A Review of Commitment and Implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education, Results From A Worldwide Survey PDF

Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable

development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey
Rodrigo Lozano a, b, *, Kim Ceulemans c, Mar Alonso-Almeida d, Donald Huisingh e,
l
Francisco J. Lozano f, Tom Waas g, Wim Lambrechts h, i, Rebeka Lukman j, k, Jean Huge
a
Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Heidelberglaan 2, PO Box 80115, 3508TC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Organisational Sustainability, Ltd., 40 Machen Place, Cardiff CF11 6EQ, UK
KU Leuven e University of Leuven, Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability, Warmoesberg 26, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
d
Autonomous University of Madrid, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, 28049 Madrid, Spain
e
The University of Tennessee, Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, 311 Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN 37996-4134, USA
f
gico De Monterrey, ITESM, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
Tecnolo
g
Ghent University, Centre for Sustainable Development, Poel 16, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
h
Leuven University College (KHLeuven), Department of Business Studies, Belgium
i
University of Antwerp (UA), Department of Philosophy, Belgium
j
Nigrad d.d., Zagrebska 30, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia
k
University of Primorska, Andrej Marusic Institute, Muzejski trg 2, SI-6000 Koper, Slovenia
l
IMDO/Institute for Environment & Sustainable Development, University of Antwerp, Belgium
b
c
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 March 2014
Received in revised form
12 September 2014
Accepted 14 September 2014
Available online 23 September 2014
During the last two decades, many higher education institutions have become involved in embedding
sustainable development into their academic systems. The research for this paper was built upon discussions on declarations, charters, and other initiatives designed to commit their institutions to education for sustainable development. It analyses if such commitment leads to more sustainable
development implementation within the academic institution. The research was performed using a
survey, based upon a literature review of 60 peer-reviewed papers. The survey was divided into eight
categories: background; institutional framework; campus operations; education; research; outreach and
collaboration; on-campus experiences; and assessment and reporting. The survey was answered by 84
respondents from 70 institutions, worldwide. The responses were analysed via descriptive analysis,
grounded theory, and inferential statistics. The results revealed that there were many examples of
sustainable development implementation throughout the system; however, generally the efforts tended
to be compartmentalised. The analyses also highlighted strong linkages between the institution's
commitment to sustainability, implementation, and signing a declaration, charter, or initiative. The
ndings suggested that academic leadership's commitment was a leading cause for signing a declaration,
charter, or initiative, and implementing sustainable development. The research team provided recommendations for higher educational leaders, including acknowledge that the higher education institution
system is comprised of several inter-related elements; commit to sustainability by integrating it into
policies and strategies; show the commitment by signing a declaration, charter, or initiative; establish
short-, medium-, and long-term plans for its institutionalisation; and ensure that sustainable development is implemented throughout the system.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Higher education for sustainable
development (HESD)
The higher education institution system
Commitment
Implementation
Declarations
1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable
Development, Heidelberglaan 2, PO Box 80115, 3508TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: r.lozano@uu.nl, rodlozano@org-sustainability.com (R. Lozano),
kim.ceulemans@kuleuven.be (K. Ceulemans), mar.alonso@uam.es (M. AlonsoAlmeida), donaldhuisingh@comcast.net (D. Huisingh), fjlozano@itesm.mx
(F.J. Lozano), tom.waas@uantwerpen.be (T. Waas), wim.lambrechts@khleuven.be
(W. Lambrechts), rebeka.lukman@nigrad.si (R. Lukman), jean.huge@uantwerpen.
).
be (J. Huge
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048
0959-6526/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
At the Stockholm Conference in 1972 (UNEP, 1972), education

was formally recognised on an international level to play an
important role in fostering environmental protection and conservation. Since then, more higher education institutions (HEIs) have
become engaged in embedding environmental education and education for sustainable development (ESD) into their system's
R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18
List of acronyms
AISHE
auditing instrument for sustainability in higher

education
CSAF
campus sustainability assessment framework
DCIs
declarations, charters, and initiatives
ESD
education for sustainable development
FTE
full-time equivalent
GASU
graphical assessment of sustainability in
universities
GHESP global higher education for sustainability
partnership
GHGs
greenhouse gases
GT
grounded theory
GUNI
global university network for innovation
HEIs
higher education institutions
HESD
higher education for sustainable development
RCE
regional centre of expertise
SD
sustainable development
STAUNCH sustainability tool for assessing universities'
curricula holistically
Table 1
The most widely recognised declarations, charters, and initiatives for higher education for sustainable development.
Year
Event/declaration
Hyperlink
1990
Talloires Declaration,
Presidents
Conference, France
Halifax Declaration,
Conference on
University Action for
Sustainable
Development, Canada
Kyoto Declaration,
International
Association of
Universities Ninth
Round Table, Japan
Swansea Declaration,
Association
of Commonwealth
Universities'
Fifteenth Quinquennial
Conference, Wales
COPERNICUS
University Charter,
Conference of
European Rectors
Global Higher
Education for
Sustainability
Partnership
(GHESP)
Lneburg Declaration
on Higher
Education for
Sustainable
Development,
Germany
Declaration of
Barcelona, Spain
http://www.iisd.org/educate/
declarat/talloire.htm
1991
1993
1993
1993
2000
elements (including education, research, campus operations,

