded the articles according to the university activities they addressed: teaching, research, third mission (i.e., public engagement activities), and management operations. The first three types mirror universities’ three missions, while the fourth category encompasses all the activities related to governance processes and management strategies related to fulfilling Agenda 2030.
Next, we used a multi-level perspective to further code the literature according to the HEI’s level of implementation: macro, meso, micro.2 The macro-level collects the strategies and practices implemented at the general university level, i.e., in key organizational structures (such as dedicated units, offices, committees, and university-level programs) and processes (planning, budgeting, evaluation, and reports/rankings). The meso-level captures the more decentralized strategies and practices of departments or intra-departments (e.g., department-, campus-, and school-level activities/projects, intra-departmental activities and initiatives, etc.). The micro-level includes strategies and practices carried out by researchers (such as single/particular research projects or third mission activities), students' specific activities within a program, or specific course designs (i.e., single specialized courses or fields of study). All three authors separately applied the content analysis and coding procedure to the full text of each article. We resolved any disagreements through iterative discussion sessions. Note that we classified articles that analyzed multiple activities at multiple levels as belonging to more than one category.
Descriptive Results
The sample contains articles published from 2017 to 2021 that followed an increasing trend: 6% (7) in 2017, 9% (12) in 2018, 32% (42) in 2019, 45% (59) in 2020, and 8% (10) in the 2021.3 We assume that there was a time lag between the launch of Agenda 2030 in 2015 and subsequent efforts to study the phenomenon.
Regarding the publication source, the largest contributors were “Sustainability” (featuring 41% of the papers or 54) and the “International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education” (18% or 23), while other HE-focused journals (such as “Higher Education”, “Education Sciences”, and “International Journal of Management Education”) collectively housed 9% (12) of the selected papers. “Sustainability” is not directly connected to the HE literature, which suggests that HE-specific journals have not been the primary targets for sustainability research on HE. Moreover, given the recency of our investigated topic, it may simply be that journals with a lower time-to-publication obtained a higher number of articles.
Regarding the articles’ adopted methodology, 90% (118) were empirical, 7% (9) were conceptual, and 2% (3) were literature reviews. Among the empirical studies, 72% (85) adopted qualitative methods, 19% (22) used quantitative methods, and 9% (11) applied a mix of both. Meanwhile, 54% (63) of the studies followed a single- or multiple-case study approach, 16% (20) adopted a survey method, 9% (12) utilized content analysis, and 12% (15) followed a mixed-method approach. The rest of the studies applied various other methods (e.g., focus groups, experiments, etc.). Papers employing the case study method applied a single case study at the national level or multiple case studies at the cross-national level. Spain and United States were the most frequently studied context for researches related to HEIs’ strategies towards SDGs.
Regarding HEIs' orientation toward SDGs' (namely, whether the actions implemented by HEIs address a single SDG, a group of SDGs, or the entire profile of Agenda 2030), 44% (58) of the papers have a broad focus (the overall range of SDGs), 39% (51) have a narrow focus (i.e., a single SDG), and 17% (21) focus on some selected SDGs (see Fig. 2).
Regarding the different universities’ activities, the vast number of studies (56%, or 73 papers) focus on teaching activities, 32% (42) address the management operations required to implement the SDG-related strategies, 9% (11) concentrate on third mission activities, and only 3% (4 papers) focus on research activities related on SDGs (see Fig. 3).4
Regarding the perspective level adopted, a significant part of the literature (51% or 67 papers) corresponded to a macro perspective, while 37% (49) focused mainly on the micro-level. Only 9% (12) of the studies predominantly addressed the meso-level, while 2% (2) of papers in the whole dataset scrutinized the three levels simultaneously (see Fig. 4).
By adopting a systemic approach (see Cao et al., 1999, 2004), we captured the main aspects of change that have driven HEIs’ efforts as they relate to the Agenda 2030 (for the detailed classification of areas and activities, see Table A1 in the online Appendix). Note that the number of articles in this table exceeds the total number of papers since some papers contribute to more than one area of intervention.
Figure 5 provides a map of the 130 articles with respect to the type of activities, levels, and focus. Teaching is the activity that attracted the most scholarly publishing. Of those, most studies (45% or 34 papers) analyzed micro-level activities such as specific course designs or extracurricular activities that address SDGs. At the macro-level, 16% (22) of papers analyzed policies for reorienting curriculum and creating interdisciplinary and interdepartmental strategies. Only 4% (6) of the sampled papers addressed the issue at the meso-level, i.e., of curriculum settings and interventions for campuses, departments, and schools. Teaching activities primarily concerned a single SDG at almost all levels, followed by the overall profile of SDGs and multiple SDGs.
Studies only marginally concentrated on the research activities; when addressed, they focused on the macro-level (overall goals). Only a few articles covered research activities at the micro-level, in the form of course modules and research opportunities to address a single SDG or the overall Agenda.
Of the studies that correspond to third mission activities, most concerned macro-level initiatives (9 papers or 80%) that involve a multitude of organizational actors (Knudsen et al., 2021). Generally, third mission activities are managed from the top so as to leverage the university's image in initiatives geared toward the educational and cultural development of society. Therefore, most of these studies (7 papers or 63%) deal with all 17 SDGs. By contrast, there are very few occurring at the micro-level (e.g., addressing researchers' engagement with non-academic stakeholders, such as the general public and local communities).
Of the studies addressing management operations, 83% (35) of them occupied the macro-level, with an emphasis on the organizational structures and processes needed to incorporate sustainable goals. At this level, 29 articles (69%) focused on HEIs' comprehensive strategies toward Agenda 2030 rather than focusing on a single SDG. Meanwhile, about 9% (6) of studies in this area targeted the meso-level, usually regarding efforts to nurture SDGs through governance processes, management strategies, planning, and infrastructure at the campus and department levels. Moving from macro to meso-level the strategies focus more on single SDG or multiple ranges of SDGs.
Content Analysis
In the following, we summarize the literature for each type of activity while also considering the level of intervention and the focus on SDGs.5 Our goal is to discuss which streams of literature feature the most publications and derive the main takeaways of each stream. Also, takeaways table (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 permits to have a clear visual idea of research gaps which can be addressed in future researches.
Table 1.
Level | SDGs | What are the practices/strategies adopted to pursue the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Macro | Single |
Reorienting curriculum to raise students’ awareness and innovative thinking towards specific SDG Aligning scholarship programs with the sustainable development focusing on a specific SDG Embedding research-based education for sustainable development in curricula according to related sustainable target Impact on students’ sustainable behavior through an increasing share of sustainable development topics combined with teaching staff involvement Online tutoring and improvement of teachers' digital and interactive capabilities Evaluation of students’ awareness through novel methods Making use of Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Integrating peace within teaching modules |
Multiple |
Employing environmental content and the training of individuals to act with environmental responsibility aligned with SDGS 6,13,14,15 Taking advantage of the course inventory module to explore the sustainability status of the course offerings |
|
Overall |
Utilizing problem-based learning (PBL), project-oriented learning (POL), and cross-disciplinary teaching-learning strategies Forming a specialized Education for Sustainable Development Utilizing SDG-related assessment tools for teaching programs Embedding the SDGs in the strategic planning and social reporting Developing, testing, and using new contents, learning methods and transformative approaches aligned with SDGs Developing more applied research (i.e., practice-oriented) around the SDGs Engaging the students' community, to commit to and act in support of the SDGs Formation of student-focused learning curricula on overall agenda |
Table 2.
Level | SDGs | What are the practices/strategies adopted to pursue the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Meso | Single | Development of special programs by special units of university, e.g., unit for people with disability |
Multiple | ||
Overall |
Increasing interdisciplinary thinking across faculties considering the most prevalent SDGs at each faculty Providing the opportunity of cooperation and communication of academics from different disciplines Planning community-engaged learning, sustainability co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities |
Table 3.
