education for sustainable development essay

Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a call-to-action for people worldwide to address five critical areas of importance by 2030: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership.

Biology, Health, Conservation, Geography, Human Geography, Social Studies, Civics

Set forward by the United Nations (UN) in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are a collection of 17 global goals aimed at improving the planet and the quality of human life around the world by the year 2030.

Image courtesy of the United Nations

In 2015, the 193 countries that make up the United Nations (UN) agreed to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The historic agenda lays out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets for dignity, peace, and prosperity for the planet and humankind, to be completed by the year 2030. The agenda targets multiple areas for action, such as poverty and sanitation , and plans to build up local economies while addressing people's social needs.

In short, the 17 SDGs are:

Goal 1: No Poverty: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: Zero Hunger: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Goal 4: Quality Education: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 5: Gender Equality : Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

Goal 10: Reduced Inequality : Reduce in equality within and among countries.

Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Goal 13: Climate Action: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

Goal 14: Life Below Water: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

Goal 15: Life on Land: Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Goal 16: Peace,  Justice , and Strong Institutions: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 17: Partnerships to Achieve the Goal: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

The SDGs build on over a decade of work by participating countries. In essence, the SDGs are a continuation of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which began in the year 2000 and ended in 2015. The MDGs helped to lift nearly one billion people out of extreme poverty, combat hunger, and allow more girls to attend school. The MDGs, specifically goal seven, helped to protect the planet by practically eliminating global consumption of ozone-depleting substances; planting trees to offset the loss of forests; and increasing the percent of total land and coastal marine areas worldwide. The SDGs carry on the momentum generated by the MDGs with an ambitious post-2015 development agenda that may cost over $4 trillion each year. The SDGs were a result of the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit, which demanded the creation of an open working group to develop a draft agenda for 2015 and onward.

Unlike the MDGs, which relied exclusively on funding from governments and nonprofit organizations, the SDGs also rely on the private business sector to make contributions that change impractical and unsustainable consumption and production patterns. Novozymes, a purported world leader in biological solutions, is just one example of a business that has aligned its goals with the SDGs. Novozymes has prioritized development of technology that reduces the amount of water required for waste treatment. However, the UN must find more ways to meaningfully engage the private sector to reach the goals, and more businesses need to step up to the plate to address these goals.

Overall, limited progress has been made with the SDGs. According to the UN, many people are living healthier lives now compared to the start of the millennium, representing one area of progress made by the MDGs and SDGs. For example, the UN reported that between 2012 and 2017, 80 percent of live births worldwide had assistance from a skilled health professional—an improvement from 62 percent between 2000 and 2005.

While some progress has been made, representatives who attended sustainable development meetings claimed that the SDGs are not being accomplished at the speed, or with the appropriate momentum, needed to meet the 2030 deadline. On some measures of poverty, only slight improvements have been made: The 2018 SDGs Report states that 9.2 percent of the world's workers who live with family members made less than $1.90 per person per day in 2017, representing less than a 1 percent improvement from 2015. Another issue is the recent rise in world hunger. Rates had been steadily declining, but the 2018 SDGs Report stated that over 800 million people were undernourished worldwide in 2016, which is up from 777 million people in 2015.

Another area of the SDGs that lacks progress is gender equality. Multiple news outlets have recently reported that no country is on track to achieve gender equality by 2030 based on the SDG gender index. On a scale of zero to 100, where a score of 100 means equality has been achieved, Denmark was the top performing country out of 129 countries with score slightly under 90. A score of 90 or above means a country is making excellent progress in achieving the goals, and 59 or less is considered poor headway. Countries were scored against SDGs targets that particularly affect women, such as access to safe water or the Internet. The majority of the top 20 countries with a good ranking were European countries, while sub-Saharan Africa had some of the lowest-ranking countries. The overall average score of all countries is a poor score of 65.7.

In fall of 2019, heads of state and government will convene at the United Nations Headquarters in New York to assess the progress in the 17 SDGs. The following year—2020—marks the deadline for 21 of the 169 SDG targets. At this time, UN member states will meet to make a decision to update these targets.

In addition to global efforts to achieve the SDGs, according to the UN, there are ways that an individual can contribute to progress: save on electricity while home by unplugging appliances when not in use; go online and opt in for paperless statements instead of having bills mailed to the house; and report bullying online when seen in a chat room or on social media.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Sustainability Hub

Companion Websites

Responsive Template

Education for Sustainable Development

Thematic essay.

• Case Study: ESD as Transformation

Case Study: Sustainable Schools Policy in the UK

Recommended routledge books, blogs and websites.

Click to download

‘Learner drivers’ for the future: a different education for a different world

Stephen Sterling, Plymouth University, UK

What do you think when you see those ‘L’ plates on the car in front? ‘Oh no, that’s going to slow me down...’? ; ‘Glad I got my test out of the way years ago’?

It’s a metaphor of course, but current conditions – economic, social, ecological, political, technological – are requiring us all to be ‘learner drivers’: more cautious, going slower, reading our broader environment, aware of dangers and signals of change. Because we are facing testing times like never before ‒ not just once as in the driving licence test, but over lifetimes. We are living in a different world than was the case even a decade or two ago, and the future is profoundly uncertain. As Al Gore says in his extensive study:

There is a clear consensus that the future now emerging will be extremely different from anything we have ever known in the past….There is no prior period of change that remotely resembles what humanity is about to experience. (Gore 2013: xv).

There are almost daily headlines around such issues as energy,food security, biodiversity and species loss, poverty and inequity, climate change and shifting and extreme weather patterns, employment issues, social justice, economic volatility and a rising population. These fuel a renewed urgency and debate about the possibility of sustainable development  (Assadourian and Prugh 2013) – how to live well, into the future, without eroding the Earth’s ability to sustain present and future generations. Continuing the metaphor, we can ‘drive on’ blindly of course, hoping for the best. Or we can anticipate, think ahead, take avoiding action, take alternative routes. We can choose to be wise learners for the future.

When I started in environmental education some 40 years ago, it was about education that would help people understand and act on environmental issues. Now, more broadly, it’s about education and learning that can help secure a more sustainable future than ‘the one in prospect’ – as the renowned educator David Orr puts it.

For example, the international Sustainable Development Solutions Network’s (SDSN) Action Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDSN 2013) details ‘ten priority challenges of sustainable development’: ending poverty, development within planetary boundaries, effective learning for children and youth, gender equality and human rights, health and wellbeing, improving agricultural systems, curbing climate change, resilient cities, securing ecosystem services and biodiversity, and transforming governance.  These are proposed as the basis of ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs), which are currently being discussed prior to their elaboration and adoption internationally in 2015 to replace the Millennium Development Goals.

So there is a growing consensus on the broad directions that need to be taken. The means by which such goals are to be addressed are often presented as: policy and monitoring, finance and incentives, legislation and regulation, information and campaigns. But these policy instruments are often only effective for as long as they are in operation ‒ because they are externally applied. Education however, can build lasting change - that is, sustainable change ‒when it is owned by the learner. Whilst policy instruments tend to treat symptoms of unsustainable activities and behaviours, education and learning can reach hearts and minds, and therefore address root causes. Further, many commentators over some years have been pointing to the urgency of a deeper cultural change, away from short-termism, individualism, excessive competition and materialism, towards an ethic of care, social justice, mutuality and wellbeing (see Earth Charter www.earthcharterinaction.org ).

Put alternatively, outer change depends on inner change as regards how we view ourselves and our relation with others and the wider world towards a relational consciousness, and this is essentially a learning process.  Futurist Paul Raskin argues that, ‘The shape of the global future rests with the reflexivity of human consciousness – the capacity to think critically about why we think what we do – and then to think and act differently’ (Raskin 2008: 469). Hence the importance of the kinds of education that can effect this transformative process. The field of education for sustainable development (ESD) can be seen as a response to these considerable challenges.

Particularly since the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, and Agenda 21 ‒ which in chapter 36 laid out the challenge of educating for a more sustainable society ‒ an international ESD movement has emerged strongly, drawing on longer-established approaches such as environmental education, conservation education, development education, human rights education, and global education. This movement is concerned with identifying and advancing the kinds of education, teaching and learning policy and practice that appear to be required if we are concerned about ensuring social, economic and ecological viability and well-being, now and into the long-term future.  It is, on the face of it, hugely ambitious. As UNESCO states:

ESD is far more than teaching knowledge and principles related to sustainability. ESD, in its broadest sense, is education for social transformation with the goal of creating more sustainable societies. ESD touches every aspect of education including planning, policy development, programme implementation, finance, curricula, teaching, learning, assessment, administration. ESD aims to provide a coherent interaction between education, public awareness, and training with a view to creating a more sustainable future (UNESCO, 2012:33).

This calls for a particular quality and orientation of educational and learning policies and practices, across all societies and contexts. UNESCO defines ESD as education which, ‘allows every human being to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a sustainable future’ (UNESCO 2014) http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/ .

Yet this reflects the central paradox of ESD. On the one hand, it is seen as critical to any prospect of a more sustainable future, but on the other, it challenges mainstream thinking, policy and practice in much formal education. Sustainability issues are often characterised by ‘wicked problems’, complexity and uncertainty, requiring participative pedagogies and collaborative engagement, interdisciplinarity, real world research and engagement, and an open-ended and a provisional approach to knowledge. This is a different kind of education for a different age. However, universities – in particular – are based on silos with regard to their teaching, learning and research, and the more transformative and holistic approach that sustainability requires is often difficult to implement, requiring systemic change and organisational learning over time (as we have attempted at Plymouth University).

Yet despite the real challenges involved ‒ and the lack of a supportive political climate in England ‒ there is a strong and growing movement towards the embedding of sustainability in education in schools and universities. This is often ‘bottom-up’, but increasingly there are signs that senior managers recognise that sustainability is important to an institution’s operation, curriculum and reputation, and the rich notion of whole institutional change towards the ‘sustainable university’ is beginning to take root (Sterling et al. 2013). Amongst university students, an NUS and Higher Education Academy study over three years shows that more than 80% of students surveyed believe sustainable development should be actively promoted and incorporated by UK universities ‒ a powerful incentive to universities hoping to increase student numbers ( NUS HEA survey , Drayson et al. 2013). Further, the centrality of learning to developing effective leadership for sustainability is increasingly recognised in the business world (Courtice 2012).

We are all ‘driving the future’, through our everyday actions and choices. If we are to secure a safer and enduring future for generations to come, the sustainability revolution ‘requires each person to act as a learning leader at some level, from family to community, from nation to world’ (Meadows et al. 2005:280). This is a big ask, but an inescapable one, and education needs to step up to the task.

Assadourian, E and Prugh, T et al. (2013) Is Sustainability Still Possible? Worldwatch Institute, Island Press, Washington.

Courtice, P. ‘The critical link: strategy and sustainability in leadership development’, in CPSL (2012) The Future in Practice – the State of Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, Cambridge. http://digital.edition-on.net/links/6431_the_future_in_practice_cpsl.asp

Drayson, R, Bone, E, Agombar, J, and Kemp, S (2013 ) Student attitudes towards and skills for sustainable development,   Higher Education Academy/NUS, York.

Gore, A (2013) The Future, W.H. Allen, New York.

Meadows, D, Meadows, D and Randers, J (2005) Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update, Earthscan, London.

Raskin, P (2008) ‘World lines: A framework for exploring global pathways,’ Ecological Economics, 65, 461–70.

SDSN (2103) An Action Agenda for Sustainable Development – Report for the UN Secretary-General, Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Leadership Council. http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/an-action-agenda-for-sustainable-development/

Sterling, S, Maxey, L and Luna, H (2013) The Sustainable University – progress and prospects, Earthscan, Abingdon. http://www.routledge.com/9780415627740/#description

UNESCO (2012) ESD Sourcebook, Learning & Training Tools, No. 4. Paris, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002163/216383e.pdf

Case study: ESD as Transformation – a liberal review

William Scott, University of Bath, UK

“We must take the first determined steps toward a sustainable future with dignity for all.  Transformation is our aim.  We must transform our economies, our environment and our societies. We must change old mindsets, behaviours and destructive patterns.  We must embrace the integrated essential elements of dignity, people, prosperity, planet, justice and partnership.  We must build cohesive societies, in pursuit of international peace and stability. … Such a future is possible if we collectively mobilize political will and the necessary resources to strengthen our nations and the multilateral system.  We have the means and methods to meet these challenges if we decide to employ them and work together.” (UNGA, 2014)

Social critique and transformation

In 1989, the biologist Mary Clark argued that in Western history there have only been two major periods of conscious social change and transformation where societies deliberately critiqued themselves and created new worldviews.  The first occurred in the Greek city states (500 – 400 BC) where old ways of thinking became suspect and the first schools emerged.  Philosophers purposefully asked different kinds of questions through public dialogues, new lines of thought and social action emerged, and a new status quo was established whose ideas and practices spread.  The second time, Clark said, was through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment when Western culture, through its natural and social philosophers, subjected itself to critical thought and renewal.  The result was the modern worldview that the West more or less retains today, and which many believe has resulted in the sustainability problems that affect us all.  The irony is, of course, that the Enlightenment also brought new values and political and social freedoms that many live by, and would wish to defend.   Clark (1989: 235) argued that we need to “collectively create a new worldview that curbs ecological and social exploitation, and recreates social meaning”.  She saw that this process needed to be a society-wide, citizenly, phenomenon involving everyone – not just political, social, religious or cultural elites. 

It is clear that such processes need to be global in scale and scope, and optimists will want to find evidence of their happening in phenomena ranging from the UN-focused COP climate change discussions and the establishment of Sustainable Development Goals, to ground-up social action such as the Occupy, Anonymous, Divestment and Transition movements.  All these, and more, might well be seen as unco-ordinated attempts to address the sustainability problematique : how can we all live well, without compromising the planet’s continuing ability to enable us all to live well, but just to write this down is to illustrate its inchoate state.

Education as transformation

Clark saw such transformational endeavours as educational in the widest sense, but she understood that the process could not just be trusted to formal educational institutions.  She made a clear distinction between dominant processes of moulding society to fit in with the status quo and its received wisdoms, and the enabling of a critique of beliefs and assumptions which aids transformative change and the creation of new ways of thinking and being.

Whilst it is the case that a transformative ideal has long been near the heart of some visions of education, particularly liberal ones, this has mostly been in the sense of personal growth and fulfilment.  Even to consider that formal education as we know it could lead attempts to transform society and resolve the sustainability problematique , is to reveal a core paradox; that to change society, education and schools would themselves first need to be changed by that society.  This is doubly problematic because two main purposes for schooling are conservative ones of values and cultural transmission, and a preparation for citizenly and economic participation in the society that exists; in this, education is necessarily seen in instrumental, not transformative, terms.