community outreach, and assessment and reporting1 (see Cortese,
2003; Lozano, 2006b)).
In this context, HEIs have developed and signed an array of
declarations, charters, and initiatives (DCIs) to provide guidelines
or frameworks for HEIs to demonstrate their commitment and
better embed sustainability into their system (Calder and Clugston,
2003; Lozano et al., 2013; Wright, 2004). The importance of declarations, charters and partnerships in fostering transformative SD
is evidenced by the more than 1000 university leaders who ratied
their commitment to work to advance SD by developing and
signing DCIs (Calder and Clugston, 2003; Cole and Wright, 2005).
Table 1 presents ten of the most widely recognised higher education for sustainable development (HESD) DCIs, and it provides each
declaration's hyperlink.
However, signing a declaration or endorsing an initiative does
not ensure that the signatory institutions implement SD within
their systems (Bekessy et al., 2007; Wright, 2004). It can also
result in HEIs being accused of green wash, if they fail to
implement SD throughout their system after signing a declaration or initiative (Bekessy et al., 2007; Wright, 2002). Therefore,
HEIs should be held accountable for implementing DCIs, and SD,
in general, should be monitored or assessed (Walton, 2000;
Wright, 2002). Additionally, there are institutions, which have
not signed a declaration or belong to a charter, but which are
actively engaged in implementing SD throughout their campuses
(Lozano et al., 2013).
Given the increase in interest in DCIs, a question that has arisen
is: has commitment to SD (through signing a declaration, charter, or
initiatives for sustainable development) resulted in better implementing sustainable development within higher education
institutions?
1
Some of the tools available to assess and report sustainability in universities
include the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE)
(Roorda, 2001), the Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU)
tool (Lozano, 2006a), the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF)
(Cole, 2003), and the Sustainability Tool for Assessing Universities' Curricula Holistically (STAUNCH) (Lozano and Peattie, 2009; Lozano, 2010).
2001
2004
2005
2009
2012
Graz Declaration
on Committing
Universities to
Sustainable
Development, Austria
Abuja Declaration
on Sustainable
Development in Africa:
The role of higher
education
in SD, Nigeria
Rio20 Higher
Education
Sustainability
Initiative, Brazil
declarat/halifax.htm
declarat/kyoto.htm
declarat/swansea.htm
declarat/coper.htm
http://portal.unesco.org/education/
en/ev.php-URL_ID34701&URL_DO
DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION201.html
http://portal.unesco.org/education/
en/ev.php-URL_ID37585
&URL_DODO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION201.html
http://www.upc.edu/eesdobservatory/who/declarationof-barcelona
http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/
maindoc/Graz%20Decl.pdf
http://gc.aau.org/report/declaration_
12th_gc_aau9.pdf
http://www.uncsd2012.org/
index.php?pageview&type1006
&menu153&nr34
Source: Adapted from Lozano et al. (2013).
This research was designed to answer this question through an

in-depth analysis into the implementation of SD in HEIs. This paper
is structured as follows:
Section 2 contains a literature review of the implementation of
ESD;
Section 3 claries the research methods used;
Section 4 presents the results and discussion from the descriptive analysis of the close-ended questions;
Section 5 presents the results and discussion from the constant
comparative analysis of the open-ended questions;
Section 6 presents the results of the inferential statistical analyses of the HEI's SD commitment and implementation;
Section 7 contains the researchers' in-depth discussions of the
implications of the ndings; and
Section 8 offers the authors' conclusions and recommendations

for ways to move forward much more effectively in the process
of incorporation of SD throughout all dimensions of HEI's responsibilities and activities.
2. An exploratory literature review of the implementation of
education for sustainable development
Various HEIs have engaged in implementing SD in their system
(see Boks and Diehl, 2006; Wemmenhove and de Groot, 2001).
Such efforts have ranged from involvement in regional develop et al., 2013), to reduction of greenhouse gas emisment (Dlouha
sions (Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013), and to academic leadership
commitment via the inclusion of SD in their mission and vision
statements (Lee et al., 2013). European HEIs have been leaders in
this process (Disterheft et al., 2012; Karatzoglou, 2013; Matten and
Moon, 2004).
An exploratory literature review was performed to identify
implementation efforts throughout the system. The review was
then used to help develop the survey used in this research (presented in the Methods section).
The review was based on the HEI system proposed by Lozano
et al. (2013), who augmented the system proposed by Cortese,
2003 and Lozano, 2006b with the following elements making SD
an integral part of the institutional framework, collaborating with
other higher education institutions, encouraging on-campus life
experiences, and Educating-the-Educators programmes; and the
review performed by Karatzoglou (2013). An exploratory review of
the papers published during the period 2000e2013 within the
leading journals on HESD was done. The journals included the
Journal of Cleaner Production, the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, the Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, the International Journal of Educational
Research, the European Journal of Engineering Education, and
Innovation in Higher Education. A set of 60 articles explicitly
focusing on one or more elements of the system was found.
The literature review helped the authors to develop the survey
questions. Each publication was checked against seven elements of
HEI system proposed by Lozano et al. (2013). To help facilitate the
analysis, collaborating with other HEIs was merged with outreach,
and Educating-the-Educators programmes were considered to be
part of education. The literature review revealed the following
topics, which were used as starting points to develop the survey:
1. Institutional framework (i.e. the HEI commitment): policies,
vision, mission, SD ofce, and DCIs signed;
2. Campus operations: energy use and energy efciency, greenhouse gases, waste, water and water management, food purchasing, transport, accessibility for disabled people, and equality
and diversity;
3. Education: courses on SD, programmes on SD, transdisciplinarity, curricular reviews, and Educate-the-educators
programmes;
4. Research: research centres, research funding, holistic thinking,
international recognition, SD research used in teaching, publications, patents, new knowledge and technologies, collaboration, and transdisciplinarity;
5. Outreach and collaboration: exchange programmes for students
in the eld of SD, joint degrees with other universities, joint
research, SD partnerships (e.g. enterprises, non-governmental
organisations, and governments), being part of a UN Regional
Centre of Expertise (RCE), and SD events open to the
community;
6. SD through on-campus experiences: SD working group, SD
policies for students and staff, sustainable practices for students,
SD visibility throughout the campus, SD awareness raising in the