Level | SDGs | What are the practices/strategies adopted to pursue the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Micro | Single |
Facilitating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) with SDG contents Applying experiential learning methods e.g. role playing method Development of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and ICT-based teacher training curricula Promoting project method in multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams Developing and testing tailored methods for different majors such as service learning, problem-based learning, project-oriented learning, simulation games and case studies Advancing visual methodologies Evolving competence-oriented teaching for sustainable development considering cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioral domains of learning Applying transformative learning in which students learn managerial soft skills Guaranteeing high quality teaching evaluating teachers’: passion for teaching, attention to student's independent learning ability, emphasis on providing the student with proficiency and confidence, and interest on hand-on activities Employing New Environment Learning (NEL) encouraging participation in class, creativity, curiosity, critical thinking among students Utilizing challenged-based learning Using social networks to open up new perspectives and impact students’ attitudes Employing flipped classroom method through which information-based environment in which teachers provide a variety of learning resources so that students can complete the knowledge transfer process before the class |
Multiple |
Implementing experimental and creative group projects delivering the most focused SDGs in a field Performing cooperative learning Benefiting from MOOCs to promote multiple SDGs simultaneously e.g. promoting lifelong learning and waste water management Considering a mix of environmental, social, economic, and technical dimensions of sustainability in planning the programs Providing the chance for students to relate the SDGs with their future job Finding solution to integrate various sustainability issues e.g. poverty or gender equity into courses |
|
Overall |
Implementing the profile of SDGs in specific higher education majors/courses through developing new competencies, introducing new subjects, and taking into consideration innovative solutions and technologies suited to the majors/courses Designing courses with learning objectives that are clearly aimed at holistic approaches to sustainable societal development Establishing micro-curriculum approach and/or standalone courses for education curriculum such as engineering Developing simulation course -tailored methods Scaffolded application of the SDGs in classroom |
Table 4.
Level | SDGs | What are the best practices/strategies to deploy the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Macro | Single |
Introducing publicly funded research in the sustainable development framework Conducting research for specific sustainability domains e.g. peaceful and inclusive societies Assigning ESD group for collaborative research Collaborative research on ESD assessment, global competencies, and teachers’ understanding of ESD |
Multiple | ||
Overall |
Establishing specialized SD research centers targeting all the university's stakeholders Facilitating cross-border research collaborations Founding research networks within the SD ecosystem that bring together researchers from different institutions A transparent and organized report of research products, financed research projects, and budget of research-based courses and research facilities |
Table 5.
Level | SDGs | What are the best practices/strategies to deploy the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Micro | Single |
Take advantage of open laboratories for certain targets e.g., peace and sustainable development Executing practice-oriented research skills courses through which students can share the results of their research projects with campus community |
Multiple | ||
Overall |
Performing participatory action through which higher education institutions can simultaneously enact and take the SDGs forward Treating the economic, environmental, and social aspects of SD equally. Conducting multi-disciplinary and cross-linked SDG research |
Table 6.
Level | SDGs | What are the practices/strategies adopted to pursue the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Macro | Single |
Establishing cross-sector SDG-related partnership to fulfil SDG 17 Creating collaborative partnership for quality and access of education between individuals within and outside higher education, within and across disciplines and within and across countries |
Multiple | ||
Overall |
Prioritizing third mission efforts in the vision and mission of the HEIs from top level Forming networks with influential actors (i.e. industry, local government or NGO partners) Nurturing collaboration between research and practice Promoting collaborative research and consulting, licensing, ad hoc advice and networking, technology transfer centers and spin-offs Adopting living lab model Launching platforms for sustainability education and collaborations among academics Intensifying working with government and policymakers as well as the local community Policy making towards knowledge transfer and outreach channels |
Table 7.
Micro | Single | |
Multiple | Implementing Service-Learning projects to strengthen collaboration between the HEIs and their entities to serve specific needs of people, make students aware of community needs and eliminate communicational barriers | |
Overall |
Fostering cross-sector collaboration and supporting diverse stakeholder engagement Promoting cross-country collaboration in research activities of standalone courses |
Table 8.
Level | SDGs | What are the practices/strategies adopted to pursue the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Macro | Single |
Incorporating of sustainability values (e.g., peacefulness and inclusiveness) in operations and governance of HEIs Supporting the ESD from the top levels Presenting structural and operational changes to ‘walk the talk’ Institutional strategic commitment to partnerships, networks, and stakeholders Encouraging sustainable behavior among staff and students |
Multiple |
Promote targeted SDGs through Responsible Management Education Coordinating and supporting of ICT adoption by a particular organisational unit |
|
Overall |
Putting SDGs at the core of the governance and management of the university, welcoming all the stakeholders Embedding sustainability into university business strategies, decision-making processes, and practices, Adopting recognized planning, assessment and reporting tools considering SDGs as drivers Positioning governmental and institutional funding; shifting key performance indicators; enhancing cross-disciplinary work; aligning mission/vision statements; and legitimising SDG-focused projects Adopting well-framed approaches by governance bodies to identify the actions required to reach sustainability goals according to the 2030 Agenda, e.g. backcasting approach Embracing shared leadership and collaborative governance approach to bring SD in HEIs Recognising and incorporating cultural adjustments across the HEI Improving the sustainability mindset all over the HEI bodies Sharing the best practices from other HEIs Procurement of viable plans, sufficient funding, and assignment of a core group of capable people to manage the plan |
Table 9.
Level | SDGs | What are the practices/strategies adopted to pursue the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
Meso | Single | Operating campus SDG-related projects/labs/plans such as campus energy efficiency project, waste management lab, and campus mobility plan |
Multiple |
Promoting community engagement at wide-campus and single campus levels considering different SDG targets Employing environmental impact assessment technique such as Life Cycle Assessment by universities’ decision-makers Drawing on applied management operations to tackle sustainability issues such as waste management and energy saving |
|
Overall |
Table 10.
Level | SDGs | What are the best practices/strategies to deploy the SDGs? |
---|---|---|
All levels | Single | |
Multiple |
Nurturing cooperation between different universities at macro-level Organising and running of faculties concerning challenges and renew faculties’ curriculums at meso-level Integrating students and commitment to the needs of the social environments at micro-level |
|
Overall |
Creating an organisational unit dedicated to sustainability Rector’s delegate on sustainability Applying a consistent and collective strategy for SDGs entrenching in university curricula |
Teaching
Teaching-macro
The stream of research on teaching activities at the macro-level focuses on single SDGs, and particularly on SDG 4—"ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all". For example, Ferguson and Roofe (2020) analyzed HEIs’ efforts to target 4.3 which explicitly refers to universities: “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university”. These efforts include the attempt to establish internal collaborations and external partnerships for a wide array of program to expand access to tertiary education Moreover, Greig and Priddle (2019) emphasized the need to adopt an interdisciplinary and transformative approach in teaching and learning in order to address target 4.7—“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development”. Consequently, sustainability should be a core objective of teaching and assessment procedures, learning practices, and program contents. In this vein, teaching staff need to have the personal and professional capabilities to stimulate students' awareness of economic development, inclusion, and resilience issues (Kopnina, 2018). As evidenced by the COVID-19 crisis, teachers' digital and interactive capabilities are critical to universities' teaching strategy (O'Keeffe, 2020) and the fulfillment of target 4.4: “By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship”. Notably, this stream of literature illustrates that achieving SDG 4 indirectly contributes to many or all other SDGs. For example, target 4.5 aligns with SDG 5 (gender equality) by emphasizing gender parity, while target 4.3 contributes to not only SDG1 (no poverty) through the provision of equal access to education for all, but also SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) through the provision of vocational and technical education and scholarship.
A different stream of literature considers macro-level teaching strategies toward all 17 SDGs through a prevailing focus on curricula planning decisions (Aleixo et al., 2020). Some of these studies stress the importance of implementing an extensive reorientation of curriculum and pedagogical strategies across all degree programs. For example, universities need to develop a culture of sustainability that suffuses departments and degree programs, especially for students who are nearing entry to the job market (Albareda-Tiana et al., 2018). Similarly, Elmassah et al. (2020) suggested that HEIs establish standards for propagating SD values in the curricula of different majors, providing new SD-based courses (both singular and integrated), and forming a specialized ESD faculty community that can share experiences and best practices. Other conceptual studies falling in the macro category deal with student competencies, inclusive teaching practices, professors' abilities and ethics, and alliances among universities and organizations that are crucial for integrating SDGs into teaching programs (del Olmo Fernández et al., 2020; Zamora-Polo and Sánchez-Martín, 2019). Moreover, Zamora-Polo et al. (2019) argued that students generally lack background knowledge on SDGs, and thus universities need to suffuse all disciplines with both specific and transversal abilities that can be adapted to students’ needs. The literature also stresses the importance of assessment tools that can measure a program’s success in cultivating students’ SDG-related competences (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020). In this vein, Paletta and Bonoli (2019) advanced a framework for analyzing how universities are redesigning activities to achieve SDGs through a unified strategic planning and social reporting. Beyond theoretical discourse, Leal Filho et al. (2019a, b) produced a first quantitative mapping of myriad universities across 17 countries on 5 continents. The authors found that around 30% of the sampled universities fully applied SDGs in their teaching programs, while 40% of them only reached partial inclusion due to the transversal, interdisciplinary, and vague nature of SDGs. To conclude, these pieces of evidence on macro-level teaching strategies indicate a need for more scholarship on best practices and comparatives case-studies. Such evidence could then be shared among universities to bolster their SD strategies. Table 1 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on teaching and SDGs at the macro-level.