Anyway, as some such as Andy Stables (2010) have argued, school students are only ever likely to pick up a general and diffuse sense of concern about and for the world’s problems, that is led or reinforced by any involvement they may have in the overall public discourse.  Because of this, Stables says, curriculum should focus on the development of skills of critical thinking, dialogue and debate, with sustainability as one possible theme.  Through this, young people would be enabled, should they choose, to take an increasing role in society and social change.  The position of students in colleges and universities is similar, although their depths of understanding are greater, as is the influence they might bring to bear within those institutions, and in the jobs they take up.

ESD and transformation

For others, it is not education, per se , but education for sustainable development (ESD) that has, alongside transition, divestment, etc, this socially transformative potential.  This is partly because ESD has both the imprimatur of the United Nations, and because of its ability to bring together a wide variety of educational groups and strategies aimed at addressing our existential problems.  UNESCO (2012a:13) has encouraged this view:

“ESD is far more than teaching knowledge and principles related to sustainability. … in the broadest sense it is education for social transformation with the goal of creating more sustainable societies. … ESD aims to provide a coherent interaction between education, public awareness, and training with a view to creating a more sustainable future.”

However, despite UN endorsement, UNESCO sponsorship, NGO activity, and much individual effort, ESD has not fulfilled that promise, and a core difficulty is something we have seen already, albeit in different language.  Stephen Sterling (2015: 4) terms it the central paradox of ESD:

 “It is seen as critical to any prospect of a more sustainable future, but … it challenges mainstream thinking, policy and practice in much formal education.  … The more transformative and holistic approach that sustainability requires is often difficult to implement, requiring systemic change and organisational learning over time ...”

Indeed, if education, per se cannot do this, how could ESD be more successful?  An artful response to this question is to advance a co-evolutionary argument: that successful ESD would lead to change in the demands made of education by society, which would then reinforce the need for more ESD, leading, eventually to a positive transformative cycle.  Thus, the argument goes, with ESD working symbiotically within both the education system and within society more generally, those in power would soon come to understand the error of their ways.  This view, however, relies too heavily on disingenuous appeals to false consciousness to be taken seriously.

That said, the appeal of ESD is clear as it can claim to bring together forms of education whose geneses lie in learning activities that examine [i] how living things depend on each other and on the biosphere, [ii] why there is such a widespread lack of social justice and human fulfillment across the world and what might be done about this, and [iii] how everyone’s quality of life is increasingly imperiled by our current economic models.  Thus the potential of ESD is that it might enable such deeply inter-related issues to be addressed together so that we might come to understand, address, and then resolve, the sustainability problematique.  This, as we have seen, links the quality of people’s lives (now and in the future), the economic and political systems these are embedded in, and the continuing supply of goods and services from the biosphere that underpin and drive such systems. 

A potential strength of ESD is the variation that is found from one context to another which has arisen from local interpretations and developments as the concept is shaped to fit, more or less comfortably, with existing policy and practice. Inevitably, this all involves accommodations with preferred ideological and epistemological dispositions.  Equally inevitably, all interpretations of ESD rest on understandings of what sustainable development itself is , even if the conceptual links are loose.  This diversity within ESD, which is clear to see from emerging practice, is also a weakness as it rests on a lack of shared understandings which, in turn, inhibit communication and collaboration.  

Another view of ESD

Of course, not all its proponents see ESD as transformational, per se , understanding that the aim must be to effect change where possible, and usually in systems not well disposed to it.  This was broadly the UN’s view (UNESCO 2005:5) when it agreed to an ESD Decade (2005 – 2014), and identified four overarching goals for “all Decade stakeholders”:

• Promote and improve the quality of education
• Reorient curriculum
• Raise public awareness and understanding of sustainable development
• Train the workforce

There is nothing here which suggests that the UN thought that educational systems or institutions should set out to be socially transformative.  Rather, it took its cue from the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO-UNEP, 1978) and Agenda 21, building on the rich (though largely ineffective) legacy of environmental education provision whose intertwined social and environmental goals were summed up by Stapp et al ., 1979: 92):

“The evolving goal of environmental education is to foster an environmentally literate global citizenry that will work together in building an acceptable quality of life for all people.”

In the two decades following this, policy proposals, curriculum and teacher development programmes, and innovative educational resources were all developed in largely unsuccessful attempts to nudge mainstream education practice towards the Tbilisi goals.  Whilst there was some modest influence on curriculum and professional development, this was not ultimately significant and made little lasting impact on education systems.  Looking back on all this in 1995, John Smyth argued that the adjective environmental had been a significant barrier, as it signalled that environmental education was something separate from established disciplines and practice, and was thereby outside mainstream educational activity and influence.  The fact that environmental education tended to be promoted by ministries of the environment, rather than education, both reflected the problem, and further entrenched it.

Much the same can be said today of ESD, but it is now the term, with its implicit reification, that embodies the problem.  Just as we think of the UN, WHO, IMF, UNESCO, etc as institutions, so it is with ESD which, rather than being an influence on education systems and practice, has become thought and talked about as an alternative to these, and / or as equivalent to a subject or discipline.  For example:

" ESD is difficult to teach in traditional school settings where studies are divided and taught in a disciplinary framework. " (McKeown 2002: 32)

This reification is particularly pronounced in higher education where much emphasis has been placed on ‘introducing ESD’ (which hardly anyone had heard about) rather than further developing the considerable professional sustainability-focused activity and expertise that already exists.  The result is that no one who really matters in education systems, takes ESD seriously, and, although UNESCO (2012:5) does say that "the need for ESD [has become] well established in national policy frameworks", the evidence for this is nugatory.

A liberal end view

The more liberal view of all this (Scott, 2014) is that educational institutions need to prioritise student learning over institutional, behaviour or social change, whilst making use of any such change to support and broaden that learning.  In this sense, it is fine for a school, college or university to encourage its students to save energy, create less waste, promote biodiversity, work in the community, or get involved with initiatives such as fair trade, provided that these are developed with student learning and their actual studies in mind.  To do otherwise is to forget why educational institutions exist.  Being restorative of social or natural capital is laudable, but not if it neglects or negates the development of learning, and doing all this in collaboration with the communities within which institutions are socially, economically and environmentally embedded, will aid everyone's learning, and perhaps even sustainable development.  Thus, a successful liberal education today will take sustainability seriously in everything it does.  In particular, at its heart will be students asking critical questions of society, looking for the need for change, and getting involved.  Whilst some will see this as ESD, for the majority it will just be education .  Paradoxically, it may well be through such small-scale, on-the-ground, open-minded developments that the potential for the sort of transformation that Mary Clark called for, and the UN General Assembly says is so necessary, may well be enhanced.

Agenda 21 http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

Clark ME (1989) Ariadne's Thread. New York: St. Martin's Press

McKeown R (2002) ESD Toolkit. http://www.esdtoolkit.org

Scott WAH (2014)Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): a critical review of concept, potential and risk.  In R Matar & R Jucker (Eds) Schooling for Sustainable Development in Europe: Concepts, Policies and Educational Experiences at the End of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Dordrecht: Springer. pps 47-70

Smyth J (1995) Environment and Education: a view from a changing scene. Environmental Education Research , 1(1), 1–20

Stables AWG (2010) New Worlds Rising. Policy Futures in Education , 8(5), 593–601

Stapp W et al. (1979) Towards [a] National Strategy for Environmental Education. In AB Sacks & CB Davis (Eds.), Current Issues in EE and Environmental Studies (pp. 92–125). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Sterling SR (2015) ‘Learner Drivers’ for the Future: a different education for a different world. Routledge Education for Sustainable Development Thematic Essay http://www.routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/sustainability/education.php

UNESCO-UNEP (1978) Inter-governmental Conference on Environmental Education . Paris http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/EE-Tbilisi_1977.pdf

UNESCO (2005) Promotion of a Global Partnership for the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable development: the International Implementation Scheme for the Decade in brief. Paris UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001473/147361e.pdf.

UNESCO (2012a)Shaping the Education of Tomorrow: Full-length Report on the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Paris http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002164/216472e.pdf

UNESCO (2012b) ESD Sourcebook, Learning and Training Tools No. 4, UNESCO: Paris http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002163/216383e.pdf

UNGA (2014) UN General Assembly. 4th December, 2014. A/69/700. The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet. Synthesis report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

John Blewitt

Schools are an important part of any community whose importance in promoting social health, skills and social capital should not be denied. Schools can lead by example by demonstrating ways of living, working and being that generate ecological literacy and practical competence. The UK's New Labour government aimed that all schools become models of sustainable development by 2020 with sustainable schools being 'guided by the principle of care: for oneself, care for each other (across cultures, distances and time) and care for the environment (far and near)' (DfES, 2006: 2). The UK's National Framework for Sustainable Schools asked schools to extend their commitment to sustainable development in eight key areas or 'doorways' incorporating the curriculum (teaching and learning), campus (ways of working, food, travel, energy, building construction and renovation) and community (promoting well being and public spirited behaviour). Initiatives like Sustainable Schools in the UK need substantial legislation to ensure any degree of serious success. This did not occur and the good intentions outlined here were abandoned as a result of the economic recession and the election of a Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government in 2010.

Department of Education and Skills (2006) Sustainable Schools: for pupils, communities and the environment, available at www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Consultation%20Paper%20Final.pdf.

Supplementary Reading

http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/edswahs/

http://sustainability-education.blogspot.co.uk/

• Sustainability Exchange http://www.eauc.org.uk/exchange
• Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) http://www.eauc.org.uk/
• The Higher Education Academy http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/teachingandlearning/sustainability
• Learning in Future Environments http://www.thelifeindex.org.uk/about-life/
• Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement http://www.goodcampus.org/index.php
• A UK-based one-stop shop initiative by Asitha Jayawardena http://www.sustainableuni.kk5.org/
• Guide to Quality and Education for Sustainability in Higher Education http://efsandquality.glos.ac.uk
• Sustainability and Environmental Education http://se-ed.co.uk/edu/
• Plymouth University sustainability pages http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/sustainability
• UNESCO and ESD http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda
• United Nations University Education for Sustainability www.ias.unu.edu/sub_page.aspx?catID=108&ddlID=54
• Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education www.aashe.org/
• Principles for Responsible Management Education www.unprme.org/
• Eco-Schools www.eco-schools.org/

Education for Sustainability Blogs

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, academic identity and “education for sustainable development”: a grounded theory.

• Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

The research described in this article set out to explore the nature of higher education institutions’ commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs and to develop a theory of this phenomenon to support further research. The research used grounded theory methodology and took place over a two-month period in 2023. Cases were collected in four universities in New Zealand, India and Sweden and included interviews with individuals, participation in group activities including a higher education policy meeting, seminars and workshops, unplanned informal conversations, institutional policy documents and media analyses in the public domain. Cases were converted to concepts using a constant comparative approach and selective coding reduced 46 concepts to three broad and overlapping interpretations of the data collected, focusing on academic identity, the affective (values-based) character of learning for social, environmental and economic justice, and the imagined, or judged, rather than measured, portrayal of the outcomes or consequences of the efforts of this cultural group in teaching contexts. The grounded theory that derives from these three broad interpretations suggests that reluctance to measure, monitor, assess, evaluate, or research some teaching outcomes is inherent to academic identity as a form of identity protection, and that this protection is essential to preserve the established and preferred identity of academics.

1. Introduction

Many higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world have made some form of commitment to support the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals agreed by most of the nations on this planet in 2015. 1 For example, more than 1,500 universities from more than 100 countries have submitted portfolios to the 2023 Times Higher Education Impact Rankings ( Times Higher Education, 2023 ). The SDGs and the concept of sustainability relate equally to notions of social, environmental, and economic justice (sometimes described as the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit). It is to be noted that these current commitments built upon long-standing prior HEI commitments related to international agreements following on from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992, including in particular Agenda 21 ( United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 ). Institutional commitments to sustainability generally relate to institutional research, teaching and to university campuses (or “campus as role model”). It is also to be noted that, in the context of teaching, some commitments have been made at the individual institutional level; for example, those institutions whose leaders commit via the Talloires Declaration ( Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1994 ) to “educate for environmentally responsible citizenship.” Some commitments occur at a national level, including for example Sweden’s commitment made in 2006 that all of its educational institutions will promote sustainable development explored by Finnveden et al. (2020) . The broad field of inquiry known as Education for Sustainable Development (ESD, sometimes as HESD in higher education contexts) provides the disciplinary focus to explore these commitments and, as with all disciplines in higher education, diverse perspectives on how it operates are inherent to its practices. Even so, that education should be for sustainable development and not simply about sustainable development is fundamental to its mission.

ESD practitioners are well aware of many of the challenges involved in utilising the social construct of higher education for social change, substantially reviewed in Barth et al. (2015) . Higher education has had to manage massification (increased registration without similarly increasing funding), its broadly middle-class and privileged nature (potentially undermining its efforts towards social justice), and the market-driven ethos of higher education nowadays. Universities also attract students with a wide range of personal ambitions and expectations. Some students choose to study in academic areas to which sustainability concepts make a natural and compelling contribution. Some students even choose to study programmes designed to educate sustainability professionals. But many students, perhaps most, study subjects for which sustainability has a more challenging or transient contribution. Higher education commitments and societal expectations, however, apply to all students, not only to those who express commitment to sustainability before they arrive. And, naturally, some academics in all disciplines are highly motivated towards sustainability and likely to ensure that their teaching addresses sustainability-related topics; but some less so.

Much effort has been expended by ESD practitioners to develop educational outcomes that may in some way align to institutional contributions to the achievement of the sustainable development goals with focus recently on the development of ESD competencies ( Brundiers et al., 2020 ); competencies that may allow those who learn them to operate in a sustainable society. Relatively little emphasis however has been placed on monitoring, measuring, assessing, evaluating or researching the educational outcomes achieved by university graduates. One of the first research-based indications that higher education was finding the mission of ESD problematic came from institutional research in the USA. The University of Michigan is an institution with a renowned sustainability focus. Using both quantitative and qualitative research approaches directed at student learning, this research found; “… no evidence that, as students move through [the University], they became more concerned about various aspects of sustainability or more committed to acting in environmentally responsible ways, either in the present moment or in their adult lives” ( Schoolman et al., 2016 , p. 498). Research that reflects similar concerns was reviewed by Brown et al. (2019) . Other than these expressions of concern, there is little evidence in the public domain that the mission of ESD is on track in our universities.