campus, and student and staff engagement; and
7. Assessment and reporting: SD assessment, SD communication,
environmental reports, sustainability reports, national environmental or sustainability HEIs rankings, and international
environmental or sustainability HEIs rankings.
Table 2 presents the results of the comparative analysis against
the seven system elements. The results revealed that the articles
could be classied according to the following categories: (1) high,
where the majority of the articles (42) focused on education,
including curricula, pedagogies, competences, and educating-theeducators; (2) medium high, campus operations (15), institutional
framework (14), outreach (14), and assessment and reporting (13);
(3) medium low, research (9); and (4) low, on-campus experiences
(2). It should be noted that 34 of the articles focused only on one of
the elements, 16 on two elements, 4 on three elements, 2 on four, 2
on ve, 1 on six, and 1 on all of the elements. In particular, there
were 12 publications, which linked the institutional framework (i.e.
commitment) with efforts in other parts of the system.
Additionally, the articles were checked for the types of research
methods used by the authors. The analyses revealed that 75% were
case study based (67% single case and 8% multiple case), surveys
(8%), framework proposals (5%), literature reviews (5%), theoretical
proposals (2%), and analyses (2%).
The data in Table 2 revealed that the research on HESD was
usually performed on one or two of the system's elements, i.e.
through compartmentalisation. This may be due to HEIs being
highly complex institutions (Denman, 2009), and that they rely too
heavily upon Newtonian and Cartesian mental models, which
relegate learning and action to reductionist thinking and mechanistic interpretation (Lovelock, 2007). Such approaches contrast
with the urgent calls of many researchers for the implementation of
SD using holistic and systemic thinking approaches (see FerrerBalas et al., 2009; Koester et al., 2006; Sterling, 2004).
3. Methods
As stated previously, the survey's elements were developed2 to
collect data from HEI representatives on SD commitment and
implementation in their institutions. The survey was divided into
eight sections, based on seven elements of HEI system proposed by
Lozano et al. (2013) and the topics found during the exploratory
literature review, with the addition of the background characteristics of the HEIs (e.g. type, student number, and staff numbers):
1. Background of the respondent and the HEI, and the DCIs to
which the HEI subscribed to or has signed;
2. Institutional framework, including the policies, vision, mission,
and SD ofce;
3. Campus operations, covering energy, greenhouse gases, waste,
water, food purchasing, transport, accessibility for disabled
people, and equality and diversity;
4. Education, focusing on courses, programmes' transdisciplinarity, Educate-the-Educators programmes, and
curricular reviews;
5. Research, including research centres, holistic thinking, interlinkages between research and teaching, publications, patents,
new knowledge and technologies, and transdisciplinarity;
6. Outreach and collaboration, involving collaboration with other
higher education institutions and non-academic stakeholders
2
The survey was validated with the help of a number of experts prior to its
application.
Table 2
Literature comparison against the higher education institution's system, with the addition of methods used.
Author(s)
Method
(Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015).

(Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008)
Analysis
Framework
proposal
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Survey
Survey
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Multiple
case studies
Case study
Multiple
case studies
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Survey
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Literature
review
Case study
Case study
Framework
proposal
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Case study
Multiple
case studies
Literature
review
Literature
review
Multiple
case studies
Case study
Survey
Case study
Framework
proposal
Case study
Case study
Multiple
case studies
Theoretical
Case study
Case study
Survey
(Boman and Andersson, 2013)