Teaching-meso
A few papers analyze teaching issues at the campus, department, or school levels, while generally focusing on all SDGs. This niche debate covers the advantage of adopting cross-curricular approaches (meso-level) rather than stand-alone course initiatives (micro-level). Lovren et al. (2020) extended the discussion to the department level by introducing four elements for a successful program: (1) interdisciplinary educational courses, (2) improving teachers' skills, (3) enhancing active learning, and (4) setting institutional policies at the faculty level. The literature at teaching meso-level generally agrees that academics can leverage the trans-disciplinary approach—through cross-field collaboration—in order to integrate sustainability into teaching programs. This way, teachers gain insights into the sustainability concerns of various majors and the decisions that are made within each discipline (Argento et al., 2020). For example, the University of Toronto has developed three inventories—covering courses, community-engaged learning, and sustainability co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities—to raise students' awareness of and their involvement in sustainability-oriented projects (Brugmann et al., 2019).
Table 2 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on teaching and SDGs at the meso-level.
Teaching-micro
A different stream of studies concentrates on the teaching and learning practices that address a single SDG (primarily SDG 4 and its targets) in specific course programs.
In the last few years, higher education has increasingly incorporated ICT technologies, such as social media, in order to improve access to quality education (Chin and Jacobsson, 2016; Labonté, 2016). In fact, social media can increase people’s knowledge of sustainability, regulate students’ engagement with the SDGs, and create alliances among stakeholders (Killian et al., 2019). Likewise, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) are handy tools that facilitate continuous learning by providing low-cost, open materials that can be turned into lesson plans about SDGs in various subject areas (Ortega-Sánchez and Gómez-Trigueros, 2019). Such platforms allow both students and educators to engage in interactive learning around multi-faceted sustainability goals. The most significant hurdles to using said platforms, for both students and teachers, involve a lack of digital competences, low-quality materials, and insufficient access to digital resources (Gallagher, 2018).
Moreover, any courses designed around SDGs need to consider the nature of different study fields. For instance, the field of geography encompasses both physical and human environments, which necessitates methods that support all four aspects of sustainability education as defined in the Agenda 2030 framework (environmental, social, economic, and cultural) (Yli-Panula et al., 2020). Meanwhile, the field of engineering emphasizes problem-solving methods that require students to develop trans-disciplinary skills (Orozco-Messana et al., 2020a, b). To foster these methods, engineering courses are often turning to new technologies—such as mobile devices and videos—to facilitate interdisciplinary projects and industry collaborations (Desha et al., 2019; Alonso-Garcia et al., 2019; Schina et al., 2020).
Fewer studies at this level deal with multiple SDGs and/or the overall profile of SDGs. Those in the former group concentrate on balancing the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability in course planning. They often prioritize the dominant SDGs based on the different field/courses and future job profiles, as well as incorporate general sustainability concerns (e.g., gender equity and poverty) into coursework (Baena-Morales et al., 2020; Castro et al., 2020; Gómez-Llanos and Durán-Barroso, 2020; Manolis and Manoli, 2021; Orozco-Messana et al., 2020a, b; Perales Jarillo et al., 2019). The studies that consider all SDGs involve the application of innovative solutions and technologies (i.e., course-tailored and scaffolded methods), along with the redesign of majors and courses to integrate SDGs (Adach-Pawelus et al., 2021; Ashraf and Alanezi, 2020; Ličen and Jedlicka, 2020; Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020; Useh, 2021)
Table 3 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on teaching and SDGs at the micro-level.
Research
Research-macro
This literature stream focuses on reframing research priorities around SDGs, planning new research infrastructures, and creating research groups devoted to addressing societal challenges related to SDGs (Sonetti et al., 2020). Accordingly, a considerable number of studies at the macro-level investigate the role of research alliances, scholarships, and research centers in relation to the overall Agenda 2030 (Goodall and Moore, 2019; Sonetti et al., 2020).
The Agenda 2030 explicitly refers to the urgent need for SDG-related scientific research—from vaccine development to water management. As emphasized by UNESCO, research is a key lever for prompting innovation around sustainability and incorporating SDGs into all university activities (García-Feijoo et al., 2020). As such, it is important to increase research funding, target fields that can help resolve global problems, and enhance professional research capacity—all of which requires a constant, dynamic collaboration among universities, governments, and multilateral agencies (Owens, 2017). On this point, scholars have shown that establishing specialized SD research centers is a crucial means of involving all university stakeholders in the overall institutional vision (Elmassah et al., 2020).
To fully undertake the Agenda 2030, universities must establish specific goals for different areas of interventions, along with the respective measurement and reporting systems (García-Feijoo et al., 2020). In this vein, the University of Bologna developed tailored measures to assess its own research activities, ranging from using internal keywords to count the number of publications concerning SDGs, monitoring citations on databases (e.g., Scopus), and creating national and international benchmarks. Likewise, the university regularly reports the research products, financed research projects, and financial amounts dedicated to research-based courses and research facilities (Paletta and Bonoli, 2019).
Table 4 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on research and SDGs at the macro-level.
Research-micro
A few studies analyze research activities at the micro-level, tackling single SDGs as well as the overall Agenda 2030. One best practice for universities is to open laboratories of social innovation: optimized spaces where participants (internal and external stakeholders) can collaborate to experiment with ideas, raise concerns, and share best practices (Zermeño and de la Garza, 2020). This stream also outlines other specific actions that can reorient higher education toward sustainable development. For instance, Eppinga et al. (2020) proposed a course module in which students have the opportunity to design and conduct sustainability research, which ultimately increases students' knowledge about SD and their willingness to support university campus and third mission activities. Trott et al. (2018) highlighted that participatory action research allows various stakeholders to work alongside community-engaged scholars to address critical social and environmental problems linked to Agenda 2030. Lastly, (Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020) advanced that multi-disciplinary and cross-linked SDG research can help inspire sustainable propensity among students and scholars. Table 5 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on research and SDGs at the micro-level.
Third Mission
Third Mission-Macro
Most studies tackle the third mission activities at the macro-level and thus deal with all 17 SDGs. These studies highlight that external stakeholders are central to universities’ sustainability transformation (Lozano, 2006). It is clear that HEIs cannot effectively address the SDGs by themselves; instead, they need to engage societal actors in collaboration and co-creation. Accordingly, in their move toward sustainability, university leaders should emphasize their institution’s interdependence with society (Purcell et al., 2019). The societal demand for such efforts is reflected in universities integrating strategic perspectives into their visions and missions (Knudsen et al., 2021).
In general, universities realize their third mission activities through various policy levers: knowledge transfer, training, outreach/extension services with governments and policymakers, local community engagement, and creating spaces devoted to such activities (Neary and Osborne, 2018). Universities pull these levers in both formal and informal ways: collaborative research and consulting, licensing, ad hoc advice and networking, technology transfer centers and spin-offs, etc. (Etzkowitz, 2013; Neary and Osborne, 2018). Among third mission activities, nurturing the connections between research and practice is useful for fostering sustainability solutions at all levels (García-Feijoo et al., 2020). In this regard, business schools are valuable in forming synergies, partnerships, and collaborations that can deliver sustainable management practices and boost the required competences (Kolb et al., 2017).
However, universities are less adept at integrating their third mission policies in their public engagement and suffer from the lack of well-explained documentation (Neary and Osborne, 2018). HEIs can enhance their accountability in this regard by regularly reporting data on spin-offs, start-ups, patents, public engagement events, cooperation initiatives, orientation activities, and cooperation and social engagement projects (Paletta and Bonoli, 2019). Table 6 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on third mission and SDGs at the macro-level.
Third Mission-Micro
A few studies evaluate third mission activities at the micro-level. For instance, Castro et al. (2020) researched methods of establishing collaborations and improving communication skills in specific courses. In their case, the authors analyzed an engineering courses that established partnerships with various entities in order to help students learn competences and values beyond their basic program. Another means of enhancing collaboration in a standalone course (such as sustainability science) is promoting cross-country research collaborations to tackle environmental and social issues (Priyadarshini and Abhilash, 2020). Additionally, the literature illustrates that participatory action research—taking the form of short-term programs for students—is a flexible and scalable method for realizing the vision of SDGs in HEIs, allowing students to establish relationships with key community members and local scientists (Trott et al., 2018). Table 7 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on the third mission and SDGs at the micro-level.
Management Operations
Management Operations-Macro
Management operations encompass the organizing procedures, actors, structures and governance that HEIs utilize to manage and coordinate around their sustainability agenda (Cicmil et al., 2017). Management operations ensure that all university bodies adopt the Agenda 2030 and integrate sustainability principles into their vision and mission (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017; Ferrer‐Balas et al., 2008). Accomplishing those goals requires long-term strategic planning (Moon et al., 2018), which entails defining objectives, resources, policies, and organizational processes (Leal Filho et al., 2019a, b; Kestin et al., 2017). To that end, universities need to perform structural and cultural adjustments if they want to secure external financing, improve their internet presence and increase their internationalization rate (Blasco et al., 2021). Such adjustments may create tensions due to conflicting institutional goals, cultural inclinations, and individual and organizational drivers. However, shared leadership (i.e., with the involvement of all stakeholders) can alleviate these issues (Purcell et al., 2019) while fostering a collaborative governance approach that provides clearer communication, high-level accountability, and better funding opportunities (Franco et al., 2019).