The author of the current article has explored institutional efforts and outcomes in the broad contexts of environmental education (EE) and ESD over several decades in several institutions and nations. No doubt all academic researchers believe that their research and their research questions are rather important. The current author is no different but emphasises here an observation that dictates choice of research methodology and the author’s personal role within the research. How humans interact with each other and with other life on our shared planet, and with the physical planet itself, has become in recent years an existential matter for humans and for many other species. Given the extent to which our universities teach people on our planet (for example, high proportions of young people in many nations pass through higher education. India is home to one sixth of the world’s human population and more than 25% of its young people pass through its higher education sector), and the accepted vital role of education in achieving the SDGs, their role needs to be seen as an important contributory factor. In this context, the institution of higher education does need to consider its role in the context of whether higher education teaching is predominantly leading to solutions or is, perhaps, more contributing to the problems that need solutions. This research addresses not the research that universities do, but rather the research that universities might not do, or are reluctant to do, involving the consequences of what they teach on what their students learn. The research described in this article set out to explore the nature of higher education’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs and to develop a theory of this phenomenon to support further research. The research occurred in four universities in New Zealand, India and Sweden. Analysis drew from Bourdieusian social theory ( Bourdieu, 1993 ), Kahan’s exploration of the measurement problem in climate-science communication incorporating identity protection ( Kahan, 2015 ) and psychological theories that link experience and affect to behaviour.

2.1. Methodological underpinning

Given the complex nature of the SDGs and of higher education teaching, research in this broad area is unlikely to have an existing and explanatory theoretical foundation, laying as it does at the intersection of many fields of higher education enquiry. Many factors are likely involved in this situation without necessarily being clearly and widely understood or necessarily related to one another. The research needs to consider the relevance of its lines of questioning to these constituent factors and even if the institution of higher education, gatekeeper to our shared conceptualisation of scholarship, is open to such lines of questioning.

Grounded theory developed in the social sciences, whose main epistemological interest is in explaining and predicting behaviour in social interactions. The overarching goal of grounded theory is to develop theory in such circumstances, with an implicit orientation towards action, but an explicit expectation that new theory will emerge though cycles of data collection, inductive analysis and speculation on theory. The constant comparative approach ( Corbin and Strauss, 2008 ) where new data always requires the researcher to compare current inductive imaginations with past theory-building to reassess its utility, is an abiding feature of grounded-theory research. Nevertheless, the extent to which theory emerges from the analysis, or is dependent on the prior knowledge and theoretical grounding of the researcher, is a contested point. Glaser and Strauss (1967) , the two main originators of grounded theory, originally stressed the importance of the researcher developing theoretical sensitivity, so as to be mindful of theoretical possibilities as cases are considered, but not to be highly dependent on prior understanding. Strauss and Corbin (1990) , in later manifestations of grounded theory, emphasised the inevitability of the researcher using their own personal and professional experience as well as knowledge gained from the relevant literature to build new theory. The research described here used grounded theory as perhaps the only research methodology capable of addressing the research question in the complex environment of international higher education and celebrates the past professional experiences of the researcher in international higher education, not to limit possibilities of new theoretical insights but to bring awareness of multiple discourses, incorporating already-rich explanatory insights, to the task. Charmaz and Bryant (2010) emphasise that modern, constructivist interpretations of grounded theory enable researchers to explore tacit meanings and processes in complex social systems and to challenge established explanations of social functioning.

Data contributing to grounded theory in social contexts is, unlike many other qualitative research methods, not based solely on interviews. Each datum is a “case” and may give rise to an individual “concept” that represents a unit of interest. As Corbin and Strauss (2015) emphasise; “ … it is concepts and not people, per se, that are sampled” (p. 135). Cases may include, as examples, interviews with people, interviews with groups, listening or participation in group activities such as conferences, seminars and workshops, informal conversations whether planned or not, publications, fieldnotes incorporating memoranda and reflective commentaries, webpages and press releases. Cases are collected by a process of “theoretical sampling” and are developed by the researcher recording and reflecting on planned and unplanned experiences. Cases are sampled continuously and included in the analysis as planned events, as accidental or coincidental happenings, and as the consequence of further development and refinement of a developing theory needing further and focussed clarification. Importantly, cases are not necessarily built from reoccurring themes or quantifiable circumstances. An individual conversation with a single discussant can have a powerful impact on a developing grounded theory. The iterative processes of data sampling, data analysis and theory development are, theoretically, ongoing until new data ceases to contribute to the development of theory, a situation known as theoretical saturation. As a constructivist approach, data are undoubtably influenced by the researcher’s personal perspectives, experiences, values and geographical settings and the researcher’s developing understanding is essentially reflexive in nature. To some degree, grounded theory must also be somewhat unplanned and opportunistic. It is not possible to describe in advance what sources will be involved, what lines of questioning in interviews or other forms of data collection will be involved, or what experiences will be influential in developing theory. In addition, as this is research based in more than one nation, individual national or individual institutional ethics authorities are not directly applicable. Internationally recognised ethical research principles of research have been adopted in this research, as described by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council ( UKRI, 2021 ): minimising risks and maximising benefits for individuals and societies; respecting the rights and dignity of individuals and groups; ensuring that, wherever possible, participation is voluntary and appropriately informed; being conducted with integrity and transparency, with clearly defined lines of responsibility and accountability, making conflicts of interest explicit, and maintaining the independence of research. In this study, initially each case description in the author’s field notes included institution and nation, to contextualise the developing concept within it, but after the early stage of iterative data collection and analysis, the process of refining and amalgamating concepts stressed their educational, rather than geo-political contexts and allowed for a high degree of anonymity to be developed and maintained in their further analysis. Concepts described below protect the anonymity of their source, as individual, institution and nation, focusing on the author’s conception of the issue within, rather than its origin. In all cases concepts in this article are written in the author’s words, summarising each case as understood by the author, rather than as quotations attributable to groups, individuals, institutions or nations.

Data analysis starts by considering each case as a potential concept and allocating a code to it. Often a case needs to be broken into smaller constituent parts, each of which can be deeply analysed both as a possible contribution to new theory but also in the light of existing theory identified and understood by the researcher. Similar cases may be labelled with the same code. Coded elements become concepts and multiple concepts may be amalgamated or combined in some way as a higher-order category or phenomenon ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ). Although many different ways of exploring the relationships between concepts and categories have been described, Corbin and Strauss (2015) simplified the coding process to the three main features of conditions/circumstances, actions/interactions, and consequences/outcomes, and this simplified coding sequence was used in the research described here. Concepts are initially compared based on the conditions or circumstances in which they occurred. Subsequently concepts are related by their actions or interactions that occurred between them. Only then are concepts compared on the basis of their outcomes or consequences. The final element of grounded theory production is generally identified as “selective coding” and results in combinations of categories, where more than one category exists, to create one cohesive theory, or grounded theory.

Although a wide range of processes can be applied to research to evaluate its quality, the quality of qualitative research and in particular grounded theory is not evaluated according to measures of objectivity and significance, but according to criteria that stress utility and trustworthiness in the context within which the grounded theory has been developed. With reference to Guba and Lincoln (1989) four general types of trustworthiness in qualitative research, it is hoped that the credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of this analysis would be reasonable, given the diverse nature of the discussants and places, the past experience of the researcher in HE and ESD, and the ethical processes involved in analysis and reporting. Notably the grounded theory developed in this research takes cases from diverse sources in three different nations and abstracts these to the institution of higher education internationally. Its applicability in any particular nation or institution is necessarily limited. Limitations based on the happenstance of experiencing cases, and therefore of concepts, are inevitable in grounded theory research. Nevertheless, and in line with Thomas (2006) , the credibility of the grounded theory to arise from this analysis is being tested using diverse approaches of peer review and international public debate, including this publication, with expectations that academic readers of this article will look for resonance between it and their own experiences. Transferability and dependability of the analysis are tested, to a degree, by comparison with international literature within this article. Confirmability, in particular, has not been tested but may come later, as others work with, and within, similar groups of higher education people in these and in other nations.

2.2. Data analysis: cases, concepts, categories, and a grounded theory

Case collection for this article took place over a two-month period in 2023. Cases were collected in three nations and four universities. Case collection started in the author’s own institution, a research-intensive public university in New Zealand. Case collection continued in India, initially in a research-intensive public Indian Institute of Technology, involving participation in a policy workshop to which academics interested in India’s higher education expansion programme and university contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals were invited to contribute, and subsequently in a small, private university, with a known focus on equity and related social purposes. The final stages of case collection occurred in Sweden, in a research-intensive university. Reflection on cases and data analysis continued after this two-month period once the author had returned to New Zealand.

Beyond starting in the author’s own institution and nation, choice of nation in which to conduct this research was purposeful.

India has a population of over 1.4 billion and 25% of its young people attend universities. India has more than 1,000 universities, 42,000 higher education colleges, and more than 1.5 million academic staff. India’s 2020 National Education Policy (NEP) expresses an intention to raise its gross enrolment ratio to 50% by 2035, to restructure its education system to match India’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, and to use higher education as a tool for social change, in particular in the context of equity and social justice. India implemented quota-based policies to address caste-based differences in university recruitment in the 20th Century (Reservation) and policies to address gender differences in university participation. Much more is planned.

… “The global education development agenda reflected in the Goal 4 (SDG4) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by India in 2015 – seeks to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030. Such a lofty goal will require the entire education system to be reconfigured to support and foster learning, so that all of the critical targets and goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development can be achieved ( NEP, 2020 , p. 3). … The National Education Policy lays particular emphasis on the development of the creative potential of each individual. It is based on the principle that education must develop not only cognitive capacities – both the “foundational capacities” of literacy and numeracy and “higher-order” cognitive capacities, such as critical thinking and problem solving – but also social, ethical, and emotional capacities and dispositions ( NEP, 2020 , p. 4). … 11.8. Towards the attainment of such a holistic and multidisciplinary education, the flexible and innovative curricula of all HEIs shall include credit-based courses and projects in the areas of community engagement and service, environmental education, and value-based education ( NEP, 2020 , p. 37).

Sweden is one of very few nations that has historically legislated that its universities are to educate for sustainable development. Since 2006, higher education institutions (HEIs) in Sweden, should according to the Higher Education Act, promote sustainable development (SD). In 2016, the Swedish Government asked the Swedish Higher Education Authority to evaluate how this role was proceeding. An academic article based on the study’s final report suggested that “Overall, a mixed picture developed. Most HEIs could give examples of programmes or courses where SD was integrated. However, less than half of the HEIs had overarching goals for integration of SD in education or had a systematic follow-up of these goals. Even fewer worked specifically with pedagogy and didactics, teaching and learning methods and environments, sustainability competences or other characters of education for SD. Overall, only 12 out of 47 got a higher judgement” ( Finnveden et al., 2020 , p. 1). The author’s enquiries focus in particular on exploring incidences of the systematic follow-up referred to by Finnveden et al. (2020) .

Arguably, the scale of India, and of its higher education system, suggests that, globally, what happens there in the context of ESD is somewhat more important than what happens in most other individual countries. It seems likely that more than 20% of the world’s academics and higher education students are Indian. Sweden’s historical commitment to promoting sustainable development via its education system makes it internationally recognised as a case of special interest. Despite its scale, New Zealand also has significant aspirations in the context of social justice, its colonial past, and waves of immigration. Although each of New Zealand’s eight universities has significant independence, a range of government measures directs many of their actions, for example, processes aimed at improving Māori and Pacific Islands student enrolment, retention and success (See for example TEC, 2023 , on equity funding). At present, attendance at university does not reflect either Māori aspirations for partnership, endorsed by the nations’ Treaty of Waitangi, or the aspirations of Pacifica people for equitable access to higher education, to the professions, to jobs, and to health care, social support and social inclusion in general. A key issue for Aotearoa New Zealand in the context of its Treaty of Waitangi and notions of partnership is the place of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) in formal education. Seven professors from one New Zealand university recently questioned parity for mātauranga Māori with other bodies of knowledge, initiating considerable debate within the sector. Another university is addressing claims of institutional racism in these contexts. New Zealand also takes academic freedom seriously. It is legislated for in its Education Act, as is the principal aim of tertiary education of developing intellectual independence ( Shephard, 2020 , 2022 ). New Zealand may be a small nation, but these issues are directly relevant to discourses of ESD and are of international relevance.

Data collection and analysis proceeded in an iterative manner, within the constraints of a journey from New Zealand through India to Sweden and back to New Zealand. Elements of grounded theory methodology, particularly that involving constant comparison between data and developing theory, are difficult to delineate as method and result. Much that relates to method, therefore is interpreted in this analysis as result.

Initially, at a surface level, in each country, cases simply revealed known barriers to ESD, such as academics “ … keeping their heads down” (perhaps resulting in them not teaching for social, environmental or economic justice as anticipated in national and institutional policies) and suggestions by university academics, of schoolteachers “ … not being prepared or trained to teach sustainability” (perhaps as a consequence of university education departments’ practices but resulting in newly recruited HE students perhaps needing more learning than otherwise anticipated). These were initially coded as barriers, but as more cases were added they could be coded with more insight as, for example, lack of research into higher education practices and outcomes. At an early stage, however, in each nation, many cases needed to be coded as relating to values and attitudes, rather than to knowledge and skills. For example, an observation by a discussant who teaches in Development Studies, that students are good at critical thinking in the classroom but do not use their critical thinking skills to overcome typical prejudices. A different discussant confirmed that “Employers think our students are critical thinkers but may not be empathetic to disadvantaged people . ” Another discussant emphasised that “The State cannot legislate for attitudes … . ” Many such cases emphasised that ESD is inherently a quest for affective learning or values, attitudes and dispositions, rather than just for cognitive learning for knowledge and skills.