pez-Franco, 2006)
(Bremer and Lo
(Cantalapiedra et al., 2006)
(Ceulemans and De Prins, 2010)
(Chalker-Scott and Collman, 2006)
(Chalker-Scott and Tinnemore, 2009)
(Crofton, 2000)
(Harpe and Thomas, 2009)
(Desha and Hargroves, 2010)
(Ferrer-Balas et al., 2004)
(Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009)
(Ferreira et al., 2006)
(Fisk and Ahearn, 2006)
(Gao et al., 2006)
(Geng et al., 2013)
(Goodnough et al., 2009)
(Gudz, 2004)
(Herat, 2000)
(Hesselbarth and Schaltegger, 2014)
(Holmberg et al., 2008)
(Huisingh and Mebratu, 2000)
(Jabbour et al., 2013)
(Jain et al., 2013)
(Jones et al., 2008)
(Ju
arez-N
ajera et al., 2006)
(Kamp, 2006)
(Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013)
(Koester et al., 2006)
(Larsen et al., 2013)
(Lehmann et al., 2009)
(Lidgren et al., 2006)
(Lozano et al., 2013)
(Lozano, 2010)
(Lozano-Garca et al., 2008)
(Lozano, 2006a)
(Lozano and Watson, 2013)
(Lozano and Young, 2013)
(Lukman et al., 2009)
(Marinho et al., 2014)
(Martinez et al., 2006)
(McCormick et al., 2005)
(Mcmillin and Dyball, 2009)
(Moore, 2005)
(Muhar et al., 2013)
(Nicolaides, 2006)
(Nomura and Abe, 2010)
(O'Brien and Sarkis, 2014)
(Pappas et al., 2013)
(Ramos, 2009)
(Sammalisto and Lindhqvist, 2007)
(Shi and Lai, 2013)
(Steiner and Posch, 2006)
(Thomas, 2004)
(Velazquez et al., 2000)
(Waas et al., 2010)
(Watson et al., 2013)
(Wright, 2006)
(Xiong et al., 2013)
Institutional
framework
Campus
operations
Education
Research
Outreach
On-campus
experiences
Assess.
and rep.
(e.g. enterprises, non-governmental organisations, and governments), or being part of a UN Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE);
7. SD through on-campus experiences, including inter-faculty
working groups, student experiences on and off-campus, and
employee engagement; and
8. Assessment and reporting, such as SD assessment, SD communication, environmental reports, sustainability reports, national
environmental or sustainability HEIs rankings, and international
environmental or sustainability HEIs rankings.
The survey was comprised of 121 close-ended questions (most
of them employed a 5 point Likert scale from totally agree to
totally disagree, especially in Sections 3 to 8), which were complemented with 107 open-ended questions to offer the respondents the possibility to provide examples.
The survey was made available to prospective respondents via
Bristol Online Surveys for an eight-month period. It was advertised
online through the LinkedIn social network platform. It was also
sent to more than 800 individuals through direct email contact,
who were asked to send the hyperlink to their colleagues, thus
creating a snow ball effect. Additionally, the survey was advertised
through the Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI)
newsletter, and the United Kingdom Higher Education Academy
newsletter.
There were 87 respondents from 70 HEIs. This represented a
10.88% response rate of all the potential respondents contacted.
Three responses were eliminated since they were incomplete responses, i.e. they did not specify a valid HEI name or the respondent
had not answered all of the questions of the survey.
3.1. Data analyses

The data were analysed by via a combination of descriptive
statistics, grounded theory, and inferential statistics.
3.1.1. Descriptive statistics analysis

The descriptive statistics of the Likert based questions provided
a description of the key variables of the research (Jupp, 2006), and a
preliminary analysis. The responses where aggregated into
disagree, neither agree nor disagree, and agree to facilitate
their interpretation. Frequency distributions were converted to
percentages to provide a standardised way for comparing between
and among the categories. The descriptive analyses were complemented with examples from the open-ended questions.
3.1.2. Constant comparative analysis of grounded theory

The responses to the open-ended questions were analysed using
the constant comparative analysis of Grounded Theory (GT) (see
Glaser and Strauss, 1999; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This consisted
of four stages: (1) comparing incidents applicable to each category,
where the survey questions served as starting categories; (2)
integrating categories and their properties, the responses to the
open-ended questions were classied according to the starting
categories with the help of NVivo version 10 (QSR International,
2014); (3) recognising relationships, which helped to develop
new categories by juxtaposing data from the categories, or by
modifying the categories to provide new insights into the implementation of SD in the eight sections; and (4) guiding the development of the new or modied theory, which could be used to
develop or test hypotheses (Glaser and Strauss, 1999; Strauss and
Corbin, 1998), such as integrating SD issues and categories with
HEIs system elements.
3.1.3. Inferential statistics

The key variables relating to commitment and implementation
were analysed with the help of SPSS (IBM, 2012) through the use of
inferential statistics (through univariate and multivariate analyses)
by using three complementary methods. These provided more indepth insights into the relationships among variables, and identied which variables can be predictors among the objectives of the
research (see Weiss, 2012).
The rst method was a regression analysis, which was used to
detect and quantify the inter-relationships of the HEIs' characteristics, their commitment, their implementation, and the DCIs
signed (see Kleinbaum et al., 2013).
A number of indices were developed for the regression analysis.
The data on the institutional framework were aggregated into an
index called SDcommitment, which was designed to quantify the
level of commitment to integrate SD into the HEI system. The index
was comprised of the SD related issues of the institutional framework. The data for evaluating the extent of implementation in the
different dimensions of the HEI system were aggregated into the
index SDimplementation, which was designed to assess the SD
implementation holistically and was comprised of the results from
the closed-ended questions from the survey's Sections 3e8. An
independent variable (SDeclaration) was designed to check if the
HEI had signed a DCI. The variable was removed from the SDcommitment index to study its effects on the impacts of the dependent
variables. A value of 1 indicated that the HEI had signed a DCI, and
a value of 0 if it had not.
For the SDcommitment index, the qualitative responses were
transformed into numbers to facilitate the calculation of the
indices. In the case of Yes, explicitly information was transformed
into 2, while Yes, implicitly was transformed to 1 and No to
0 (see Bollen et al., 2006; Xiao et al., 2002). The commitment level
consisted of four main variables (as indicated in Equation (1)): (1)
mission, vision and values; (2) staff engagement; (3) the existence
of a budget for sustainability issues; and (4) the quality assurance
practices. The items included in each variable, and the variables'
values ranges are explained in Table 3, which vary from 0 to 1, 0 to 6,
and 0 to 8. The values of SDcommitment can range from 0 to 16.
SDcommitment
Variables
(1)
The SDimplementation index consisted of Likert scale answers

from Sections 3e8 of the survey. In order to facilitate the comparison among the indices, the data were aggregated in the following
way: Completely disagree and disagree was changed to 0, while
Neither agree nor disagree was transformed into 1 and Agree
and Completely agree was transformed to 2. The SDimplementation variable aggregates data about the different dimensions
of the HEI system: operations (16 items, the values range from 0
to 32); education (13 items; the values range from 0 to 26);
Table 3
Items used to develop the SDcommitment variables.
Variable
Items
Mission, vision and values