The literature on this topic also describes the value of developing ethical codes and reporting tools for SD, which can foster the dissemination of SD projects in local communities and the larger territory (Di Nauta et al., 2020; Mion et al., 2019). Likewise, international ranking systems (such as Times Higher Education and Green Metrics) are gaining relevance due to their growing impact on higher education policies, governance strategies, and institutional practices. However, such ranking systems sometimes fail to accurately reflect the SDGs and may neglect to consider the leadership skills and mindsets needed to promote a transition to sustainability (Dyllick and Muff, 2020; Perović and Kosor, 2020; Torabian, 2019). Table 8 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on management operations and SDGs at the macro-level.
Management Operations-Meso
Studies that focus on how to achieve SD and community engagement on single and networked campuses tend to emphasize a specific SDG or multiple SDGs. For example, the University of Bologna created "Unibo Green" as part of an effort to implement government-created initiatives at the campus-level, such as creating living labs and adopting innovative technologies (Paletta and Bonoli, 2019). Similarly, in response to SDG 11, the University of Passo Fundo in Brazil (through the collaboration of four departments and university staff) designed a campus-level mobility plan at campus level consisting of four departments and university staff. This systematic mobility plan identifies campus mobility behavior and recommends sustainable actions that can improve traffic suitability and accessibility in line with the Agenda 2030 (Scheffer et al., 2019). The same campus adopted energy efficiency practices aligned with the targets of SDG 7, such as efficient lightening, Photovoltaic Solar Power Generation; The university also goes to free Energy Market to enhance energy efficiency, increase the share of renewable energy in the global mix, and ultimately improve access to reliable and affordable energy (Rebelatto et al., 2019). Other universities have applied management operations—corresponding to the targets of SDG 12 and 9—to tackle the problem of hazardous waste management and create campus zero-energy infrastructures and projects (Saralegi et al., 2020; Wubah et al., 2020). Interestingly, we found no articles that have analyzed management operation initiatives for overall SDGs at the meso-level. This is particularly noteworthy when considering the utility of departmental units that can coordinate sustainability initiatives and facilitate communication with researchers and students. In any case, Table 9 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on management operations and SDGs at the meso-level.
Management Operations—All Levels
A scant number of studies have scrutinized SDG-related management operations at all three levels.
The largest of such studies, (Domínguez-Fernández et al., 2020), analyzed the following: at the macro-level, the necessity of establishing cross-university relationships and research networks, boost social inclusion and pursue their mission with social responsibility; at the meso-level, the obligation to coordinate and review the collaborations across faculties and review the organization internally by processes in to adjust to the new situations of macro networking and at the micro-level, the teaching/learning processes and social integration, employability, and promotion of students is of crucial importance. Meanwhile, Sonetti et al. (2020) mapped the implementation of SDGs in Italian universities based on a top-down/bottom-up approach. The authors showed that the universities mostly focused on creating an organizational unit dedicated to sustainability and overseen by the rector, but they lacked a consistent and collective strategy for entrenching SDGs in university curricula. Table 10 summarizes the main takeaways from the literature on management operations and SDGs that concerns all levels.
Discussion
We performed a systemic review of the current literature to better understand how universities walk their talk on SDGs. To this end, we considered the main governance processes, strategies, and actions that researched universities6 have implemented so far to fulfill their commitment toward the Agenda 2030.
Our first observation is that the literature appears fragmented, representing a kaleidoscope of approaches and issues. According to a systemic perspective, fragmentation and differentiation are the natural evolutions of systems (French et al., 1985). Thus, the current state of the literature on SDGs and universities (as far as we encountered it) mirrors the evolution of this phenomenon. In short, researched universities are pursuing a growing variety of strategies at different organizational levels in order to meet the goals of the Agenda 2030.
Amidst all this activity, we thought it is critical to systematically evaluate the literature in order to identify the main traits of this phenomenon and define further research trajectories. Therefore, we analyzed and mapped the patterns of practices and strategies according to four areas of activity (research, teaching, third mission, and management operations), three levels of interventions (macro, meso, micro), and their degree of focus on SDGs (single, multiple, overall). The studies we reviewed made clear that HEIs are primarily addressing teaching followed by management operations, while third mission and research efforts have gained less attention.
Among teaching-oriented papers, the prevailing strategies at the micro- and macro-levels were respectively about designing specific courses and reorienting overall curricula to address SDG 4. Research has concentrated on SDG 4 (which provides a direct reference to education) since the early 2000s when the UN established the agenda for ESD in 2002: "the academic sector has been playing a strategic role as change agents, educating the managers of today and tomorrow, incorporating the values of responsible corporate citizenship into their education activities" (Escudero, 2006). The researched HEIs have invested enormous effort into responding to this goal, which was only exacerbated by the Agenda 2030 with its emphasis on SDG 4 (as ESD is an integral element of this SDG). At the micro-level, the literature has investigated the role of ICT and MOOCs in delivering single courses that contribute to either the overall Agenda or to single SDGs. At the macro-level, it seems important to build a culture of sustainability around the overall Agenda. In fact, many studies report cases of teaching initiatives aimed at spreading shared standards and competences among faculty members, staff, and students: for example, by introducing new learning methods, reorienting the curriculum toward SDGs, and utilizing technologies on a large scale.
Here, we want to draw attention to the scant literature on universities’ teaching strategies at the meso-level, which would include inter-departmental programs devoted to achieving SDGs. There may be empirical difficulties with analyses at this level, such as needing more time to collect data; nonetheless, we hope to see future publications address this gap. In this context, the literature on teaching—at all levels—would benefit would benefit from studies that explore the tensions between sustainability goals and implemented solutions. The issue of tensions has been widely investigated in hybrid organizations (see among others: Smith et al., 2013; Smith and Lewis, 2011); future research could leverage this body of work to uncover meaningful similarities and differences.
Meanwhile, we found that the literature oriented toward research mainly focused on macro-level interventions, such as the planning of complex research programs that address the whole Agenda and are managed at the university level. These efforts reflect the importance of research for generating new ideas and solutions that benefit society; nonetheless, future studies should review research practices at the meso- and micro-levels in order to comprehensively evaluate research programs’ contributions to SDGs. In addition, the literature has largely studied research activities in tandem with teaching strategies; there might be value in concentrating on the research aspect to discern its unique strategies and practices.
We observed a similar trend among the third mission activities: The literature has mainly focused on the macro-level, highlighting that top university officials primarily organize the efforts to transfer knowledge to society and engage stakeholders in SDG-related-projects. Furthermore, researched universities’ actions toward SDGs enter the management level as a matter of resource planning: for example, by prioritizing third mission efforts in the vision and mission, creating shared governance processes, licensing, networking, launching platforms, and helping to navigate cultural changes related to achieving the Agenda.
In this context, researched universities tend to adopt one of two approaches when enacting a sustainability strategy—strategic or constitutive (Sacconi, 2006)—and need to be aware of the trade-offs. On one hand, universities' reputations and funds depend on sustainability achievements; hence, universities can adopt a strategic (or push) approach that responds to the “sustainability demand”, such as incorporating a few green practices into their activities. On the other hand, universities can be constitutionally compelled to undertake activities that benefit stakeholders, which would constitute an intrinsic commitment (or pull approach) toward SD. Future research could strive to provide a clearer picture of universities’ strategic approach by categorizing different SDG-related initiatives.
Lastly, the stream of literature on management operations has usefully illustrated the administrative path needed to support the achievement of SDGs across the three university missions (teaching, research, and the third mission). With respect to the macro-level actions, research has concentrated on the need to improve the university culture around SDGs at the level of leadership and governance—primarily by sharing best practices, building shared-governance patterns through stakeholder dialogue, and integrating sustainability into the core of decision-making, procurement practices and strategic planning. Future research should strive to build a stronger base of evidence about the impact of certain macro-level conditions in order to inform university leaders.
Conclusion
Based on our review of 130 selected articles, this paper usefully illustrates the changes that Agenda 2030 is galvanizing within and among researched HEIs. This analysis leads us to make two general conclusions.
The first is that researched universities' strategies towards SDGs are still developing and do not show uniform patterns. In general, their multi-level, multi-action strategies take the following forms: (i) the result of strategic and planning programs at the university level, or (ii) as a pilot case on single courses, research programs, and research-in action projects involving external actors, or (iii) because of an administrative activity aimed at monitoring and communicating the image toward SDGs at the level of departments or the whole university.