At particular stages in this enquiry, key events occurred that forced this researcher to re-evaluate the coding on previously assessed cases. For example, one discussant (who was personally highly active in promoting social purposes in their own institution) suggested that (in their experience) some university teachers simply did not identify with, or teach, a social purpose even though they may be, in other respects, very effective academics within their own disciplines. This same discussant confirmed that some institutions did not apply drivers or incentives to direct their academics towards the social purposes espoused by that institution, and (most meaningfully for the researcher) doubted that such academics should feel obliged to be directed by these drivers, even if they existed. This discussant felt strongly that teachers should teach as their conscience directs them to, and that institutions should encourage this to happen. This discussant was verbalizing a concept relating to the behaviours of individual academics and of institutions that appears to stem from the professional identities of individual academics, and the organisational behaviours of academic institutions, that prioritises academic freedom. As a result of this case, many other cases needed to be re-examined and recoded to include aspects of academic identity and academic freedom. School teachers not being prepared or willing to teach sustainability becomes a possible consequence of the expression of academic freedom by academics in education departments (where schoolteachers are trained or educated) and of the organisational behaviour of institutions charged with the responsibility to train or educate schoolteachers. This case also interacted with others to emphasise the complexity of related circumstances in higher education. While this discussant perhaps emphasised the academic freedom of academics and of institutions to teach as they thought fit, other cases emphasised that university teachers or groups of university teachers should not be allowed to teach as they see fit. Some discussants in a group conversation suggested that other academics in their institution were strongly opposed to that group’s experimental and experiential approaches to teach “for” sustainable development and in particular expressed doubt that it was the role of higher education to encourage students to become emotionally attached to ideas such as sustainability, social justice or sustainable development. Discussants in this conversation, on the other hand, felt strongly that becoming emotionally, or affectively, involved with sustainability issues was at the heart of their nation’s commitment to sustainable development and to their institution’s obligations to educate for sustainable development. Supporting this case, other discussants in other institutions shared concerns that academics who become emotionally involved in their teaching are subject to burn-out, and that such academics who teach broader educational objectives, such as sustainability, are highly vulnerable in higher education. Many such conversations implicitly addressed the roles that academics, academic groups and institutions should have and the internal and external drivers that enable, limit or maintain these roles, and collectively identified diverse viewpoints in these regards.

Noticeable within this data was that while many, perhaps most, discussants were happy to reflect on what HE should be doing, and how HE should operate, and what it should achieve, this was generally based on deeply-held beliefs about HE, personal experience within HE, and perceptions of academic and disciplinary identity held by academic people, rather than on particular knowledge of the sustainability-related outcomes or consequences of HE, either in particular circumstances, relating to particular teachers or courses, or collectively, relating to whole institutions. Implicit within concepts such as “Academics in this university simply do not want to learn how best to teach students to be for sustainability” is not a sound evidence base of knowledge that higher education students are not learning to be for sustainability, but a deeply held belief that they should be for sustainability, a concern that at present and on balance they may not be, and an experience-based inference that academics in general do not wish to apply themselves to this end. Implicit within concepts such as “What can higher education give to society in the future? Transmission of information is no longer enough . ” is not a sound evidence base of knowledge that higher education is not currently delivering something more than “Transmission of information” but a strong and personal feeling that this is what is currently, and on balance, happening now. Of course, much within this interpretation depends on how knowledge is perceived in this context. Notably, expressed concerns about: “increasing inequality,” “racism, discrimination, and bullying” ; “ [being] disadvantaged by language, lack of cultural capitol, lack of preparation, lack of support” ; “Higher education need [ing] a substantial and broad change to perform a social purpose” ; and “It [being] difficult to measure or monitor change in values” relate not in particular to individual courses or programmes where sustainability might be a predetermined focus, and where students have elected to study and learn in this context, but to higher education experiences in general.

In some contexts, perhaps knowledge can be contextualised as what personal experience suggests might be the case, but in most HE contexts knowledge claims have higher levels of accountability. In all disciplines, for example, knowledge claims are based on and develop from scholarly research that builds on prior knowledge, contributes to future interpretations through knowledge-based discourse, and is circulated in peer-reviewed publications. Different disciplines have different means to develop disciplinary knowledge and different ways to describe knowledge, but no disciplines base their knowledge claims solely on the deeply held beliefs of practitioners. Advances in knowledge within the disciplines is hard-won. Higher education is not, of course, simply a collection of disciplines, but differences in how the institution of higher education conceptualises its own development, from how it conceptualises the development of disciplines that exist within it, are strongly evident in the concepts that contribute to the present research. A core element of the grounded theory developing here is that much relating to outcomes and consequences within this broad ESD context is not based on knowledge, but on hopes, aspirations, good intentions, assertions, and beliefs about what should happen, and on diverse expressions of the academic identity and mission of individual academics and of universities relating to how these things should come about.

The process of selective coding therefore started with three broad and overlapping interpretations of the data collected. The first focuses on academic identity, or the cultural identity of higher education academics, and perceptions of what people in this cultural group think they or others should do, think they should not do, and think that they actually do and achieve, particularly as these things relate to learning in the affective domain. The second identifies affect and emotion as a central feature of the concepts addressed in this research and of the nature of ESD. The third addresses the imagined, or judged, rather than measured nature of the outcomes or consequences of the efforts of this cultural group, or application of this academic cultural identity, in teaching contexts. Nowhere within this research was an assertion of academic or institutional identity based on a sound knowledge base of what graduate outcomes were being achieved, on balance, in the name of social, environmental and economic justice. Even expressions of lack of sustainability-related achievements were based on assumption, supposition and expressions of barriers to ESD. Expressions of higher education quality in these contexts are based on inputs rather than outcomes. The grounded theory that derives from these three broad interpretations suggests that reluctance to measure, monitor, assess, evaluate or research teaching outcomes (or the consequences of the expression of academic identity in the context of teaching), so as to give expression to ESD, is inherent to this identity as a form of identity protection, and that this protection is essential to preserve the established identity of academics in the face of threats imposed by learning in the affective domain. The grounded theory suggests that academic identity in the context of sustainability focuses on achieving cognitive outcomes, not affective outcomes, and that protection of this identity-ideal requires academics to minimise their engagement with educational outcomes that stress emotional engagement with concepts or ideas (other than those that enhance or protect academic identity itself or, to a degree, that are explicit within particular disciplines or professions), even to the point of being unwilling to explore the emotional or affective outcomes of their teaching, individually or at an institutional level. As a consequence, the institution of higher education is unable to report its teaching-related contribution to sustainability outcomes, at the same time as being able to pronounce its positive contributions to sustainability through its very genuine research and campus-sustainability efforts. Table 1 lists concepts that arose from the cases experienced in this research and upon which the developing grounded theory rests, and the final stage of selective coding, emphasising the three dominant ideas to come from this analysis. Table 1 represents, in effect, one step in a pathway to an integrated set of conceptual hypotheses developed from empirical data (as described by Glaser, 1998 ).

Table 1 . Development of a grounded theory to explain the nature of HEI’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs.

4. Discussion

Selective coding of the concepts developed in this research emphasises three concepts that together say much about the nature of HEI’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs; academic identity, concerns about affect and emotion as central features of social, environmental and economic justice, and the imagined, or judged, rather than measured nature of the outcomes or consequences of university teaching in this context. Grounded theory seeks to find commonality between these concepts and to progressively develop a theory with explanatory power that could potentially suggest action. The theory that has emerged from this research suggests that reluctance to measure ESD is inherent to the academic identity dominant in higher education as a form of identity protection, essential to preserve the established identity of academics in the face of threats imposed by teaching, and learning, in the affective domain.

It is demonstrably the case that higher education teaching is undertaking ESD and achieving outcomes in this context. An abundance of higher education research and institutional contributions to international collaborations such as the AASHE STARS programme ( STARS, 2023 ) make it clear that many higher education institutions and many individual academics in these institutions are using their teaching to achieve significant sustainability-related outcomes. In addition, an abundance of guidance (see for example, UNESCO, 2017 ) and commitments from academic leaders in higher education institutions (see for example Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1994 ) confirms that such actions are significantly promoted and supported in and by the sector. But the concepts explored in this study point to some significant limitations in these efforts and in these outcomes. Concepts such as “Employers think our students are critical thinkers but may not be empathetic to disadvantaged people” and “Teaching students to have empathy is an aspiration that we may not achieve” reinforce the message that ESD is a quest for affective outcomes ( Shephard, 2008 ). “It is difficult to measure or monitor change in values , ” suggests that such affective outcomes are difficult to realise ( Craig et al., 2022 ). “The state cannot legislate for attitudes and values . ” and “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea . ” point not only to the challenges of teaching in the affective domain, but also to perceptions of what might be missing in the context of a functional conceptualisation of ESD.

A significant body of research and analysis nowadays suggests that affective attributes provide the link between what people know, what skills people learn to put their knowledge to effect and what people choose to do with the knowledge and skills that they have learned ( Shephard et al., 2015 ). Fishbein and Arjen’s Theory of Reasoned Action and Arjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour emphasise the extent to which affective attributes contribute to decision making (see Madden et al., 1992 for a comparison). Harari, summarising much academic progress in psychology, suggests that “most human decisions are based on emotional reactions and heuristic shortcuts rather than on rational analysis” ( Harari, 2018 , p. 222). In this context, much ESD research in the last decade has focused on teaching students a range of competencies that explicitly link cognitive and affective attributes, in the hope that those with appropriate competencies will behave in appropriate ways. As defined by Rieckmann (2011) “ Competencies may be characterised as individual dispositions to self-organisation which include cognitive, affective, volitional (with deliberate intention) and motivational elements; they are an interplay of knowledge, capacities and skills, motives and affective dispositions. Consequently, these components are part of each competency, not having to be regarded independently, but in their interaction. Competencies facilitate self-organised action in various complex situations, dependent on the given specific situation and context (p. 4).” ESD practitioners do not agree on the definitions of “disposition” ( Shephard, 2022 ) but few would argue with its essential affective nature or that those who do not successfully learn to be disposed to particular actions are unlikely to perform these actions in challenging circumstances. The concept “Students are good at critical thinking but do not use their critical thinking to overcome typical prejudices” points to academic success in the cognitive domain but academic failure (in the context of education for sustainable development) in at least one conceptualisation of the affective domain of learning. Graduates becoming disposed to particular (sustainability-related) actions is inherent to the difference between education about sustainability and education for sustainability. Recent and more historical research supports this assertion. Recent research on links between academic development support for university teachers and university teachers’ perspectives on how such support affects their teaching, suggested “Educators clearly express that they understand the concept ‘about’ SD, but there are only vague expressions of a developed teaching repertoire to address education ‘for’ SD in their teaching practice” ( Persson et al., 2023 , p. 197). A recent survey of 58,000 schoolteachers conducted by Education International and UNESCO suggests that “Teachers understand the importance of the cognitive, behavioural and socio-emotional learning dimensions across all four themes. However, teachers feel more confident teaching cognitive skills, and less confident and knowledgeable about behavioural learning and socio-emotional perspectives, especially in ESD” ( UNESCO, 2021 , p. 13). Back in 2012, Shephard and Furnari explored what university teachers think about education for sustainability. They identified four significantly and qualitatively different viewpoints, only one of which advocates for sustainability. The other three viewpoints did not, and each had “distinct characteristics that prevent those who own them from using their position within the university to encourage students to act sustainably” ( Shephard and Furnari, 2013 , p. 1,577).

Links between affect, emotion and university learning are embedded in this discourse. The concept “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea . ” provides one helpful interpretation of the role of higher education and of issues that higher education teachers may have with not only teaching in the affective domain (a long-standing element of ESD discourse, reviewed by Shephard, 2008 ) but also distinctions between teaching students in general and teaching students to become professionals ( Shephard and Egan, 2018 ). Few will doubt the interplay between affect and emotion (indeed emotion provides a key element of some definitions of affect) or the explicit role of affect in professional learning. Key attributes of all professions are lists of professional values that underpin the profession and, for example, professional medical educators openly teach and assess professional values in medical schools throughout the world (reviewed by Shephard and Egan, 2018 ). The concept “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea.” clearly has no hold on medical educators. Medical educators have no issues in role modelling and teaching these professional values, or emotional attachments to ideas, because they are, often, professionals themselves and these ideas are accepted facets of professional identities that need to be taught and managed ( Howe, 2003 ). Similar arguments can no doubt be made with respect to the identities of professional schoolteachers and professional engineers. Perhaps the same arguments apply to sustainability professionals ( Wiek et al., 2011 ), with respect to sustainability values, but not to students in general, most likely enrolled in non-professional courses ( Shephard, 2015 ). Teaching affective outcomes to professional students to whom particular professional values are an accepted attribute of the profession appears to be unproblematic. Teaching sustainability values to non-sustainability professionals is likely as problematic as it appears to be for students in general.

The idea of academic identity is, therefore, important to this analysis. Much research in recent years has focused on academic identity in the context of professional roles and professional identity. The research suggests that who we think we are influences what we do, and that people also become what they are because of what they do and what they experience while doing it. “The relationship is thus complex, reciprocal, unfixed and open to change” ( Watson, 2006 , p. 510). Although this identity discourse emphasises the diversity of academic identity ( Drennan et al., 2017 ) research has tended to focus on situations where identities are under threat, challenging to maintain, or influential in directing action. McCune has studied the issues involved in sustaining identities that encompass deep care for teaching in research-led universities; suggesting that “maintaining engagement with teaching in contemporary higher education is likely to involve identity struggles requiring considerable cognitive and emotional energy on the part of academics … ” ( McCune, 2021 ). McCune’s study identified considerable tensions as academics endeavoured to undertake their diverse academic roles. Participants in that research “ often described considerable stress and talked about putting a lot of thought and effort into understanding and working with these tensions (p. 29).” Nixon (2020) explored the impact of the UK’s higher education’s market-driven order on academic identities to claim that “ Academic identity is now bound into this new order. It is almost impossible to opt out given what is at stake—not just personally and professionally, but institutionally. The stakes are high: increased government funding, increased and enhanced staffing levels, more research students, enhanced facilities and resources, higher national and international profile , etc. Not to compete for these stakes appears to be at best self-defeating and at worst plain perverse: to be ‘professional’ is to enter wholeheartedly into the game; to stay on the sidelines is to be ‘unprofessional.’ For anyone who questions the premises upon which the competitive game is being played the space for maneuverability is highly restricted. The orderly identity denotes ‘professionalism’ and is commensurate with professional advancement and institutional loyalty. It would appear—within the current UK context—to be the only identity available (p. 13).” Nixon summarises some research that suggests that this increasingly conforming identity leads to less time on teaching, poorer quality teaching and research outputs focussed on particular formats, audiences, and outlets. Nixon’s analysis looks beyond the UK to suggest “… the focus on global university rankings is occasioning a more extensive drift towards international conformity (p. 18).” Yang et al. (2022) explored how multiple and fragmented identities of academics are integrated in a culture of performativity. It is necessary, therefore, to reflect on the concept “Apparently, it’s not the role of higher education to engender emotional attachment to an idea . ” through a lens ground by increasing conformity to a competitive market-driven academic identity and the interplay of cognitive and emotional tensions of the academics involved. Clegg and Rowland (2010) examined the interplay between reason and emotion in higher education in the context of an exploration of kindness. They rejected “ the dichotomy between emotion and reason and the associated gendered binaries (p. 719)” but accepted the subversive nature of what they proposed. They suggested that “ what is subversive in thinking about higher education practice through the lens of kindness is that it cannot be regulated or prescribed (p. 719)” but concluded that universities make it hard for academics to be kind ( Clegg and Rowland, 2010 ). Although kindness itself was not a core feature of the concepts explored in the current research, links between emotion, or affect, and academic regulation, or prescription, were.