Values 0e8
SD included in mission, vision and values

SD included goals
Policy for implementing SD
Strategic plan for SD
Staff engagement
Values 0e6
Staff member dedicated to SD

SD working group
SD ofce
Budget
Value 0 or 1
Budget for SD initiatives
Quality assurance
Value 0 or 1
SD is considered in quality accreditation
research (9 items; the values range from 0 to 18); outreach (9

items; the values range from 0 to 18); experience (8 items; the
values range from 0 to 16); and assessment and reporting (8
items; the values range from 0 to 16). Consequently, the index
was calculated according to Equation (2). The values of SDimplementation could range from 0 to 126.
SDimplementation
Variables
(2)
Several control variables were created from the HEIs' characteristics, which included geographical area, HEI size (measured by
numbers of students and faculty and staff), and type of education.
Table 4 presents the values of these control variables.
The second method used was a cluster analysis. This was done
using a hierarchical method following the Ward method, which
helped the researchers to identify, classify, and group homogeneous elements according to their minimal variance characteristics
(see Johnson, 1967; Ward, 1963).
The third method used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). It
was used with the objective of quantifying signicant differences
among the elements and groups (Jupp, 2006).
3.2. Limitations
The methods used had a number of limitations. The direct
invitation method of the survey provided good answers, but it
might not have targeted the person with the most complete
knowledge of sustainability efforts and activities at their institution. The invitation was extended to a number of people at each
institution; however, the number of responses was low, and thus,
the results and conclusions may not be representative for all HEIs.
The survey was developed to be comprehensive and to cover a
large numbers of issues; however, it may be difcult for a respondent
to have adequate knowledge about all topics and issues addressed in
the survey. For example, a quality management representative might
not be aware of all the courses that included SD issues, whilst a
lecturer might be aware of the integration of SD in his/her course
(and related courses), but may not be informed about the quality
management procedures or overarching policies in the HEI.
Since the survey was mainly distributed among a network of
colleagues implementing or interested in implementing SD
throughout their HEIs, there might be a bias towards this group of
Table 4
Description of the control variables used in the regression analyses of the sustainable development commitment and implementation.
Control variable
Description
Geographical area (GeoArea)
1) Europe; 2) North
America; 3) Asia; 4) Latin
America; 5) Oceania; 6) Africa
Staff
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
1e500
501e1000
1001e2000
2001e3000
3001e5000
>5000
Students
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
1e3000
3001e5000
5001e10,000
10,001e15,000
15,001e30,000
30,001e50,000
50,001e100,000
100,001e250,000
Type of education
(TEducation)
1) Traditional university; 2)
College or polytechnic
equivalent; 3) Business school
Fig. 1. Distribution of survey responses according to staff numbers (in FTE) in their
institutions.
early adopters of SD implementation, while a non-response bias

of laggards towards SD implementation might also be present
(see Rogers, 1995 for a discussion on innovator's categories).
Additionally, most of the researchers involved in writing this paper
were based in Europe, which might have skewed the sampling.
In the case of the inferential statistics, validity and reliability
may have been affected by: (1) the limited number of responses; (2)
the broadness of the topics covered; and (3) the use of data based
on perceptions.
4. Results and discussion from the descriptive analysis
This section presents a descriptive analysis of the survey results.
For clarity and conciseness, the results of the close-ended questions
are presented as aggregated clusters. They are complemented with
a summary of relevant answers to the open-ended questions. The
sub-sections are based on the eight elements of the survey.
4.1. Background of the survey respondents
The regional distribution of the respondents showed that
approximately 80% of the respondents were from Europe, followed
by America (16%)3. The responses from Africa, Asia, and Australia
were lower than 2% each. This could be explained by several factors.
The distribution of responses is similar to those reported by Matten
and Moon (2004), Glavi
c et al. (2009), and Disterheft et al. (2012).
This may be because European respondents are more familiar with
or are more interested in HESD discourses than educators from
other regions of the world.
The number of staff members (in full time equivalent (FTE))
working in the HEIs included in the survey revealed that sizes of the
institutions of the respondents were fairly equally distributed
among ve size options (1e500, 501e1000, 1001e2000,
2001e3000, and 3001e5000), as shown in Fig. 1. This indicates that
The list includes countries from North, Central, and South America.
staff number may not be a determining factor in the implementation SD among HEIs. This should be investigated in further research.
The results on the student numbers (in FTE) indicated that the
majority of the responses were from HEIs with student numbers
ranging between 30,001e50,000 and 15,001e30,000, as shown in
Fig. 2. This indicates that the results obtained could be representative for HEIs with all ranges of student numbers. This should be
investigated in further research.
Thirty-four respondents (40%) indicated that their institution
had signed a DCI; twenty-eight (33%) responded that their institution had not signed one; and twenty-two (26%) indicated that
they did not know if their institution had signed any of them. In
some cases there were two or more respondents from the same
institution, thus whenever one respondent indicated that the
institution had signed a DCI, the authors of this paper assumed that
the other respondent(s) were not aware of this.
From the 70 HEIs, sixteen were from institutions that had signed
the Copernicus Charter, four from institutions that signed the Talloires Declaration, four had signed the Barcelona Declaration, two
had signed the GHESP, one had signed the Halifax Declaration, one
the Kyoto Declaration, one the Lneburg Declaration, one the Graz
Declaration, and fteen had signed another DCI.
The results revealed that the Copernicus Charter was most
frequently signed among the respondents. Within the other
category, six respondents selected the Rio20 Higher Education
Sustainability Initiative, which may be the case because it was the
most recent initiative. The initiative was released after the survey
was made available, thus it was not possible to include it in the list
of DCIs. The results also showed that the Copernicus Charter was
the most prominent in HESD discussions, thus its efciency and
efcacy in implementing SD in HEIs should be further explored.
Some respondents indicated that their HEIs signed more than
one initiative, including:
The Halifax Declaration, the Copernicus Charter, and the Barcelona Declaration;
The Copernicus Charter, the Lneburg Declaration, and the Graz
Declaration;
The Copernicus Charter and the Talloires Declaration; the
Copernicus Charter and the ECIU sustainable campus charter;
The Copernicus Charter and the International Sustainable