Moreover, researched universities have adopted very different strategies to implement these actions: from micro initiatives that only address one area (e.g., teaching or research) and a single SDG, to macro-level strategies that consider all SDGs at once. The first category of papers reflects scattered, niche initiatives; the second type encompasses more integrated strategies that combine a broad focus on SDGs at the macro-level with the management of different micro-level initiatives. However, the growing number of studies at the micro-level signals a bottom-up dynamic driven by student-focused initiatives, which signals their role as the game-changers of today and tomorrow. Given the aggregate potential of micro-level initiatives, future researchers should explore the role of such niches in driving changes toward SD. That said, the current literature has devoted meager interest to the meso-level, which captures the strategic initiatives at the departmental and campus levels. There is a lack of scholarship on research and third mission activities in relation to the meso-level, which is reflected in HEIs’ general lack of implementation at this level. Here, we advance a methodological explanation: the meso-level case study requires more effort to not only collect data, but also organize and implement initiatives. Indeed, inter-department or inter-school projects face more hurdles due to departments’ different leadership and orientations. Accordingly, future research should strive to circumvent these challenges in order to fill the current knowledge gaps on meso-level initiatives.
Additionally, this review underscores the different maturity levels of researched universities’ SDG-related strategies. Future research will need to renew our understanding of the field as the phenomenon evolves. For instance, studies could seek to explain universities’ different patterns in transitioning toward sustainability. Moreover, given current growth trends, we expect to see a surge in publications as the 2030 deadline approaches. Therefore, we think it would be worthwhile to evaluate the literature in five-year intervals (e.g., 2021–2025, 2026–2030, and 2031–2035) in order to account for any substantial changes.
The second conclusion is that various researched universities lack a common framework for implementing their Agenda 2030 strategies. Extant studies do not explicitly position a given action within a multi-level and multi-action framework; this unstructured approach makes it difficult to translate the experience into policy that can advance the university’s goals. As a result, knowledge seems fragmented and best practices are harder to identify and replicate. Future research could address this gap by framing their contributions in line with our proposed framework. Greater structure would add clarity to the debate and provide a more complete understanding of HEIs’ efforts to implement the Agenda 2030.
To conclude, while our approach aligns with other systematic literature reviews (i.e., Findler et al., 2019; Ferrer-Estévez and Chalmeta, 2021), it features some notable limitations. First, we focused on peer-reviewed articles and excluded studies published as book chapters, conference proceedings, grey literature and books, and in languages other than English. Second, we limited our review to the WoS and Scopus databases; future studies could extend this scope. Third, while we applied a broad spectrum of keywords in the search string, our Boolean operators may not have captured works that are implicitly related to SDGs. Hence, future research might consider casting a wider net with more sustainability-related keywords.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Funding
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Ethics approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and the University of Bologna Ethical Code of Behaviour.
Consent to participate
We have read and We understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. We understand that our participation is voluntary and that we are free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost.
Consent for publication
We give our consent for the publication of identifiable details, which can include photograph(s) and/or videos and/or case history and/or details within the text (“Material”) to be published in the “Higher Education Policy” Journal. Therefore, anyone can read material published in the Journal.
Footnotes
In more detail, some reviews have a narrow focus. For example, the review on HE and SDGs provided by García-Feijoo et al. (2020) focuses on business schools and highlights the need for interdisciplinary and collaborative work in order to open universities to the outside environment, as well as promote the use of active methodologies such as student mobility and study tours, flipped classroom, and different initiatives within teaching, research, and management processes to achieve the SDGs. Similarly, Owusu-Agyeman (2020) undertakes a systematic review of SD and HE in the context of Ghana, showing that the adoption of an “ecosystem” composed of research networks, national SD activities, institutional structures and leadership—coupled with the adoption of the UN’s 2030 Agenda concepts in the curricula—enhance the understanding of ESD. Another review carried out by Alonso-Garcia et al. (2019) focuses on articles concerning the application of technology Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in teaching practices to embrace SDGs within HEIs. In a similar vein, the review of Chiba et al. (2021) points out the positive outcomes of participatory learning, promoting curricula based on students’ interests and motivations as effective teaching and learning methods to foster SD. Similarly, Weiss and Barth (2019) scrutinized current research on the implementation of sustainability in curricula across countries. Lastly, Daly et al. (2021) honed in on a particular sustainability issue—safe drinking water (SDG 6)—by tracking the research on multiple water source use for drinking water in low- and middle-income countries. To conclude, the recent literature review conducted by Ferrer-Estévez and Chalmeta (2021) adopted a broader focus by analyzing contributions that investigated the implementation of ESD and SDGs at different educational levels: from primary school to HEIs. Specifically, their review focuses on how SDGs have been incorporated at the curricular and extracurricular levels, on the strategies and managerial procedures adopted to integrate the SDGs, and on the teaching approaches and educational methods for implementing the SDGs.
The multi-level perspective has been adopted in the innovation literature to describe the complex dynamics of changes (see Geels and Schot, 2007; Rip and Kemp, 1998) and the interplay between landscape (macro), socio-technical structures (meso), and practices (micro). The macro-meso-micro approach has also been adopted in the Business Ethics literature (see McDonald and Nijhof, 1999) to describe different implementations of ethical values within organizations: at the strategic governance level (macro), the organizational level (meso), and individual ethics (micro). Here, we adopt this framework to describe the changes in the context of university sustainability practices.
Consider that we collected data between February and March 2021.
The papers that deal with more than one area of intervention have been categorized based on the primary area.
We obtained the following categories due to their pervasiveness in the literature: Teaching-Macro Single & Overall; Teaching-Meso Overall; Teaching-Micro Single; Research-Macro Overall; Research-Micro Single & Overall; Third Mission-Macro Overall; Management Operations-Macro Overall; Management Operation-Meso Single & Multiple (see the Table A1 in the online appendix for more details).
Note that we refer to researched universities to clarify that our discussion relates to our sampled universities. Namely, we refer to those that have been object of scholarly research from January 2015 to March 2021 and entered our review.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Magali Fia, Email: magali.fia@unibo.it.
Khatereh Ghasemzadeh, Email: khatereh.ghasemzadeh@unibo.it.
Angelo Paletta, Email: Angelo.paletta@unibo.it.