Academic identity also relates strongly to academic accountability and rationales for academics and their institutions to monitor, measure or research their academic outcomes, rather than simply state what they aim for or what they hope they will be. Although the concepts explored in the current research point to academic unwillingness to embrace this culture of accountability in the context of teaching, there is no doubt that incentives to be impactful, and to measure this impact, are extant also in the context of research. For example, research impact has been an important measure in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework since 2014. Impact contributes to an overall assessment of an institution’s research, and considerable funding and prestige is attached to it. In 2021 impact was assessed using case studies submitted by institutions to demonstrate the nature of the impact that each institution valued. Watermeyer and Tomlinson (2022) extend an international discourse on neoliberal, market-driven rationales for producing evidence of economic and societal impact. These authors suggest that although a designation of being impactful may support a sense of self-worth and be advantageous to an individual academic’s own professional profile, it may also lead to identity dispossession and a sense of being exploited by their universities, which appropriate their impact for positional gain. They identify a culture of competitive accountability and the privileging of “appearance” in rationalisations of the value of publicly funded research ( Watermeyer and Tomlinson, 2022 ).

Some research points specifically to tensions in maintaining an academic identity in sustainability teaching contexts. Hegarty (2008) argues that the identity of academics hinges on them being accepted as “knower with status” (p. 684) and that this runs contrary to their inevitable and challenging position as co-learner in our collective exploration of the relatively new academic enquiry of sustainability. Hegarty also emphasises the collective and individual values, beliefs, traditions and structures inherent to the academic role and contributory to status and hierarchy. To that we should add the demands and power of a profession that has long cherished and promoted peer review as the arbiter of quality. Only the most determined and committed would risk being different in the face of review by peers. Nixon’s diagnosis of “the only identity available” ( Nixon, 2020 , p. 13) is all the more powerful once the expectations of ESD are added to the mix. Conformity to an established academic order is also a conclusion from recent research exploring university teachers’ perspectives on gender, caste, merit and upward social mobility in university functioning, and staffing, in India. Dhawan et al. (2022) propose the presence of a hegemonically created status-quo focused on elitist social control rather than social justice.

The concepts explored in this research, therefore, converge on the nature of ESD as a quest for affective learning outcomes, on the problematic position of affect in an increasingly limited academic identity, and on the reluctance of the academy to research its own teaching practices to discover the extent that ESD learning in the affective domain could be understood and communicated. All three phenomena are well documented in disparate higher education discourses but their convergence in this study has led to the grounded theory proposed here. The grounded theory to emerge from this research suggests that academics’ reluctance to research their teaching practices in ESD contexts is not simply a dislike of being held accountable, but a protective response to circumstances that might otherwise compromise an idealised academic identity. An idealised academic identity neither acknowledges a role in teaching their students whether or not to behave in accordance with social, environmental and economic justice, nor accepts a responsibility to monitor, assess, evaluate, measure or research the impact that their teaching has on these learning outcomes. For individuals to do so would undermine their preferred identity. Not researching their teaching practices, in ESD contexts, could be seen as an abrogation of their academic responsibility in the context of the many promises made by academic leaders on their behalf, but academic reasoning, in their world of high status maintained by peer-review, reasonably identifies such outcomes as inconsequential in comparison with losing credibility within their own academic social domain.

Two inter-related current theories provide support for the grounded theory that holds identity protection as a core element of HEI’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs.

Bourdieusian social theory suggests that social groups construct social fields within which social interactions, often of the competitive kind, occur ( Bourdieu, 1993 ). Players or agents in the field are characterised by particular habitus (or combinations of dispositions) and the possession of various forms of capital which are exchanged in social interactions. Dominant players in the field possess the most capital and so are able to direct the rules of the field and are often invested in maintaining the status quo by devising rules that favour them. Insurgents generally have less capital and seek to change the rules, mostly unsuccessfully. As with all hegemonic systems, the rules favour dominant players, but subordinate players enable dominants by accepting the rules as culturally appropriate. Most fields are subject to larger fields which have some capacity to change the rules. (Higher education, as a social field, can be significantly destabilised by government action). Bourdieusian social theory provides a general commentary on education’s tendency to reproduce the values and structures of the society that sponsors it and suggests that harnessing the power of university teaching for social, environmental and economic change will not be easy. Government intervention may change the rules or destabilise the currencies of academic capital but expecting academics to do this themselves appears to be irrational.

While Kahan’s analysis of climate-change denial does not reference Bourdieu, there are commonalities. Kahan asks why intelligent and rational people deny climate change and proposes a form of identity protection as rationale. Kahan’s analysis explores beliefs and suggests that they reflect not only individual’s need to relate to science but also to “enjoy the sense of identity enabled by membership in a community defined by particular cultural commitments” ( Kahan, 2015 , p. 1). In these contexts, Kahan suggests that climate-change deniers rationalise their relative sense of belonging to wider society and to more immediate social groups. They reasonably rationalise that their individual impact on climate change is insignificant, but standing out from their immediate cultural community would have very significant impacts on them as individuals and on their own cultural community. Climate-change denial in this analysis is a highly rational response to protect an individual and collective identity. In the current study, academic disinclination to measure, monitor, assess, evaluate or research the impacts of teaching on the affective, sustainability-related attributes of graduates is similarly a highly rational response to protect individual and collective academic identity. Even so, the theory does suggest that academics make a choice. By this theory most academic people find it more reasonable to mislead their societal sponsors about the impact of their sustainability-related efforts rather than to threaten their own academic identity. By this theory, academic leaders who commit their academic institutions to “educate for environmentally responsible citizenship” or to “create an institutional culture of sustainability,” without establishing evaluative procedures to check that their institution is on track, are particularly implicated in an identity choice far more heinous than climate change denial. Only those on the margins of established academic communities, those with little to lose, and those with extraordinary personal drive towards social, environmental and economic justice will have the personal resources to challenge established academic identity. Even so, attempts to enlighten academia via peer-reviewed analysis in a professional community dominated by peer review appears to be quixotic.

5. Conclusion

The research described in this article set out to explore the nature of higher education’s commitment to teaching for social, environmental and economic justice in the context of the SDGs and to develop a theory of this phenomenon to support further research. The research produced three broad and overlapping interpretations of the data collected; involving the cultural identity of higher education academics, the position of affect as a central feature of ESD, and the imagined rather than measured outcomes of the efforts of this cultural group in teaching contexts. The grounded theory to emerge from this research suggests that academics’ reluctance to research their teaching practices in ESD contexts is a protective response to circumstances that might otherwise compromise their idealised academic identity and personal position within their academic community.

It is to be stressed that this grounded theory is, at this stage, no more than a theory, based on a particular interpretation of data gathered in a far from quantitatively representative manner. It specifically does not suggest that higher education institutions are not meeting teaching-based objectives in the context of the SDGs, but rather emphasises that they cannot know what their impact is, in general, and on balance, so cannot know if their impact is broadly positive, or broadly negative. The theory has significant explanatory power, but whether it can lead to action remains to be seen. According to this grounded theory, progress depends on whether members of the academic community continue to choose to protect their idealised academic identity or decide to address the question of whether our teaching contributes more to the world’s sustainability problems or to their solution.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because the studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements. Internationally recognised ethical research principles have been adopted in this research, as described by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council ( UKRI, 2021 ) and as described in detail within the article.

Author contributions

KS: Writing – original draft.

The author declares that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article other than through the Author’s own university, the University of Otago, and the hospitality provided by the other universities visited.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the support of numerous colleagues in the universities and nations involved in this research. Everyone who spoke with me has contributed to my developing understanding, whether they advocate for sustainable development, or research the impacts of universities in their roles, or not. Few would have been in a position to predict what the results of this research would be, and I hope that it does not disappoint them. I also acknowledge helpful suggestions from two independent reviewers.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (1994). The talloires declaration 10 point action plan, updated version . Available at: http://www.ulsf.org/pdf/TD.pdf .

Google Scholar

Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., and Thomas, I. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development . Routledge: London.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production . Cambridge, Polity Press.

Brown, K., Connelly, S., Lovelock, B., Mainvil, L., Mather, D., Roberts, H., et al. (2019). Do we teach our students to share and to care? Res. Post-Compuls. Educ. 24, 462–481. doi: 10.1080/13596748.2019.1654693

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., et al. (2020). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustain. Sci. 16, 13–29. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2

Charmaz, K., and Bryant, A. (2010). Grounded theory, future directions international encyclopedia of education (Third Edition). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080448947015815 .

Clegg, S., and Rowland, S. (2010). Kindness in pedagogical practice and academic life. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 31, 719–735. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2010.515102

Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Craig, C. A., Petrun Sayers, E. L., Gilbertz, S., Karam, R., and Feng, S. (2022). The role of STEM-based sustainability in business and management curricula: exploring cognitive and affective outcomes in university students. J. Manag. Educ. 46, 656–684. doi: 10.1177/10525629211056316

Dhawan, N. B., Belluigi, D. Z., and Idahosa, G. E.-O. (2022). “There is a hell and heaven difference among faculties who are from quota and those who are non-quota”: under the veneer of the “new middle class” production of Indian public universities. High. Educ. 86, 271–296. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00932-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Drennan, J., Clarke, M., Hyde, A., and Politis, Y. (2017). “Academic identity in higher education” in Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions . eds. J. C. Shin and P. Teixeira (Netherlands: Springer), 1–6.

Finnveden, G., Friman, E., Mogren, A., Palmer, H., Sund, P., Carstedt, G., et al. (2020). Evaluation of integration of sustainable development in higher education in Sweden. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 21, 685–698. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-09-2019-0287

Glaser, B. G. (1998) Doing grounded theory – issues and discussions . Mill Valley CA. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Guba, E., and Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century . New York: Speigel and Grau.

Hegarty, K. (2008). Shaping the self to sustain the other: mapping impacts of academic identity in education for sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 14, 681–692. doi: 10.1080/13504620802464858

Howe, A. (2003). Twelve tips for developing professional attitudes in training. Med. Teach. 25, 485–487. doi: 10.1080/01421590310001605624

Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem . Polit. Psychol. 36, 1–43. doi: 10.1111/pops.12244

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., and Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18, 3–9. doi: 10.1177/0146167292181001

McCune, V. (2021). Academic identities in contemporary higher education: sustaining identities that value teaching. Teach. High. Educ. 26, 20–35. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1632826

NEP. (2020). National education policy. Available at: https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf .

Nixon, J. (2020). “Disorderly identities: university rankings and the re-ordering of the academic mind” in World class universities . eds. S. Rider, M. A. Peters, M. Hyvönen, and T. Besley (Singapore: Springer Nature), 11–24.

Persson, C., Einarson, D., and Melen, M. (2023). Educating the educators to be a driving force in higher education towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 24, 197–212. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2022-0332

Rieckmann, M. (2011). Future-oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 44, 127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005

Schoolman, E. D., Shriberg, M., Schwimmer, S., and Tysman, M. (2016). Green cities and ivory towers: how do higher education sustainability initiatives shape millennials’ consumption practices? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 6, 490–502. doi: 10.1007/s13412-014-0190-z

Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9, 87–98. doi: 10.1108/14676370810842201

Shephard, K. (2015). Higher education for sustainable development . Palgrave Macmillan: UK.

Shephard, K. (2020). Higher education for sustainability: seeking intellectual Independence in Aotearoa New Zealand . Springer: Singapore.

Shephard, K. (2022). “On the educational difference between being able and being willing” in Competences in education for sustainable development . eds. P. Vare, N. Lausselet, and M. Rieckmann (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 45–52.

Shephard, K., and Egan, T. (2018). Higher education for professional and civic values: a critical review and analysis. Sustainability 10:4442. doi: 10.3390/su10124442

Shephard, K., and Furnari, M. (2013). Exploring what university teachers think about education for sustainability. Stud. High. Educ. 38, 1577–1590. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.644784

Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Lovelock, B., Mirosa, M., Skeaff, S., Slooten, L., et al. (2015). Seeking learning outcomes appropriate for “education for sustainable development” and for higher education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 40, 855–866. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1009871

STARS. (2023). The sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system. Available at: https://stars.aashe.org .

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

TEC. (2023). Tertiary education commission, equity funding. Available at: https://www.tec.govt.nz/funding/funding-and-performance/funding/fund-finder/equity-funding/ .

Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am. J. Eval. 27, 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748

Times Higher Education. (2023). Impact Rankings. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impactrankings .

UKRI. (2021). Framework for research ethics. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/framework-for-research-ethics/our-core-principles .

UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444 .

UNESCO. (2021). Teachers have their say: motivation, skills and opportunities to teach education for sustainable development and global citizenship. Available at: https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/25552:teachers-have-their-say-motivation-skills-and-opportunities-to-teach-education-for-sustainable-development-and-global-citizenship .

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. (1992). Agenda 21. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf .

Watermeyer, R., and Tomlinson, M. (2022). Competitive accountability and the dispossession of academic identity: haunted by an impact phantom. Educ. Philos. Theory 54, 92–103. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1880388

Watson, C. (2006). Narratives of practice and the construction of identity in teaching. Teach. Teach. 12, 509–526. doi: 10.1080/13540600600832213

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., and Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain. Sci. 6, 203–218. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6

Yang, S., Shu, D., and Yin, H. (2022). “Teaching, my passion; publishing, my pain”: unpacking academics’ professional identity tensions through the lens of emotional resilience. High. Educ. 84, 235–254. doi: 10.1007/s10734-021-00765-w

Keywords: education for sustainable development, higher education for sustainable development, higher education for sustainability, sustainable development goals, social purposes of universities, social change, roles and responsibilities of universities

Citation: Shephard K (2023) Academic identity and “education for sustainable development”: a grounded theory. Front. Educ . 8:1257119. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1257119

Received: 12 July 2023; Accepted: 10 August 2023; Published: 30 August 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Shephard. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kerry Shephard, [email protected]

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Sustainable Development: Samples in 250, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Nov 18, 2023

On 3rd August 2023, the Indian Government released its Net zero emissions target policy to reduce its carbon footprints. To achieve the sustainable development goals (SDG) , as specified by the UN, India is determined for its long-term low-carbon development strategy. Selfishly pursuing modernization, humans have frequently compromised with the requirements of a more sustainable environment.

As a result, the increased environmental depletion is evident with the prevalence of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases, climate change etc. To combat these challenges, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) in 2019. The objective was to improve air quality in 131 cities in 24 States/UTs by engaging multiple stakeholders.