Campus Network Charter;
The Kyoto Declaration and the GHESP;
The Copernicus Charter and the Barcelona Declaration;
The Talloires Declaration and the American College & University
Presidents Climate Committee;
The Talloires Declaration and the Barcelona Declaration; the
Copernicus Charter and the Education for Sustainable Development in Academia in the Nordic countries; and
The Copernicus Charter and the Higher Education Sustainability
Initiative for Rio20.
Although the number of respondents answering the question
about the DCIs signed was low, the responses show that there was
interest in signing the different DCIs and that the respondents were
knowledgeable about the implications of signing them. Since many
respondents were unaware if anyone from their institution had
signed any DCI, this suggests a lack of communication from the top
ofcial that signed for the HEI with academics working in the
different departments.
4.2. Sustainable development in institutional framework
The responses to the SD implementation in institutional
framework included elements such as: HEI SD policies, vision and
mission statements, and an ofce supporting SD implementation
within the institution. From the data summarized in Fig. 3, it was
clear that most respondents indicated that their HEIs have incorporated SD (either implicitly or explicitly) into their institutional
framework. This indicated an ofcial commitment to SD. Additional
examples of the implementation of SD in the institutional framework provided by the respondents are included in Appendix A.1.
4.3. Implementation of sustainable development in campus
operations
The responses to the implementation of SD in campus operations are presented in Fig. 4. The themes most recognised by respondents where SD has been implemented in campus operations
included: waste bins and recycling; equality and diversity; access
for disabled people; facilities for disabled people; and energy efciency improvement. The themes least recognised were actions to
reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, water and wastewater
management, fair trade product promotion, and purchase of locally
produced food. Examples of the implementation of SD in campus
operations provided by the respondents in this category are
included in Appendix A.2.
4.4. Implementation of sustainable development in education
Fig. 2. Distribution of survey responses according to student numbers (in FTE) in their
institutions.
The responses on the implementation of SD in education are

shown in Fig. 5. The topics with the highest frequency of implementation options in education (of more than 70%) included: the
possibility to take classes in another faculty; the integration of SD
courses in some programmes, schools and faculties; and the presence of an optional SD course. These were followed by: inviting SD
guest lecturers; promoting systems thinking in the teaching activities; an SD major at the Master's level for promoting holistic
thinking in the teaching activities; providing continuous education
to external stakeholders; fostering the link between the natural
sciences and the social sciences; providing SD education to educators; and having an SD course for all students. The ones with the
lowest levels of implementation were: providing an SD major at the
Bachelor's level; and integrating SD throughout all programmes,
courses, and faculties. A number of examples provided by the
Fig. 3. Survey respondents' answers about the implementation of sustainable development in the institutional framework.
respondents for the implementation in education are included in

Appendix A.3.
The responses revealed that there is a limited focus on staff
training programmes for SD: although the importance of SD
teacher education has been highlighted as being crucial for facilitating the acceleration of the integration of SD into courses and
curricula throughout HEIs. Only two survey respondents highlighted faculty education on SD at their institutions.
selection between 30% and 50% focussed upon: the number of SD

publications; the promotion of holistic and systems thinking in
research. The topic with the lowest level of selection was holding
patents in the eld of SD. A number of examples provided by the
respondents for the implementation in research are included in
Appendix A.4.
4.6. Implementation of sustainable development in outreach and
collaboration
4.5. Implementation of sustainable development in research