References
- Adach-Pawelus K, Gogolewska A, Górniak-Zimroz J, Kiełczawa B, Krupa-Kurzynowska J, Paszkowska G, Szyszka D, Worsa-Kozak M, Woźniak J. A new face of mining engineer—international curricula to sustainable development and green deal (a case study of the Wrocław University of Science and Technology) Sustainability. 2021;13(3):1393. doi: 10.3390/su13031393. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Adomßent M, Grahl A, Spira F. Putting sustainable campuses into force: Empowering students, staff and academics by the self-efficacy Green Office Model. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(3):470–481. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0072. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Albareda-Tiana S, Vidal-Raméntol S, Fernández-Morilla M. Implementing the sustainable development goals at University level. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2018;19(3):473–497. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Aleixo AM, Azeiteiro UM, Leal S. Are the sustainable development goals being implemented in the Portuguese higher education formative offer? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(2):336–352. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0150. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Alonso-Garcia S, Aznar-Diaz I, Caceres-Reche M-P, Trujillo-Torres J-M, Romero-Rodriguez J-M. Systematic review of good teaching practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability. 2019;11(24):7150. doi: 10.3390/su11247150. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB. Quest for a Sustainable University: A Review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2015;16(2):155–172. doi: 10.1108/ijshe-02-2013-0017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Argento D, Einarson D, Mårtensson L, Persson C, Wendin K, Westergren A. Integrating sustainability in higher education: a Swedish case. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(6):1131–1150. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ashraf MW, Alanezi F. Incorporation of sustainability concepts into the engineering core program by adopting a micro curriculum approach: A case study in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2020;12(7):2901. doi: 10.3390/su12072901. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ávila LV, Beuron TA, Brandli LL, Damke LI, Pereira RS, Klein LL. Barriers to innovation and sustainability in universities: an international comparison. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(5):805–821. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Badea L, Șerban-Oprescu GL, Dedu S, Piroșcă GI. The impact of education for sustainable development on Romanian economics and business students’ behavior. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):8169. doi: 10.3390/su12198169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Baena-Morales S, Jerez-Mayorga D, Fernández-González FT, López-Morales J. The use of a cooperative-learning activity with university students: A gender experience. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):9292. doi: 10.3390/su12219292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Barros MV, Puglieri FN, Tesser DP, Kuczynski O, Piekarski CM. Sustainability at a Brazilian university: developing environmentally sustainable practices and a life cycle assessment case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(5):841–859. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Blanco-Portela N, Benayas J, Pertierra LR, Lozano R. Towards the integration of sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A review of drivers of and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;166:563–578. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Blasco N, Brusca I, Labrador M. Drivers for universities’ contribution to the sustainable development goals: an analysis of Spanish public universities. Sustainability. 2021;13(1):89. doi: 10.3390/su13010089. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Brugmann R, Côté N, Postma N, Shaw EA, Pal D, Robinson JB. Expanding student engagement in sustainability: Using SDG-and CEL-focused inventories to transform curriculum at the University of Toronto. Sustainability. 2019;11(2):530. doi: 10.3390/su11020530. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Buil-Fabrega M, Martínez Casanovas M, Ruiz-Munzón N. Flipped classroom as an active learning methodology in sustainable development curricula. Sustainability. 2019;11(17):4577. doi: 10.3390/su11174577. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Campbell AC, Mawer M. Clarifying mixed messages: International scholarship programmes in the sustainable development agenda. Higher Education Policy. 2019;32(2):167–184. doi: 10.1057/s41307-017-0077-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B. Towards systemic management of diversity in organizational change. Strategic Change. 1999;8(4):205–216. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1697(199906/07)8:4<205::AID-JSC417>3.0.CO;2-R. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B. The need for a systemic approach to change management—a case study. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 2004;17(2):103–126. doi: 10.1023/B:SPAA.0000018906.16607.cc. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Castro PM, Ares-Pernas A, Dapena A. Service-learning projects in university degrees based on sustainable development goals: proposals and results. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):7940. doi: 10.3390/su12197940. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chang Y-C, Lien H-L. Mapping course sustainability by embedding the SDGs inventory into the university curriculum: a case study from National University of Kaohsiung in Taiwan. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4274. doi: 10.3390/su12104274. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chankseliani, M., & McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. Higher Education, 81(1), 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Chapman GR, Cully A, Kosiol J, Macht SA, Chapman RL, Fitzgerald JA, Gertsen F. The wicked problem of measuring real-world research impact: Using sustainable development goals (SDGs) and targets in academia. Journal of Management and Organization. 2020;26(6):1030–1047. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2020.16. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chiba M, Sustarsic M, Perriton S, Edwards DB. Investigating effective teaching and learning for sustainable development and global citizenship: Implications from a systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Development. 2021;81:102337. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102337. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chin A, Jacobsson T. TheGoals. org: mobile global education on the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;123:227–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Chisingui AV, Costa N. Teacher education and sustainable development goals: a case study with future biology teachers in an Angolan higher education institution. Sustainability. 2020;12(8):3344. doi: 10.3390/su12083344. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cicmil S, Gough G, Hills S. Insights into responsible education for sustainable development: The case of UWE, Bristol. The International Journal of Management Education. 2017;15(2):293–305. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Collazo Expósito LM, Granados Sánchez J. Implementation of SDGs in university teaching: A course for professional development of teachers in education for sustainability for a transformative action. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):8267. doi: 10.3390/su12198267. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cottafava D, Cavaglià G, Corazza L. Education of sustainable development goals through students’ active engagement. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2019;10(3):521–544. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Crespo B, Míguez-Álvarez C, Arce ME, Cuevas M, Míguez JL. The sustainable development goals: An experience on higher education. Sustainability. 2017;9(8):1353. doi: 10.3390/su9081353. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Daly SW, Lowe J, Hornsby GM, Harris AR. Multiple water source use in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Journal of Water and Health. 2021;19(3):370–392. doi: 10.2166/wh.2021.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Daniela L, Visvizi A, Gutiérrez-Braojos C, Lytras MD. Sustainable higher education and technology-enhanced learning (TEL) Sustainability. 2018;10(11):3883. doi: 10.3390/su10113883. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- de Assumpção MR, Neto MPM. State-of-the-art practices being reported by the PRME champions group: A reference to advance education for sustainable development. The International Journal of Management Education. 2020;18(2):100369. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100369. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Décamps A, Barbat G, Carteron J-C, Hands V, Parkes C. Sulitest: A collaborative initiative to support and assess sustainability literacy in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education. 2017;15(2):138–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- del Olmo Fernández MJA, Villalba MJS, Olivencia JJL. Perceptions of professors of educational inclusion: Diversity, cooperation and commitment. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020;8(8):3562–3569. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080832. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Denyer D, Tranfield D, Van Aken JE. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies. 2008;29(3):393–413. doi: 10.1177/0170840607088020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Desha C, Rowe D, Hargreaves D. A review of progress and opportunities to foster development of sustainability-related competencies in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. 2019;24(2):61–73. doi: 10.1080/22054952.2019.1696652. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Di Nauta P, Iannuzzi E, Milone M, Nigro C. The impact of the sustainability principles on the strategic planning and reporting of universities. An exploratory study on a qualified Italian sample. Sustainability. 2020;12(18):7269. doi: 10.3390/su12187269. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Dlouhá J, Heras R, Mulà I, Salgado FP, Henderson L. Competences to address SDGs in higher education—A reflection on the equilibrium between systemic and personal approaches to achieve transformative action. Sustainability. 2019;11(13):3664. doi: 10.3390/su11133664. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Domínguez-Fernández G, Prieto-Jiménez E, Backhouse P, Ismodes E. Cybersociety and university sustainability: The challenge of holistic restructuring in universities in Chile, Spain, and Peru. Sustainability. 2020;12(14):5722. doi: 10.3390/su12145722. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Dyllick T, Muff K. A positive impact rating for business schools: case study. Sustainability. 2020;12(22):9551. doi: 10.3390/su12229551. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards S, Ashida A. Higher education in Japan: internationalization, the Sustainable Development Goals and survivability. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development. 2020;23(2):104–119. doi: 10.1108/IJCED-09-2020-0061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Elmassah S, Biltagy M, Gamal D. Engendering sustainable development competencies in higher education: the case of Egypt. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;266:121959. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121959. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Eppinga MB, Lozano-Cosme J, de Scisciolo T, Arens P, Santos MJ, Mijts EN. Putting sustainability research into practice on the university campus. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(1):54–75. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2019-0131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Escudero M. Global corporate citizenship and academia: A global convergence. Concept Paper. New York: United Nations; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Espada-Chavarria R, Moreno-Rodriguez R, Jenaro C. Development of Vocational maturity in university students with disabilities to access, obtain an internship and complete university studies. Education Sciences. 2020;10(12):386. doi: 10.3390/educsci10120386. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Etzkowitz H. Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information. 2013;52(3):486–511. doi: 10.1177/0539018413485832. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson T, Roofe CG. SDG 4 in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(5):959–975. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2019-0353. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ferrer-Estévez M, Chalmeta R. Integrating Sustainable Development Goals in educational institutions. The International Journal of Management Education. 2021;19(2):100494. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100494. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ferrer-Balas D, Adachi J, Banas S, Davidson CI, Hoshikoshi A, Mishra A, Motodoa Y, Onga M, Ostwald M. An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2008;9(3):295–316. doi: 10.1108/14676370810885907. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Findler F, Schönherr N, Lozano R, Reider D, Martinuzzi A. The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(1):23–38. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0114. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Finnveden G, Friman E, Mogren A, Palmer H, Sund P, Carstedt G, Lundberg S, Robertsson B, Rodhe H, Svärd L. Evaluation of integration of sustainable development in higher education in Sweden. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(4):685–698. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0287. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fleacă E, Fleacă B, Maiduc S. Aligning strategy with sustainable development goals (SDGs): Process scoping diagram for entrepreneurial higher education institutions (HEIs) Sustainability. 2018;10(4):1032. doi: 10.3390/su10041032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Franco CP, McCowan T. Rewiring higher education for the Sustainable Development Goals: the case of the Intercultural University of Veracruz, Mexico. Higher Education. 2020;81(1):69–88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00525-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Franco I, Saito O, Vaughter P, Whereat J, Kanie N, Takemoto K. Higher education for sustainable development: actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustainability Science. 2019;14(6):1621–1642. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0628-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Frandoloso MA, Rebelatto BG. The participatory process of planning social and environmental responsibility at a Brazilian university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;2(5):917–931. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- French, W. L., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1985). Understanding human behavior in organizations. Harper & Row.