‘Development is not real until and unless it is sustainable development.’ – Ban Ki-Moon

The concept of Sustainable Development in India has even greater relevance due to the controversy surrounding the big dams and mega projects and related long-term growth. Since it is quite a frequently asked topic in school tests as well as competitive exams , we are here to help you understand what this concept means as well as the mantras to drafting a well-written essay on Sustainable Development with format and examples.

This Blog Includes:

What is sustainable development, 250-300 words essay on sustainable development, 300 words essay on sustainable development, 500 words essay on sustainable development, introduction, conclusion of sustainable development essay, importance of sustainable development, examples of sustainable development.

As the term simply explains, Sustainable Development aims to bring a balance between meeting the requirements of what the present demands while not overlooking the needs of future generations. It acknowledges nature’s requirements along with the human’s aim to work towards the development of different aspects of the world. It aims to efficiently utilise resources while also meticulously planning the accomplishment of immediate as well as long-term goals for human beings, the planet as well and future generations. In the present time, the need for Sustainable Development is not only for the survival of mankind but also for its future protection. 

Looking for ideas to incorporate in your Essay on Sustainable Development? Read our blog on Energy Management – Find Your Sustainable Career Path and find out!

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 250-300 words:

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 300 + words:

Must Read: Article Writing

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 500 + words:

Essay Format

Before drafting an essay on Sustainable Development, students need to get familiarised with the format of essay writing, to know how to structure the essay on a given topic. Take a look at the following pointers which elaborate upon the format of a 300-350 word essay.

Introduction (50-60 words) In the introduction, students must introduce or provide an overview of the given topic, i.e. highlighting and adding recent instances and questions related to sustainable development. Body of Content (100-150 words) The area of the content after the introduction can be explained in detail about why sustainable development is important, its objectives and highlighting the efforts made by the government and various institutions towards it.  Conclusion (30-40 words) In the essay on Sustainable Development, you must add a conclusion wrapping up the content in about 2-3 lines, either with an optimistic touch to it or just summarizing what has been talked about above.

How to write the introduction of a sustainable development essay? To begin with your essay on sustainable development, you must mention the following points:

• What is sustainable development?
• What does sustainable development focus on?
• Why is it useful for the environment?

How to write the conclusion of a sustainable development essay? To conclude your essay on sustainable development, mention why it has become the need of the hour. Wrap up all the key points you have mentioned in your essay and provide some important suggestions to implement sustainable development.

The importance of sustainable development is that it meets the needs of the present generations without compromising on the needs of the coming future generations. Sustainable development teaches us to use our resources in the correct manner. Listed below are some points which tell us the importance of sustainable development.

• Focuses on Sustainable Agricultural Methods – Sustainable development is important because it takes care of the needs of future generations and makes sure that the increasing population does not put a burden on Mother Earth. It promotes agricultural techniques such as crop rotation and effective seeding techniques.
• Manages Stabilizing the Climate – We are facing the problem of climate change due to the excessive use of fossil fuels and the killing of the natural habitat of animals. Sustainable development plays a major role in preventing climate change by developing practices that are sustainable. It promotes reducing the use of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases that destroy the atmosphere.
• Provides Important Human Needs – Sustainable development promotes the idea of saving for future generations and making sure that resources are allocated to everybody. It is based on the principle of developing an infrastructure that is can be sustained for a long period of time.
• Sustain Biodiversity – If the process of sustainable development is followed, the home and habitat of all other living animals will not be depleted. As sustainable development focuses on preserving the ecosystem it automatically helps in sustaining and preserving biodiversity.
• Financial Stability – As sustainable development promises steady development the economies of countries can become stronger by using renewable sources of energy as compared to using fossil fuels, of which there is only a particular amount on our planet.

Mentioned below are some important examples of sustainable development. Have a look:

• Wind Energy – Wind energy is an easily available resource. It is also a free resource. It is a renewable source of energy and the energy which can be produced by harnessing the power of wind will be beneficial for everyone. Windmills can produce energy which can be used to our benefit. It can be a helpful source of reducing the cost of grid power and is a fine example of sustainable development. 
• Solar Energy – Solar energy is also a source of energy which is readily available and there is no limit to it. Solar energy is being used to replace and do many things which were first being done by using non-renewable sources of energy. Solar water heaters are a good example. It is cost-effective and sustainable at the same time.
• Crop Rotation – To increase the potential of growth of gardening land, crop rotation is an ideal and sustainable way. It is rid of any chemicals and reduces the chances of disease in the soil. This form of sustainable development is beneficial to both commercial farmers and home gardeners.
• Efficient Water Fixtures – The installation of hand and head showers in our toilets which are efficient and do not waste or leak water is a method of conserving water. Water is essential for us and conserving every drop is important. Spending less time under the shower is also a way of sustainable development and conserving water.
• Sustainable Forestry – This is an amazing way of sustainable development where the timber trees that are cut by factories are replaced by another tree. A new tree is planted in place of the one which was cut down. This way, soil erosion is prevented and we have hope of having a better, greener future.

Related Articles

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals established by the United Nations in 2015. These include: No Poverty Zero Hunger Good Health and Well-being Quality Education Gender Equality Clean Water and Sanitation Affordable and Clean Energy Decent Work and Economic Growth Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Reduced Inequality Sustainable Cities and Communities Responsible Consumption and Production Climate Action Life Below Water Life on Land Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Partnerships for the Goals

The SDGs are designed to address a wide range of global challenges, such as eradicating extreme poverty globally, achieving food security, focusing on promoting good health and well-being, inclusive and equitable quality education, etc.

India is ranked #111 in the Sustainable Development Goal Index 2023 with a score of 63.45.

Hence, we hope that this blog helped you understand the key features of an essay on sustainable development. If you are interested in Environmental studies and planning to pursue sustainable tourism courses , take the assistance of Leverage Edu ’s AI-based tool to browse through a plethora of programs available in this specialised field across the globe and find the best course and university combination that fits your interests, preferences and aspirations. Call us immediately at 1800 57 2000 for a free 30-minute counselling session

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Thanks a lot for this important essay.

NICELY AND WRITTEN WITH CLARITY TO CONCEIVE THE CONCEPTS BEHIND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Thankyou so much!

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 29 June 2022

The importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to students of environmental and sustainability studies—a global survey in 41 countries

• Matthias Winfried Kleespies   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8413-879X 1 &
• Paul Wilhelm Dierkes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-6406 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  218 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

32k Accesses

12 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies

To fight the global problems of humanity, the United Nations has adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To achieve these goals, it is necessary that future decision-makers and stakeholders in society consider these goals to be important. Therefore, in this study, we examined how important students in 41 countries directly related to the environmental sector rated each of the 17 SDGs. Based on the analysis of these ratings, it was possible to categorize the SDGs into three higher-level factors that reflect the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic, environmental). These three pillars are considered to be of varying importance in different countries. We also correlated the ratings of these higher-level factors with country-specific indicators, such as the Human Development Index. The correlations between the indicators and the higher-level factors revealed that in countries with higher indices, the SDGs are rated as less important compared to in countries with lower indices. These results provide stakeholders with important guidance on how the SDGs should be promoted in their country.

Similar content being viewed by others

Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries

Paul G. Bain, Pieter M. Kroonenberg, … Joonha Park

Global effects of progress towards Sustainable Development Goals on subjective well-being

Jianqing Du, Yali Liu, … Bojie Fu

Strategies for developing sustainable communities in higher education institutions

Alberto Biancardi, Annarita Colasante, … Antonio Felice Uricchio

Introduction

Currently, humanity is facing major environmental, social and economic problems worldwide. To address these global issues on an international cross-border level and to create a more sustainable and better future for all, the United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 (United Nations, 2015 ). Each of the SDGs has indicators that are used to measure progress towards achieving the goals (United Nations, 2017 ). The individual goals do not stand alone but rather influence each other and are closely linked (Bali Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020 ; Nilsson et al., 2016 ; Pham‐Truffert et al., 2020 ; Pradhan et al., 2017 ); each goal addresses environmental, social and economic problems (Elder and Olsen, 2019 ).

It is particularly important how the SDGs are perceived, accepted and evaluated by people worldwide. In this context, there have been several surveys conducted in recent years, some with varying results. While awareness of the SDGs has increased globally compared to their predecessor, i.e., the Millennium Development Goals (GlobeScan, 2016 ), 63% of the respondents in a survey of 28 European countries said they had never heard of the SDGs. Globally, awareness of the SDGs is approximately 50% (Theresa et al., 2020 ); however, only 1% of people say they are very well informed about the SDGs (Lampert and Papadongonas, 2016 ). There are also regional differences in the assessment of the individual goals. Globally, ‘climate action’, ‘good health’ and ‘well-being and quality education’ are considered particularly important (Theresa et al., 2020 ). In another survey, ‘zero hunger’, ‘clean water and sanitation’ and ‘no poverty’ were selected as the most important SDGs (Lampert and Papadongonas, 2016 ). Young people in particular are more likely to have heard of the SDGs, and for them, quality education is particularly important (Youth Speak Survey, 2020 ). In general, people around the world have a high level of acceptance about the content of the SDGs (Ipsos, 2015 ).

The education system has an important role in raising awareness of the SDGs and in teaching skills and values that lead to more sustainable behaviour. Therefore, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has developed learning objectives for the SDGs to support teachers and learners (UNESCO, 2017 ). Tertiary educational institutions are particularly important in this regard, as they educate the next generation of decision-makers who will have a critical impact on the future of the planet (Yuriev and Sierra‐Barón, 2020 ). Universities, through their education and influence, contribute directly to the achievement of a whole range of SDGs (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ). In recent years, there has been a strong increase in sustainability programmes at universities, with a particular focus on student attitudes (Rodríguez-García et al., 2019 ); however, there is wide divergence between programmes (O’Byrne et al., 2015 ). Despite the recent surge of sustainability in higher education, students generally have limited knowledge of the SDGs (Zamora-Polo et al., 2019 ). Higher education institutes, such as universities, have a special responsibility worldwide because they shape future leaders (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008 ; Bellou et al., 2017 ), decision-makers (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008 ; Lozano et al., 2013 ), professionals (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ) and intellectuals in various academic fields (Lozano, 2006 ).

In addition to educating the next generation of decision-makers, which is most likely the most important factor, universities also make an important contribution to achieving the SDGs through research, public engagement or university policy (Kestin et al., 2017 ). They can influence politicians and industry leaders with their clear and unbiased information (Stephens et al., 2008 ) and reach a wide audience in the general population (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2020 ).

While elite positions in society can be reached independently of having a university education, universities provide knowledge and technical skills that significantly increase the likelihood that a person will achieve such a socially relevant position (Frank and Meyer, 2007 ; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013 ). Therefore, students, as potential future decision-makers of society, contribute greatly to the achievement of the SDGs and have an impact on the major problems of humanity and thus on the future of the planet. Until now, however, there has been a lack of valid international research that examines the perspective of students in the natural and sustainable sciences on the various SDGs. This study is an attempt to reduce the international research gap and examine the views of environmental students in different countries regarding the SDGs. The aim is to determine how important students in each country consider the SDGs to be. In this context, statistical methods will be used to check whether the individual SDGs can be assigned to higher-order groups on the basis of the students’ evaluation. To identify patterns and differences between the countries, these higher-ranking groups were compared among the individual countries and correlated with country-specific indicators. The results are intended to provide guidance for action for today’s decision-makers in individual countries.

Therefore, in our study, we asked more than 4000 university students in 41 countries whose course of study is directly related to sustainability to rate the 17 SDGs on a scale of 1–5 (important to unimportant). In the first step of the analysis, an exploratory factor analysis was used to investigate the extent to which the SDGs can be categorized into higher-level factors based on the participants’ ratings. In a second step, we examined how these higher ranking factors differed among the 41 countries studied. In the final step, we analysed the relationship between these higher-ranking factors and various country-specific indicators (GDP per capita, the Human Development Index, the Education Index, the Environment Performance Index and the SDG Index).

Data collection procedure

The survey was conducted using an online questionnaire. To guarantee a high level of data protection and the anonymity of the participants, the survey software that is also applied for evaluation at Goethe University in Frankfurt was used. Students were shown the labels and descriptions of each SDG (Table 1 ) and asked to rate them on a scale of 1 to 5 (unimportant to important). The survey was conducted in one of the official languages of the respective countries. The translation of the questionnaires was performed by a native-speaking translator and always checked by an additional person. The translations of the SDGs were taken from the official website of the UN (United Nations, 2016 ). If no translation was available, the SDGs were translated by a translator following the same principle. The English version of the questionnaire can be found in Supplementary Fig. 1 . To collect the data, professors and scientists worldwide were contacted and asked for their help. The scientists were asked to distribute the questionnaire among their students. An English cover letter was provided to participants and described the content and background of the study. In addition, a short introductory text at the beginning of the questionnaire explained the research project to the participants. Only people from natural science courses directly related to sustainability (e.g., biology, environmental sciences, ecology and conservation, natural resources management, etc.) were contacted.

A total of 4305 students (34.3% male, 63.6% female, 0.8% divers, 1.2% no answer) participated in the survey. The participants were on average 22.59 (±0.495) years old and in the 4.29th (±2.744) semester of study. The number of participants broken down by country is shown in Supplementary Table 2 . The survey period was September 2020–July 2021.

The study was reviewed by the ethics committee of the science didactic institutes and departments of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main under approval number 15-WLSD-2104. If a university required a local ethics vote, that vote was also conducted prior to the survey.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the individual SDGs and to assign the SDGs to higher ranking factors based on the students’ ratings. This is a structure-simplifying procedure that is used to assign individual variables or items to higher-order factors and thus simplify the interpretation of the data (Yong and Pearce, 2013 ). In simple terms, a factor analysis generates a correlation matrix ( R -matrix) for all items used. Items that correlate particularly well and separate themselves from other item clusters are assigned to a higher ranking factor (Field, 2013 ). The rotation method chosen was varimax, which is considered the most reliable orthogonal rotation method (Fabrigar et al., 1999 ). To check whether the data were at all suitable for this type of analysis, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy were performed (Dziuban and Shirkey, 1974 ). The number of factors was determined by the Kaiser criterion, which takes into account all factors that have an eigenvalue larger than 1 (Kaiser, 1960 ). To examine whether the values of the three higher-level factors found by the factor analysis differed within countries or whether the factors were perceived to be of similar importance, the (two-tailed) Friedman test was used (Field, 2013 ). For significant results, a pairwise comparison was performed using the (two-tailed) Dunn–Bonferroni test (Dunn, 1964 ). The effect size was calculated using the following formula: r  =  \(\frac{Z}{{\sqrt N }}\) (Fritz et al., 2012 ).