The responses on the implementation of SD in research are
shown in Fig. 6. The responses with the highest frequency (between
50% and 65%) included: having a SD institute or research centre;
contributing to the SD transition; providing SD research funding;
using SD research in the teaching; and fostering the link between
the natural and social sciences. The ones with frequencies of
The responses on the implementation of SD in community

outreach and collaboration are shown in Fig. 7. The answers with
the highest scores (of more than 50%) included: SD collaboration
with other higher education institutions an SD event open to the
public partnerships with society joint research activities with other
HEIs; academic staff involved in SD activities advisory boards and
promoting interdisciplinary SD networks. These were followed by:
Fig. 4. Survey answers about the implementation of sustainable development in campus operations.
Fig. 5. Survey respondents' answers about the implementation of sustainable development in education.
exchange SD programmes (42%) joint degrees with other HEIs (31%)

and involvement in an RCE (19%). A number of examples provided
by the respondents for the implementation in outreach and
collaboration are included in Appendix A.5.
4.7. Implementation of sustainable development in on-campus
experiences
The responses on the implementation of SD in on-campus experiences are presented in Fig. 8. The two themes most acknowledged by the respondents in this category were SD working groups
across faculties and student participation in SD activities. The
theme with the lowest recognition was staff and researcher's SD
engagement. A number of examples provided by the respondents
for the implementation in on-campus operations are included in
Appendix A.6.
4.8. Implementation of sustainable development in assessment and

reporting
The implementation of SD in assessment and reporting is shown
in Fig. 9. Most of the topics had low recognition of the implementation of SD in assessment and reporting. The two themes that
were mostly acknowledged were assessing SD issues and
communicating SD activities. A number of examples provided by
the respondents for the implementation in assessment and
reporting are included in Appendix A.7.
4.9. Comparison of the different sections of descriptive analysis
The responses from the six sections that had close-ended
questions were aggregated to facilitate their comparison, as
shown in Fig. 10. The aggregation shows that the two elements with
Fig. 6. Survey respondents' answers about the implementation of sustainable development in research.
10
Fig. 7. Survey respondents' answers about the implementation of sustainable development in outreach and collaboration.
the highest recognition of SD implementation were campus operations and outreach. These were followed by education; research;
and on-campus experiences. The element with the lowest recognition of SD implementation was assessment and reporting. These
results indicate that there has been a considerable level of SD
implementation in most of the system elements of the HEIs, with
the exception of assessment and reporting.
5. Findings and discussion from the constant comparative
analysis of the answers to the open-ended questions
During the coding of the SD implementation examples, it was
noted that some of them were part of two or more sections (e.g. SD
research topics being discussed in education, or organising
outreach activities on SD in operations), as present also in the
literature review. Most examples provided by the respondents
were in campus operations, although there were examples in most
of the sections. The answers to the open-ended questions were

analysed using GT's constant comparative analysis to detect interlinkages. For example, one respondent mentioned We have a student committee dedicated to energy awareness, which links oncampus experiences and operations. Another respondent highlighted having a student thesis on GHG footprint, which linked
education and operations.
The results of such analysis on the six SD implementation sections are presented in Table 5, which shows that there were many
examples on operations (with 83 examples). The element with the
least examples was outreach and collaboration, with 19 examples.
The elements with the highest number of combined examples
were: education and research (with 18 examples); operations and
on-campus experiences (with 17); operations and assessment and
reporting (with 17); education and outreach and collaboration
(with 16); and research with outreach and collaboration (with 13).
The ones with the least connections were: research with on-
Fig. 8. Survey respondents' answers about the implementation of sustainable development on-campus experiences.
Fig. 9. Survey respondents' answers about the implementation of sustainable development in assessment and reporting.
Fig. 10. Aggregated survey respondents' answers for the campus operations, education, research, outreach, on-campus experiences, and assessment and reporting.
Table 5
The number of inter-linkages in the implementation of sustainable development within the different elements of the higher education system studied in this research.
11
12
campus experiences (with three); operations and research (with

two); and outreach and collaboration and assessment and reporting (with one). This contrasts with the literature (see Table 2),
where the most frequently reported inter-linkages have been between: campus operations and education, education and outreach,
campus operations and research, campus operations and outreach,
education and research, and education and assessment and
reporting.
When compared to the examples in each of the individual categories, the examples that link two of the elements tend to be lower
(with the exception of examples on outreach and collaboration,
which had 19 examples). This points to compartmentalisation of SD
implementation on these campuses.
It should be noted that the respondents recognised that
assessment and reporting was the least addressed element, yet
they provided a considerable number of examples (34). They also
recognised SD to be implemented in outreach and collaboration,
but they provided a limited number of examples (19).
6. Results and discussion from the inferential statistical
analyses
As aforementioned, three different methods (regression analysis, cluster analysis, and analysis of variance) were used for indepth statistical analyses of the answers to the survey's closeended questions.
The results of a preliminary calculation for the SDcommitment
index were a mean of 7.72, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of
13 for, whilst the mean for SDimplementation was 79.04, with a
minimum of 35 and a maximum of 112. Figs. 11 and 12 show the
comparison of the results of each index component against its
maximum value. The results are the mean values of the included
(aggregated) independent variables for the HEIs in the sample,
while the maximum value was the total scores for each different
dimension included in the indexes, normalised by the maximum in
each index category. As presented in Figs. 11 and 12, the results
were between 36% and 72% for SDcommitment, and between 47%
and 72% for the SDimplementation.
Fig. 11 shows that the HEIs had more than 50% on each of the
SDcommitment variables, with the exception of quality assurance.
This indicates that HEIs have been engaging in actions to show their
commitment to SD by means of providing nancial, human and
material resources, while there was a lack of implementation of SD
efforts within the internal procedures.
Fig. 12 shows that operations and outreach had the highest
scores (more than 70%), followed by research, education and oncampus experiences (scores of above 50%). The lowest score was
for the reporting and assessment dimension. This is in line with
previous research which found that HEIs are progressing in operations (e.g. water and energy savings) and in their collaboration
with society (see Disterheft et al., 2012; Lukman et al., 2009).
Fig. 11. Normalised comparisons between the ideal and the real results for the
SDcommitment variable at the HEI's within this research.
larger extent of SD implementation. Nevertheless, the results suggest that the SDimplementation variable is not inuenced by having
a signed DCI, since this variable is not signicant in the model.
The other independent and control variables were found to be
non-signicant in their impacts upon implementation of SD by the
HEIs. Therefore, they were not considered to be predictive variables
in any of the models.
These results support the conclusion that an academic leader
having signed a DCI reinforces the commitment of the HEIs to SD.
HEIs that have made a commitment to SD also seem to have
implemented SD to a larger extent into the different dimensions of
the university system. Therefore, SD commitment can be seen as a
key driver to SD implementation.
6.2. Cluster analysis of the HEIs studied
A cluster analysis was performed for SDcommitment and SDimplementation variables, using a hierarchical method, with the
objective of nding different patterns in SD implementation. In
order to validate the cluster solution, a number of analyses were
performed. A discriminant analysis revealed that 100% of the cases
originally grouped together had been correctly classied. Fig. 13
shows the two clusters and their characteristics in terms of
commitment to and implementation of SD.
6.1. Regression analysis of the SD commitment and implementation