- Fuertes-Camacho MT, Graell-Martín M, Fuentes-Loss M, Balaguer-Fàbregas MC. Integrating sustainability into higher education curricula through the project method, a global learning strategy. Sustainability. 2019;11(3):767. doi: 10.3390/su11030767. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Galán-Casado D, Moraleda A, Martínez-Martí ML, Pérez-Nieto MÁ. Sustainable environments in education: results on the effects of the new environments in learning processes of university students. Sustainability. 2020;12(7):2668. doi: 10.3390/su12072668. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gallagher S. Development education on a massive scale: evaluation and reflections on a massive open online course on sustainable development. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review. 2018;26:121–140. [Google Scholar]
- García-Feijoo M, Eizaguirre A, Rica-Aspiunza A. Systematic review of sustainable-development-goal deployment in business schools. Sustainability. 2020;12(1):440. doi: 10.3390/su12010440. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- García AC, Gil-Mediavilla M, Álvarez I, Casares M, d. l. Á. The influence of social networks within educational and social fields: a comparative study between two generations of online students. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):9941. doi: 10.3390/su12239941. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Geels FW, Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy. 2007;36(3):399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Llanos E, Durán-Barroso P. Learning design decisions in massive open online courses (MOOC) applied to higher education in civil-engineering topics. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8430. doi: 10.3390/su12208430. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Goodall M, Moore E. Integrating the Sustainable Development Goals into teaching, research, operations, and service: A case report of Yale University. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2019;12(2):93–96. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Greig A, Priddle J. Mapping students’ development in response to sustainability education: a conceptual model. Sustainability. 2019;11(16):4324. doi: 10.3390/su11164324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Habron G. Scaffolding applied learning and sustainable development goals in the Furman University sustainability science program. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2019;12(2):115–118. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hajdukiewicz A, Pera B. Education for sustainable development—the case of massive open online courses. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8542. doi: 10.3390/su12208542. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hauser C, Ryan A. Higher education institutions, PRME and partnerships for the goals: retrofit labeling or driving force for change? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2021;12(6):1268–1288. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2020-0069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hernández-Barco M, Sánchez-Martín J, Blanco-Salas J, Ruiz-Téllez T. Teaching down to earth—service-learning methodology for science education and sustainability at the university level: a practical approach. Sustainability. 2020;12(2):542. doi: 10.3390/su12020542. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hirst N. Education for sustainability in higher education; Early Childhood Studies as a site for provocation, collaboration and inquiry. Education 3-13. 2019;47(4):381–394. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2018.1476566. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hossain SFA, Xi Z, Nurunnabi M, Anwar B. Sustainable academic performance in higher education: a mixed method approach. Interactive Learning Environments. 2019;25:1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Ibáñez ME, Cid IVL, Muñoz LVA, Claros FM. Environmental education, an essential instrument to implement the sustainable development goals in the university context. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Jamison A, Madden M. Developing capacities for meeting the SDGs: exploring the role of a public land-grant institution in the civic engagement of its African alumni. Higher Education. 2021;81(1):145–162. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00638-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kester K. Whiteness, patriarchy, and peacebuilding in UN higher education: some theoretical and pedagogical implications from one case institution. Irish Educational Studies. 2019;38(4):481–499. doi: 10.1080/03323315.2019.1645722. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kestin, T., Van den Belt, M., Denby, L., Ross, K., Thwaites, J., & Hawkes, M. (2017) Getting started with the SDGs in universities: A guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector, Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://ap-unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/University-SDG-Guide_web.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2022.
- Killian S, Lannon J, Murray L, Avram G, Giralt M, O'Riordan S. Social media for social good: student engagement for the SDGs. The International Journal of Management Education. 2019;17(3):100307. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N. Sustainable development goals (SDGs): assessing the contribution of higher education programmes. Sustainability. 2020;12(17):6701. doi: 10.3390/su12176701. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Knudsen MP, Frederiksen MH, Goduscheit RC. New forms of engagement in third mission activities: a multi-level university-centric approach. Innovation. 2021;23(2):209–240. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1670666. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kolb M, Fröhlich L, Schmidpeter R. Implementing sustainability as the new normal: responsible management education–From a private business school's perspective. The International Journal of Management Education. 2017;15(2):280–292. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kopnina H. Teaching sustainable development goals in The Netherlands: a critical approach. Environmental Education Research. 2018;24(9):1268–1283. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1303819. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Labonté R. Health promotion in an age of normative equity and rampant inequality. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2016;5(12):675–682. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lafuente-Lechuga M, Cifuentes-Faura J, Faura-Martínez Ú. Mathematics applied to the economy and sustainable development goals: a necessary relationship of dependence. Education Sciences. 2020;10(11):339. doi: 10.3390/educsci10110339. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lai Y-C, Peng L-H. Effective teaching and activities of excellent teachers for the sustainable development of higher design education. Sustainability. 2020;12(1):28. doi: 10.3390/su12010028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Leal Filho W, Pallant E, Enete A, Richter B, Brandli L. Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the difficulties and potentials. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 2018;25(8):713–721. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2018.1461707. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Leal Filho W, Shiel C, Paço A, Mifsud M, Ávila LV, Brandli LL, Molthan-Hill P, Pace P, Azeiteiro UM, Vargas VR. Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;232:285–294. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Leal Filho W, Skanavis C, Kounani A, Brandli LL, Shiel C, do Paco A, Pace P, Mifsud M, Beynaghi A, Price E. The role of planning in implementing sustainable development in a higher education context. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;235:678–687. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.322. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ličen S, Jedlicka SR. Sustainable development principles in US sport management graduate programs. Sport, Education and Society. 2020;546:1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Lovren VO, Maruna M, Stanarevic S. Reflections on the learning objectives for sustainable development in the higher education curricula–three cases from the University of Belgrade. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(2):315–335. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0260. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lozano R. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2006;14(9–11):787–796. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Manolis EN, Manoli EN. Raising awareness of the sustainable development goals through ecological projects in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;279:123614. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123614. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing.
- Maruna M. Toward the integration of SDGs in higher planning education: Insights from integrated urbanism study program in Belgrade. Sustainability. 2019;11(17):4519. doi: 10.3390/su11174519. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mawonde A, Togo M. Implementation of SDGs at the university of South Africa. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(5):932–950. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- McCowan T. The University as Engine of Development? Philosophical Inquiry in Education. 2018;25(2):188–204. doi: 10.7202/1070741ar. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- McDonald G, Nijhof A. Beyond Codes of Ethics: An integrated framework for stimulating morally responsible behaviour in organisations. Leadership Organization Development Journal. 1999;20(3):133–147. doi: 10.1108/01437739910268406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Melles G. Survey study on attitudes to multi-dimensional sustainable development with UK MSc students. Social Sciences. 2019;8(3):75. doi: 10.3390/socsci8030075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Milton S. Higher education and sustainable development goal 16 in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Higher Education. 2021;81(1):89–108. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00617-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mion G, Broglia A, Bonfanti A. Do codes of ethics reveal a university’s commitment to sustainable development? Evidence from Italy. Sustainability. 2019;11(4):1134. doi: 10.3390/su11041134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Miotto G, Polo López M, Rom Rodríguez J. Gender equality and UN sustainable development goals: Priorities and correlations in the top business schools’ communication and legitimation strategies. Sustainability. 2019;11(2):302. doi: 10.3390/su11020302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Moon CJ, Walmsley A, Apostolopoulos N. Governance implications of the UN higher education sustainability initiative. Corporate Governance: the International Journal of Business in Society. 2018;18(4):624–634. doi: 10.1108/CG-01-2018-0020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mori Junior, R., Fien, J., & Horne, R. (2019) 'Implementing the UN SDGs in universities: challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned', Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 12(2): 129-133.