To investigate whether there is a linear relationship between the factors found through factor analysis and the indices of each country (e.g., the Human Development Index and the Education Index), the Spearman rank correlation was calculated. The Spearman rank correlation was selected because the data were ordinally scaled and not normally distributed (Field, 2013 ; Schober et al., 2018 ).

Selected indices

The following five country-specific indices were selected:

Gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita, 2021): GDP per capita is a value calculated by organizations such as the international monetary fund (International Monetary Fund, 2021 ). It is often used as an indicator of the standard of living, even though some weaknesses in this interpretation are currently known (Goossens, 2007 ).

Human Development Index (HDI from 2020): The HDI is an indicator of the United Nations (Conceição et al., 2020 ) that consists of life expectancy, the average number of years of schooling, and the standard of living (United Nations Development Programme, 2020b ).

Education Index (EI from 2020): The EI is a United Nations indicator that consists of the number of years of schooling that an adult person has attended on average and the expected years of schooling that a child will attend (United Nations Development Programme, 2020a ).

Environment Performance Index (EPI from 2020): The EPI is an index that assesses environmental health and ecosystem vitality using 32 performance indicators (Wendling et al., 2020 ).

SDG Index (SDGI from 2021): The SDGI is an indicator of the Bertelsmann Foundation that attempts to calculate the progress of the SDGs in percent based on various indicators. For example, if a country has an SDGI of 85.9, then approximately 86% of the SDGs have been achieved by that country (Sachs et al., 2021 ).

Both the Bartlett test ( p  < 0.001) and the KMO criterion (KMO = 0.924) confirmed the applicability of an exploratory factor analysis for the 17 SDGs. The analysis revealed three factors with an eigenvalue > 1, indicating that the SDGs can be attributed to three higher-order factors (social, economic, environmental), which together can explain 53.48% of the variance. Overall, there was a clear assignment of items to the factors, and only a few cross-loadings were observed (Table 1 ).

The comparison of the three sustainability factors within the tested countries showed that the countries rated the individual dimensions of the SDGs differently. For example, in some countries, all three sustainability factors were rated as being equally important (Fig. 1a ); thus, there was no significant difference between the factors. In a number of countries, the environmental component was rated higher than the economic component, but no difference was found between the social and environmental components or between the social and economic components (Fig. 1b ). In the third group, the economic factor was rated as slightly less important than the environmental and social factors (Fig. 1c ). In some countries, the environmental factor was rated significantly higher than the other factors (Fig. 1d ). For better clarity, the individual significance levels are not marked in Fig. 1 but can be found along with the effect sizes in Supplementary Table 1 .

In group ( a ), there are no significant differences between the three factors within the countries. In group ( b ), the environmental factor is rated higher than the economic factor but not higher than the social factor. In group ( c ), the economic factor is rated lower than the other two factors. In group ( d ), the environmental factor is rated significantly higher than both the economic and environmental factors. For clarity, the significance levels are not marked with asterisks in the figure. Exact significance levels and effect sizes can be found in Supplementary Table 1 . The boxes represent the mean of the components; the error bars represent the standard deviation.

The three higher-level sustainability factors show significant correlations with all five selected country-specific global development indices ( p  < 0.001). The correlations are shown in Table 2 .

All correlations are in the high range according to the common interpretation (Field, 2013 ). It is noteworthy that there is a negative correlation for all the global development indices examined. It follows that students in countries with higher indices rate the SDGs as less important than do students in countries with lower indices. For all the global development indices tested, a higher score means a higher standard. In other words, students in countries with, for example, a higher standard of education or higher income per person consider the SDGs to be less important compared to their counterparts.

The correlations between the three sustainability factors found and the individual indices are shown in Fig. 2 . The importance score refers to the mean values of the individual sustainability factors for the different countries. The dashed lines represent the linear trend.

Each point represents one country. Countries with fewer than 50 respondents are shown in grey, and countries with more than 50 respondents are shown in black. a Gross domestic product per capita in US dollars, b Human Development Index, c Education Index, d Environment Performance Index, and e SDG Index.

The results of this study provide important information on how students in the environmental field worldwide perceive and evaluate the 17 SDGs. Based on the rating of the importance of the individual SDGs, it was possible to assign them to three higher-level factors in the factor analysis. Although each of the 17 SDGs contains all three pillars of sustainability (social, economic and environmental (Purvis et al., 2019 )) and the different levels of sustainability build on each other (Sachs, 2012 ; United Nations, 2015 ), it has also been shown in previous studies that people assign the SDGs to individual pillars to varying degrees (Bain et al., 2019 ; Dalampira and Nastis, 2020 ; Elder and Olsen, 2019 ). Reviewing the three higher-level factors, it can be assumed that our data also reflect such a classification. When considering only the labels and short descriptions, Factor 1 includes the SDGs that are primarily considered social, Factor 2 includes the SDGs that are considered economic, and Factor 3 includes the SDGs that are considered environmental (Elder and Olsen, 2019 ). While in previous studies, respondents were often asked directly to assign the SDGs to the three pillars of sustainability, in this study, the classification was solely based on the different ratings of the importance of each SDG.

The clear separation of the SDGs into these three groups and the low cross-loading values suggest that environmental students worldwide make this categorization and assign different importance to the SDGs in the three groups, potentially subconsciously. It can be concluded that the students consider ecological, economic and social challenges to be of varying importance. This finding provides an essential starting point for decision-makers in tertiary education institutions. In addition to the current increasing number of courses with a focus on sustainability (O’Byrne et al., 2015 ; Rodríguez-García et al., 2019 ), more emphasis should be placed on the interconnectedness of the individual layers of the various SDGs. For each SDG, attention should be given to highlighting social, environmental and economic components and to underlining the close relationship between these pillars. In this way, the importance of all three components of each SDG can be taken into account for current issues. Fisheries, for example, have important elements of the social and economic components, in addition to the environmental component, and all of these elements are closely linked (Asche et al., 2018 ). These connections should be addressed and highlighted in environmental education courses.

When comparing these three factors within the countries, different patterns emerge. In approximately two-thirds of the countries, the three factors are not rated as equally important. A noticeable pattern, which is particularly evident in a number of industrialized countries, is that the gap between the economic factor and the other two factors is particularly large. This could well be explained to some extent by the attitudes of people in industrialized countries; i.e., environmental issues, such as fighting climate change, are seen as particularly important aims in North America and Europe (Theresa et al., 2020 ). When considering problems in developing counties, people in Europe often rate issues belonging to the social component (such as peace and security) as particularly important (European Commission. Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development. et al., 2016 ). This potentially leads to the assessment that the environmental and social factors are particularly important, while the economic SDGs are perceived as less important, as they do not fall into either category.

Another pattern that repeatedly emerges is that the environmental component is rated as being more important than one or both of the other components. In no country was the environmental component rated significantly worse than the two other factors. These results are very positive, as environmental problems are currently more relevant than ever before. The boundaries of our planet are being increasingly exhausted, and there is an urgent need for action at the global level (Steffen et al., 2015 ). The high rating of environmental factors also shows a particularly positive trend in all countries. In the past, many governments and experts prioritized economic growth and considered environmental damage as a trade-off (Elder and Olsen, 2019 ). The common approach has been to accept pollution as a consequence of economic growth and to deal with the related environmental problems that arise later (Azadi et al., 2011 ). This view is not reflected in our study of environmental students. In the current study, environmental concerns are considered to be at least as important, and in some countries even more important, than social and economic factors.

The differences identified between countries can serve as a possible guide to action for local decision-makers who can incorporate specific promotion of the importance of different SDGs into the curriculum. In this way, country-specific actions can be implemented that specifically address the economic, ecological or environmental awareness of each of the SDGs. These results can also be seen as a call to those countries in which the gap between the three factors is particularly large. Especially in these countries, political or educational actions, such as emphasizing the global importance of the economic SDGs in the educational context, would be particularly important.

The comparison of the country-specific indicators with the rating of the importance of the higher-level factors shows a similar picture for all indicators. In countries with higher indices (higher GDP per capita, higher health index, etc.), the SDGs are generally rated as being less important than in countries with lower indices. In this context, it does not matter whether the SDGs are perceived as social, economic or environmental. This result is surprising, since in previous international studies, it was often found that people in wealthier countries, i.e., countries with a higher GDP per capita, have a more positive attitude towards, for example, environmental problems, than do people in countries with a lower GDP per capita (Franzen, 2003 ; Franzen and Meyer, 2010 ; Franzen and Vogl, 2013 ). The research of and theory put forth by Inglehart is often used as a basis for explanation. He found that in countries where postmaterialist values dominate, people have a more positive attitude towards environmental protection than they do in countries with more materialist values. Thus, postmaterialist values are more likely to be found in advanced industrial societies (Inglehart, 1995 ). However, postmaterialist values do not necessarily lead to higher support for the SDGs (Guan et al., 2019 ). Our study also supports this assumption. The results show that, on average, people in societies with higher indices (usually industrialized societies) rate the SDGs as being less important than do people in countries with lower indices. This provides important insights for politicians, stakeholders and decision-makers; i.e., in wealthier countries that have already made great progress in implementing the SDGs, the relevance of the SDGs must be communicated at different levels. Particular attention must be paid to higher educational institutions. The fact that the SDGs are rated lower on average in wealthier countries with a higher Education Index outcome shows that it is especially in these countries that there is a need to improve the related knowledge and that the focus of higher education institutions should be placed specifically on content related to the SDGs. In this context, it is not sufficient to teach only basic scientific knowledge (Frick et al., 2004 ); rather, other factors, such as attitudes (Gifford and Sussman, 2012 ) or values (Steg and Groot, 2012 ), should also be a particular focus of education. The importance of the SDGs should be considered not only for specific countries but also in an international and global context. Thus, these topics could be integrated into the curricula of universities and schools to enable students, as future decision-makers in society, to act as multipliers and pass on the relevance and importance of the SDGs in society.

Limitations

Although the study was conducted with great care, some limitations must be addressed. For example, the study surveyed a very select group of students in environmental and sustainability science courses. It can be assumed that people in these courses are more interested in environmental issues than the general population. However, because a similar group of students was surveyed in each country, cross-country comparison is possible. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the results cannot be generalized to other courses of study or to the general population. Further international studies are necessary to investigate relationships in other groups.

Another limitation of the study is that the survey was conducted by e-mail on a voluntary basis. This could possibly lead to self-selection; i.e., people who were already interested in the topic of the SDGs were more likely to participate in the survey.

It should also be mentioned that the sample size differs in part between the individual countries. While in some countries, several hundred people could be surveyed, in other countries, only a sample size in the two-digit range was possible. This result could potentially have had an influence on the comparison between the countries.

When evaluating the individual SDGs, it cannot be ruled out that the students did not rate each SGD independently but rather related their importance to each other. As a result, some SDGs may have been rated differently than they would have been without such a direct comparison. However, since this effect was equally possible in all countries, the results remain comparable, and the conclusions remain valid.

The current research was able to show that the importance of the SDGs, regardless of the pillar of sustainability (social, economic, environmental), is considered important by students in environmental and sustainability science courses in different countries. However, there are variations between the countries in how important the individual pillars for sustainability are considered to be. This result offers the opportunity to specifically promote individual pillars for sustainability in those countries in which a pillar was perceived as being less important. Another important finding of the study is that especially in countries with high global development indices, the SDGs are rated as less important compared to the ratings in countries with lower global development indices. Therefore, our research is a call to countries with higher indices, where the SDGs have already been implemented to a higher extent, to actively improve the view and acceptance of students regarding the SDGs. This can help to further achieve the SDGs both in individual countries and at the global level.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors to any qualified researcher.

Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I (2008) An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J Cleaner Prod 16(16):1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002

Asche F et al. (2018) Three pillars of sustainability in fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(44):11221–11225. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807677115

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Azadi H, Verheijke G, Witlox F (2011) Pollute first, clean up later? Global Planet Change 78(3-4):77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.05.006

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Bain PG et al. (2019) Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nat Sustain 2(9):819–825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0365-4

Article   Google Scholar  

Bali Swain R, Yang-Wallentin F (2020) Achieving sustainable development goals: predicaments and strategies. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 27(2):96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1692316

Bellou C, Petreniti V, Skanavis C (2017) Greening the campus intentions: a study of the University of the Aegean nonacademic staff. Int J Sust Higher Ed 18(4):520–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2015-0102

Conceição P et al. (2020) Human development report 2020: the next frontier. Human development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme, New York

Google Scholar  

Dalampira ES, Nastis SA (2020) Back to the future: simplifying Sustainable Development Goals based on three pillars of sustainability. Int J Sustain Agric Manag Inf 6(3):226. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSAMI.2020.10034327

Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6(3):241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1266041

Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 81(6):358–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316

Elder M, Olsen SH (2019) The design of environmental priorities in the SDGs. Glob Policy 10(S1):70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12596

European Commission. Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development, TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission. Directorate General for Communication (2016) Special Eurobarometer 441: The European year for development: citizens’s view on development, cooperation and aid. Publications Office

Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4(3):272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

Field A (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC

Frank DJ, Meyer JW (2007) University expansion and the knowledge society. Theor Soc 36(4):287–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9035-z

Franzen A (2003) Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000 *. Soc Sci Q 84(2):297–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402005

Franzen A, Meyer R (2010) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26(2):219–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018

Franzen A, Vogl D (2013) Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environ Change 23(5):1001–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009

Frick J, Kaiser FG, Wilson M (2004) Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personal Individ Differ 37(8):1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015

Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gifford R, Sussman R (2012) Environmental attitudes. In: Clayton SD (ed) The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford library of psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp 65–80

GlobeScan (2016) Awareness of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) vs. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). https://globescan.com/awareness-of-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-vs-millennium-development-goals-mdgs/

Goossens Y (2007) Alternative progress indicators to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a means towards sustainable development. European Parliament

Guan T, Meng K, Liu W, Xue L (2019) Public attitudes toward Sustainable Development Goals: evidence from five Chinese cities. Sustainability 11(20):5793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205793

Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Sci Politics 28(1):57. https://doi.org/10.2307/420583

International Monetary Fund (2021) World Economic Outlook: managing divergent recoveries. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April

Ipsos (2015) Ipsos public affairs findings from a global poll on the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/17-country-study-foreign-aid-and-sustainable-development-goals

Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116

Kestin T et al. (2017) Getting started with the SDGs in universities: a guide for universities, higher education institutions, and the academic sector. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Melbourne

Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N (2020) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): assessing the contribution of higher education programmes. Sustainability 12(17):6701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176701

Lampert M, Papadongonas P (2016) Towards 2030 Without Poverty: increasing knowledge of progress made and opportunities for engaging frontrunners in the world population with the global goals. https://oxfamsol.be/sites/default/files/documents/towards_2030_without_poverty-glocalities2016-2-new.pdf

Lozano R (2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J Cleaner Prod 14(9–11):787–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010

Lozano R et al (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Cleaner Prod 48:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006

Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534(7607):320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

O’Byrne D, Dripps W, Nicholas KA (2015) Teaching and learning sustainability: an assessment of the curriculum content and structure of sustainability degree programs in higher education. Sustain Sci 10(1):43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0251-y

Pham‐Truffert M et al. (2020) Interactions among Sustainable Development Goals: Knowledge for identifying multipliers and virtuous cycles. Sustain Dev 28(5):1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2073

Pradhan P et al. (2017) A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earth’s Future 5(11):1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000632

Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14(3):681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Rodríguez-García A-M, López Belmonte J, Agreda Montoro M, Moreno-Guerrero A-J (2019) Productive, structural and dynamic study of the concept of sustainability in the educational field. Sustainability 11(20):5613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205613

Sachs JD (2012) From millennium development goals to Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 379(9832):2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0

Sachs JD et al. (2021) Sustainable Development Report 2021: the decade of action for the Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126(5):1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864

Steffen W et al. (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Sustain Sci 347(6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Steg L, Groot JIMde (2012) Environmental Values. In: Clayton SD (ed.) The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford library of psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp 81–92

Stephens JC et al. (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sust Higher Ed 9(3):317–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916

Theresa F, Joachim S, Todd C (2020) Report of results global survey on sustainability and the SDGs: awareness, priorities, need for action. Schlange & Co. GmbH, Hamburg

UNESCO (2017) Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. UNESCO, Paris

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A/RES/71/1. https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/1

United Nations (2016) The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in your language. https://unric.org/en/sdgs-in-your-language/

United Nations (2017) Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A/RES/71/313. https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313

United Nations Development Programme (2020a) Human development reports: education index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/103706

United Nations Development Programme (2020b) Technical notes: calculating the human development indices—graphical presentation. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf

Vicente-Molina MA, Fernández-Sáinz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J (2013) Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J Clean Prod 61:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015

Wendling ZA et al. (2020) 2020 Environmental Performance Index. https://epi.yale.edu/

Yong AG, Pearce S (2013) A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 9(2):79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079

Youth Speak Survey (2020) Global report 2020. https://www.youthforesight.org/resource-details/Publications/858

Yuriev A, Sierra‐Barón W (2020) Exploring sustainability cross‐culturally: employees’ beliefs on green behaviors. Sustain Dev 28(5):1199–1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2069

Zamora-Polo F, Sánchez-Martín J, Corrales-Serrano M, Espejo-Antúnez L (2019) What do university students know about Sustainable Development Goals? A realistic approach to the reception of this UN program amongst the youth population. Sustainability 11(13):3533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133533

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all study participants and the more than 300 researchers and universities that shared our questionnaires. This study was partly supported by the Opel-Zoo foundation professorship in zoo biology from the “von Opel Hessische Zoostiftung”.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Bioscience Education and Zoo Biology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Matthias Winfried Kleespies & Paul Wilhelm Dierkes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MWK and PWD; data collection: MWK; methodology: MWK and PWD; validation, formal analysis, investigation: MWK and PWD; figures: PWD and MWK; writing—original: MWK; writing—review and editing: MWK and PWD, funding acquisition: PWD. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Winfried Kleespies .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the science didactic institutes and Departments of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main under approval number 15-WLSD-2104.

Informed consent

Participants were informed in writing before the start of the online survey about the voluntary character of participation, data protection and the aims of the study. After this information, participation in the study was considered informed consent. Participants could withdraw from the study at any time by closing the browser. It is not possible to identify individuals from the anonymously obtained data, and only persons of legal age were surveyed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kleespies, M.W., Dierkes, P.W. The importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to students of environmental and sustainability studies—a global survey in 41 countries. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01242-0

Download citation

Received : 14 December 2021

Accepted : 16 June 2022

Published : 29 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01242-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Understanding the role of green finance and renewable energy consumption for sustainable development in aci economies.

• Muhammad Awais Baloch
• Zubeyde Senturk Ulucak

Climatic Change (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Essay On Sustainable Development

500 words essay on  sustainable development.

Sustainable development is basically an action plan which helps us to achieve sustainability in any activity which makes use of the resource. Moreover, it also demands immediate and intergenerational replication. Through essay on sustainable development, we will help you understand the concept and its advantages.

Through sustainable development, we formulate organising principles which help to sustain the limited resources essential to provide for the needs of our future generations. As a result, they will be able to lead a content life on the planet .

What is Sustainable Development?

The World Commission on Environment and Development popularized this concept in 1987. Their report defines the idea as a “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

In other words, they aimed to prevent the stripping the natural world of resources which the future generations will require. As we all know that usually, one particular need drives development. Consequently, the wider future impacts are not considered.

As a result, a lot of damage happens due to this type of approach. Thus, the longer we continue to pursue unsustainable development, the more severe will the consequences be. One of the most common is climate change which is being debated widely worldwide.

In fact, climate change is already wreaking havoc on our surroundings. So, the need of the hour is sustainable development. We must ask ourselves, must we leave a scorched planet with an ailing environment for our future generations?

In order to undo the mess created by us, we must follow sustainable development. This will help us promote a more social, environmental and economical thinking. Most importantly, it is not that difficult to attain this.

We must see that world as a system which connects space, and time. Basically, it helps you understand that water pollution in South Africa will ultimately impact water quality in India. Similarly, it is the case for other things as well.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Measures to Practice Sustainable Development

There are many measures to take up for practising sustainable development. To begin with, it is important to ensure clean and hygienic living and working conditions for the people.

Next, sponsoring research on environmental issues which pertains to regions. Further, ensuring safety against known and proven industrial hazards. It is also important to find economical methods to salvage dangerous industrial wastes.

Most importantly, we must encourage afforestation . Including environmental education as part of the school and college curriculum will also help. Similarly, it is essential to socialize and humanize all environmental issues.

Further, we must encourage uses of non-conventional sources of energy, especially solar energy. Looking for substitutes for proven dangerous materials on the basis of local resources and needs will help. Likewise, we must produce environment-friendly products.

It is also essential to popularize the use of organic fertilizers and other biotechniques. Finally, the key is environmental management which must be monitored and ensure accountability.

Conclusion of Essay on Sustainable Development

To sum it up, sustainable development continuously seeks to achieve social and economic progress in ways which will not exhaust the Earth’s finite natural resources. Thus, we must all develop ways to meet these needs so that our future generations can inherit a healthier and greener planet.

FAQ on Essay on Sustainable Development

Question 1: State two measures we can take for sustainable development.

Answer 1: The first measure we can take is by finding economical methods for salvaging hazardous industrial wastes. Next, we must encourage afforestation.

Question 2: What is the aim of sustainable development?

Answer 2 : The aim of sustainable development is to maximise human well-being or quality of life without having to risk the life support system.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Importance of Education

Essays on Importance of Education

Hook examples for importance of education essays, anecdotal hook.

Imagine a world where knowledge is the currency of progress, where the pursuit of education opens doors to endless opportunities. As we embark on a journey to explore the profound significance of education, let's delve into the transformative power it holds.

Quotation Hook

""Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."" These words from Nelson Mandela underscore the transformative potential of education. Join me as we examine the impact of education on individuals and societies.

Educational Equality Hook

Access to quality education is a fundamental right. Explore the role of education in promoting equality, breaking down barriers, and addressing social disparities.

Empowerment Through Learning Hook

Education empowers individuals to take control of their lives and shape their destinies. Analyze how education equips people with the knowledge and skills to navigate challenges and make informed decisions.

Educational Innovation Hook

Education is not static; it evolves with the times. Delve into the world of educational innovation and explore how technology and new teaching methods are revolutionizing the learning experience.

Education for Global Citizenship Hook

Education is a bridge to global understanding and cooperation. Investigate how education fosters the development of global citizens who are aware of pressing global issues and actively engaged in solving them.

Lifelong Learning Hook

Learning doesn't end with graduation; it's a lifelong journey. Explore the concept of lifelong learning and how it contributes to personal growth, adaptability, and staying relevant in a rapidly changing world.

The Power of Education: Lessons from The Life of Malala Yousafzai

The importance of hegemony in education, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Why Education is Important to Me

Why education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world, importance of education in life and for our future, the importance of education and its role in society, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Everyone Has The Right to Education

The importance of education in the development of a country, how education mirrors and shapes society, a major role of education in a person’s life, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

My Views on Education and Its Importance

Education or values, the gauge of becoming a human, women education and the futures wheel, the importance of education to my future, the importance of education in society, the importance of education in shaping the society, a discussion on the importance of education for a person, the possibility of education to eradicate rural poverty, the role of education and learning in today's society, the benefits versus the cost of higher education, the arguments why education should be free for everyone, why post-secondary education should be free for everyone in canada, importance of every subject connected to our lives, the role of education in evolution, review of education priority, online education and education in indiana state, why school is actually really important in our lives, importance of girls’ education, importance of school environment in light of sustainable development goals, a teacher's perspective on the purpose of education, the role of civic education - my civic journey.

Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, morals, beliefs, habits, and personal development.

Education originated as transmission of cultural heritage from one generation to the next. Today, educational goals increasingly encompass new ideas such as liberation of learners, critical thinking about presented information, skills needed for the modern society, empathy and complex vocational skills.

Relevant topics

• Academic Challenges
• School Uniform
• Critical Thinking
• Physical Education
• Studying Abroad
• Middle School
• High School
• Stem Education
• College Experience

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Sustainable Development Essay

500+ words essay on sustainable development.

Sustainable development is a central concept. It is a way of understanding the world and a method for solving global problems. The world population continues to rise rapidly. This increasing population needs basic essential things for their survival such as food, safe water, health care and shelter. This is where the concept of sustainable development comes into play. Sustainable development means meeting the needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations. In this essay on sustainable development, students will understand what sustainable development means and how we can practise sustainable development. Students can also access the list of CBSE essay topics to practise more essays.

What Does Sustainable Development Means?

The term “Sustainable Development” is defined as the development that meets the needs of the present generation without excessive use or abuse of natural resources so that they can be preserved for the next generation. There are three aims of sustainable development; first, the “Economic” which will help to attain balanced growth, second, the “Environment”, to preserve the ecosystem, and third, “Society” which will guarantee equal access to resources to all human beings. The key principle of sustainable development is the integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns into all aspects of decision-making.

Need for Sustainable Development?

There are several challenges that need attention in the arena of economic development and environmental depletion. Hence the idea of sustainable development is essential to address these issues. The need for sustainable development arises to curb or prevent environmental degradation. It will check the overexploitation and wastage of natural resources. It will help in finding alternative sources to regenerate renewable energy resources. It ensures a safer human life and a safer future for the next generation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need to keep sustainable development at the very core of any development strategy. The pandemic has challenged the health infrastructure, adversely impacted livelihoods and exacerbated the inequality in the food and nutritional availability in the country. The immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic enabled the country to focus on sustainable development. In these difficult times, several reform measures have been taken by the Government. The State Governments also responded with several measures to support those affected by the pandemic through various initiatives and reliefs to fight against this pandemic.

How to Practise Sustainable Development?

The concept of sustainable development was born to address the growing and changing environmental challenges that our planet is facing. In order to do this, awareness must be spread among the people with the help of many campaigns and social activities. People can adopt a sustainable lifestyle by taking care of a few things such as switching off the lights when not in use; thus, they save electricity. People must use public transport as it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. They should save water and not waste food. They build a habit of using eco-friendly products. They should minimise waste generation by adapting to the principle of the 4 R’s which stands for refuse, reduce, reuse and recycle.

The concept of sustainable development must be included in the education system so that students get aware of it and start practising a sustainable lifestyle. With the help of empowered youth and local communities, many educational institutions should be opened to educate people about sustainable development. Thus, adapting to a sustainable lifestyle will help to save our Earth for future generations. Moreover, the Government of India has taken a number of initiatives on both mitigation and adaptation strategies with an emphasis on clean and efficient energy systems; resilient urban infrastructure; water conservation & preservation; safe, smart & sustainable green transportation networks; planned afforestation etc. The Government has also supported various sectors such as agriculture, forestry, coastal and low-lying systems and disaster management.

Students must have found this essay on sustainable development useful for practising their essay writing skills. They can get the study material and the latest updates on CBSE/ICSE/State Board/Competitive Exams, at BYJU’S.

Frequently Asked Questions on Sustainable development Essay

Why is sustainable development a hot topic for discussion.

Environment change and constant usage of renewable energy have become a concern for all of us around the globe. Sustainable development must be inculcated in young adults so that they make the Earth a better place.

What will happen if we do not practise sustainable development?

Landfills with waste products will increase and thereby there will be no space and land for humans and other species/organisms to thrive on.

What are the advantages of sustainable development?

Sustainable development helps secure a proper lifestyle for future generations. It reduces various kinds of pollution on Earth and ensures economic growth and development.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling

Publication

Education for Sustainable Development Goals: learning objectives

To create a more sustainable world and to engage with issues related to sustainability as described in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), individuals must become sustainability change-makers. They require the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that empower them to contribute to sustainable development. Education is thus crucial for the achievement of sustainable development, and Education for Sustainable Development is particularly needed because it empowers learners to take informed decisions and act responsibly for environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society, for present and future generations.

The momentum for ESD has never been stronger. Global issues – such as climate change – urgently require a shift in our lifestyles and a transformation of the way we think and act. To achieve this change, we need new skills, values and attitudes that lead to more sustainable societies. Education systems must respond to this pressing need by defining relevant learning objectives and learning contents, introducing pedagogies that empower learners, and urging their institutions to include sustainability principles in their management structures.

Education is both a goal in itself and a means for attaining all the other SDGs. It is not only an integral part of sustainable development, but also a key enabler for it. That is why education represents an essential strategy in the pursuit of the SDGs.

This publication is designed as a guide for education professionals on the use of ESD in learning for the SDGs, and consequently to contribute to achieving the SDGs. The guide identifies indicative learning objectives and suggests topics and learning activities for each SDG. It also presents implementation methods at different levels, from course design to national strategies.

Empowerment through knowledge, skills and values to protect the planet

Related items

• Education for sustainable development
• Featured articles
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .

More on this subject

Other recent publications

Publication 2024 Gender Report 5 April 2024