- Ndubuka NN, Rey-Marmonier E. Capability approach for realising the Sustainable Development Goals through Responsible Management Education: The case of UK business school academics. The International Journal of Management Education. 2019;17(3):100319. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100319. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Neal M. Learning from poverty: Why business schools should address poverty, and how they can go about it. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2017;16(1):54–69. doi: 10.5465/amle.2014.0369. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Neary J, Osborne M. University engagement in achieving sustainable development goals: a synthesis of case studies from the SUEUAA study. Australian Journal of Adult Learning. 2018;58(3):336–364. [Google Scholar]
- O'Keeffe P. The case for engaging online tutors for supporting learners in higher education in refugee contexts. Research in Learning Technology. 2020;28:2428. [Google Scholar]
- Orozco-Messana J, de la Poza-Plaza E, Calabuig-Moreno R. Experiences in transdisciplinary education for the sustainable development of the built environment, the ISAlab workshop. Sustainability. 2020;12(3):1143. doi: 10.3390/su12031143. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Orozco-Messana J, Martínez-Rubio JM, Gonzálvez-Pons AM. Sustainable higher education development through technology enhanced learning. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3600. doi: 10.3390/su12093600. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ortega-Sánchez D, Gómez-Trigueros IM. Massive open online courses in the initial training of social science teachers: experiences, methodological conceptions, and technological use for sustainable development. Sustainability. 2019;11(3):578. doi: 10.3390/su11030578. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Owens TL. Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. European Journal of Education. 2017;52(4):414–420. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12237. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Owusu-Agyeman Y. Formation of a sustainable development ecosystem for Ghanaian universities. International Review of Education. 2020;67(3):333–362. doi: 10.1007/s11159-020-09857-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Paletta A, Bonoli A. Governing the university in the perspective of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(3):500–514. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0083. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Peña Miguel N, Corral Lage J, Mata Galindez A. Assessment of the development of professional skills in university students: Sustainability and serious games. Sustainability. 2020;12(3):1014. doi: 10.3390/su12031014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Perales Franco C, McCowan T. Rewiring higher education for the Sustainable Development Goals: the case of the Intercultural University of Veracruz, Mexico. Higher Education. 2020;81(1):69–88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00525-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Perales Jarillo M, Pedraza L, Moreno Ger P, Bocos E. Challenges of online higher education in the face of the sustainability objectives of the united nations: carbon footprint, accessibility and social inclusion. Sustainability. 2019;11(20):5580. doi: 10.3390/su11205580. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Perović LM, Kosor MM. The efficiency of universities in achieving sustainable development goals. Amfiteatru Economic. 2020;22(54):516–532. [Google Scholar]
- Portuguez Castro M, Gomez Zermeno MG. Challenge based learning: innovative pedagogy for sustainability through e-learning in higher education. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4063. doi: 10.3390/su12104063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC. From piecemeal to holistic: introducing sustainability science in Indian Universities to attain UN-Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;247:119133. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Purcell WM, Henriksen H, Spengler JD. Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: “Living labs” for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(8):1343–1357. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ramos-Rodríguez AR, Ruíz-Navarro J. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic management journal. 2004;25(10):981–1004. doi: 10.1002/smj.397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Rebelatto BG, Salvia AL, Reginatto G, Daneli RC, Brandli LL. Energy efficiency actions at a Brazilian university and their contribution to sustainable development Goal 7. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(5):842–855. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Renta-Davids A-I, Camarero-Figuerola M, Tierno-García J-M. Assessment of the quality education awareness competence of pre-service educators using vignettes. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10203. doi: 10.3390/su122310203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Rip A, Kemp R. Technological change. Human choice and climate change. 1998;2(2):327–399. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Abitia G, Martínez-Pérez S, Ramirez-Montoya MS, Lopez-Caudana E. Digital gap in universities and challenges for quality education: a diagnostic study in Mexico and Spain. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):9069. doi: 10.3390/su12219069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez-Domenech MA, Bello-Bravo J, Pittendrigh BR. Scientific animations without borders (SAWBO): an innovative strategy for promoting education for sustainable development. Sustainability Science. 2019;14(4):1105–1116. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0624-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sacconi L. A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate governance (I): rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics. 2006;68(3):259–281. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sáez de Cámara E, Fernández I, Castillo-Eguskitza N. A holistic approach to integrate and evaluate sustainable development in higher education. The case study of the University of the Basque Country. Sustainability. 2021;13(1):392. doi: 10.3390/su13010392. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Saitua-Iribar A, Corral-Lage J, Peña-Miguel N. Improving knowledge about the sustainable development goals through a collaborative learning methodology and serious game. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):6169. doi: 10.3390/su12156169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Saralegi A, Rojo N, Alvarez J, Encinas L, Amurrio J. Strategies to improve hazardous waste management at the Faculty of Engineering Vitoria-Gasteiz UPV/EHU. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2020;9(4):22. doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n4p22. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Scheffer AP, Cechetti VP, Lauermann LP, Porto ER, Dalla Rosa F. Study to promote the sustainable mobility in university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(5):871–886. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Schina D, Esteve-González V, Usart M, Lázaro-Cantabrana J-L, Gisbert M. The integration of sustainable development goals in educational robotics: a teacher education experience. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10085. doi: 10.3390/su122310085. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sierra J. The potential of simulations for developing multiple learning outcomes: the student perspective. The International Journal of Management Education. 2020;18(1):100361. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100361. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sisto R, Sica E, Cappelletti GM. Drafting the Strategy for sustainability in universities: a backcasting approach. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4288. doi: 10.3390/su12104288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Slocum SL, Dimitrov DY, Webb K. The impact of neoliberalism on higher education tourism programs: Meeting the 2030 sustainable development goals with the next generation. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2019;30:33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.01.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Smith WK, Gonin M, Besharov ML. Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly. 2013;23(3):407–442. doi: 10.5840/beq201323327. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Smith WK, Lewis MW. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review. 2011;36(2):381–403. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder K, Koustas S, Jillson C. Sustainability Reporting at Universities with Multiple Platforms. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2020;13(5):218–224. doi: 10.1089/sus.2020.0039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sonetti G, Barioglio C, Campobenedetto D. Education for sustainability in practice: a review of current strategies within Italian universities. Sustainability. 2020;12(13):5246. doi: 10.3390/su12135246. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sosa-Díaz MJ, Fernández-Sánchez MR. Massive open online courses (MOOC) within the framework of international developmental cooperation as a strategy to achieve sustainable development goals. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10187. doi: 10.3390/su122310187. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stahlschmidt, S., & Stephen, D. (2020). Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases. KB Forschungspoolprojekt; DZHW: Hannover, Germany.
- Strachan SM, Marshall S, Murray P, Coyle EJ, Sonnenberg-Klein J. Using Vertically Integrated Projects to embed research-based education for sustainable development in undergraduate curricula. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(8):1313–1328. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2018-0198. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Straková Z, Cimermanová I. Critical thinking development—A necessary step in higher education transformation towards sustainability. Sustainability. 2018;10(10):3366. doi: 10.3390/su10103366. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tejedor G, Segalàs J, Barrón Á, Fernández-Morilla M, Fuertes MT, Ruiz-Morales J, Gutiérrez I, García-González E, Aramburuzabala P, Hernández À. Didactic strategies to promote competencies in sustainability. Sustainability. 2019;11(7):2086. doi: 10.3390/su11072086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Torabian J. Revisiting global university rankings and their indicators in the age of sustainable development. Sustainability: the Journal of Record. 2019;12(3):167–172. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management. 2003;14(3):207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Trott CD, Weinberg AE, Sample McMeeking LB. Prefiguring sustainability through participatory action research experiences for undergraduates: Reflections and recommendations for student development. Sustainability. 2018;10(9):3332. doi: 10.3390/su10093332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Useh U. Sustainable development goals as a framework for postgraduate future research following COVID-19 pandemic: a new norm for developing countries. Higher Education for the Future. 2021;8(1):123–132. doi: 10.1177/2347631120972064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vatalis KI. Training sustainability through role playing in higher education. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal. 2017;11(4):361–372. doi: 10.1504/PIE.2017.092723. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vaughter P, Wright T, McKenzie M, Lidstone L. Greening the ivory tower: A review of educational research on sustainability in post-secondary education. Sustainability. 2013;5(5):2252–2271. doi: 10.3390/su5052252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Weiss M, Barth M. Global research landscape of sustainability curricula implementation in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(4):570–589. doi: 10.1108/ijshe-10-2018-0190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Winfield F, Ndlovu T. Future-proof your Degree. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2019;20(8):1329–1342. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2018-0196. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Withycombe Keeler L, Beaudoin FD, Lerner AM, John B, Beecroft R, Tamm K, Wiek A, Lang DJ. Transferring sustainability solutions across contexts through city–university partnerships. Sustainability. 2018;10(9):2966. doi: 10.3390/su10092966. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wubah D, Steuer C, Brown G, Rice K. Funding community sustainable development using zero energy buildings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;22(1):29–43. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0312. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Xiong W, Mok KH. Sustainability practices of higher education institutions in Hong Kong: a case study of a sustainable campus consortium. Sustainability. 2020;12(2):452. doi: 10.3390/su12020452. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Yli-Panula E, Jeronen E, Lemmetty P. Teaching and learning methods in geography promoting sustainability. Education Sciences. 2020;10(1):5. doi: 10.3390/educsci10010005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zamora-Polo F, Sánchez-Martín J. Teaching for a better world. Sustainability and sustainable development goals in the construction of a change-maker university. Sustainability. 2019;11(15):4224. doi: 10.3390/su11154224. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zamora-Polo F, Sánchez-Martín J, Corrales-Serrano M, Espejo-Antúnez L. What do university students know about sustainable development goals? A realistic approach to the reception of this UN program amongst the youth population. Sustainability. 2019;11(13):3533. doi: 10.3390/su11133533. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zermeño MGG, de la Garza LYA. Open laboratories for social innovation: A strategy for research and innovation in education for peace and sustainable developmentSustainable development is an issue of high relevance for all countries, and universities play a fundamental role in promotin. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;22(2):344–362. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2020-0186. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zhu B, Zhu C, Dewancker B. A study of development mode in green campus to realize the sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2020;21(4):799–818. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-01-2020-0021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.