Two regression analyses were performed to measure the role of
the HEIs' characteristics and the DCIs signed on the commitment to
and the implementation of SD.
The results of the regression analyses of SD commitment and
implementation revealed that the level of commitment is strongly
explained by having an academic leader of that HEI, who had
signed a DCI (sig4 0.002), as shown in Table 6. The results show
that HEIs with a higher level of commitment had a signicantly
Sig is the statistical signicance value.
Fig. 12. Normalised comparisons between the ideal situation and the real results for
the SDimplementation variable at the HEI's within this research.

Table 6
Results of the regression models of the sustainable development commitment and
implementation.
Independent variables
Constant
GeoArea
Staff
Students
TEducation
SDeclaration
SDcommitmentb
SDimplementationc
R2
DurbineWatson test
SDcommitment
variable
SDimplementation
variable
0.610
0.183
0.283
0.123
0.649
2.341
n.a.
0.086
0.450
1.930
0.310
0.596
0.814
0.343
1.427
3.166a
n.a.
4.333a
53.318
0.207
1.667
1.208
1.069
1.879
2.835
n.a.
0.344
2.253
7.113
0.117
0.836
0.589
0.403
0.410
4.333a
n.a.
B (Beta) indicates the average differential change of the dependent variable against
the independent variable. t determines if a dependent variable has a signicant
relationship to the independent variable. This is the case for values lower than 0.050.
a
Statistical signicance testing (p > 0.05).
b
This variable is used as an independent variable for SDimplementation.
c
This variable is used as an independent variable for SDcommitment.
Cluster 1 had 40 HEIs (53.3%). This group had, on average, the

lowest values in terms of both studied dimensions. These HEIs were
also the smallest in the sample in all the variables: size of staff,
number of students and types of education. In general, their
commitment to SD and implementation of SD were low, and the
percentage of HEIs that signed a DCI was low (27.5%).
Cluster 2 had 35 HEIs (46.7%). The HEIs in this group were the
largest in the sample in all variables. The HEIs in this group showed
a higher commitment and implementation of SD, and a high percentage of them (62.87%) had signed a DCI.
The clusters indicate that commitment, implementation and
signing a DCI are highly inter-linked. HEIs that had a higher
commitment, had higher implementation, and had signed a DCI.
6.3. Analysis of variance of the SD implementation
An ANOVA was done to test for any potential causality between
signing a DCI, commitment, and implementation of SD in the HEIs
studied. The ANOVA measured the differences in the commitment
to SD and the implementation of SD initiatives among the HEIs with
(a) signed declaration(s) and the ones without one. The results of
this analysis are presented in Table 7, which reveals that all elements of SDcommitment and SDimplementation are higher for the
13
Table 7
Differences in commitment to and implementation of sustainable development
among higher education institutions depending on the existence of a signed
declaration, charter, or initiative.
Declaration signed
SDcommitment
Mission, vision and values
Mean
Sig.
Yes
No
6.03
4.10
11.518
0.001b
Staff engagement
Yes
No
2.18
1.62
9.534
0.003b
Budget
Yes
No
0.87
0.52
11.313
0.001b
Quality assurance
Yes
No
0.42
0.16
6.205
0.150a
Total SDcommitment
Yes
No
9.45
6.36
17.400
0.000b
Yes
No
23.27
20.79
2.505
0.118
Education
Yes
No
17.61
15.40
2.801
0.098
Research
Yes
No
12.51
10.10
5.692
0.020a
Outreach and collaboration
Yes
No
13.15
11.90
2.731
0.103
On-campus experience
Yes
No
9.88
9.31
0.227
0.635
Assessment and reporting
Yes
No
9.30
6.29
8.147
0.006b
Total SDimplementation
Yes
No
85.73
73.79
8.693
0.004b
SDimplementation
Campus operations
F indicates the average differential change of the dependent variable against the
independent variable in an ANOVA.
Sig determines if a dependent variable has a signicant relationship to the independent variable in an ANOVA. This is the case for values lower than 0.050.
a
Statistical signicance testing (p > 0.05).
b
Highly signicant statistical testing (p > 0.01).
HEIs that have signed a DCI than among those that have not signed
any.
As it can be seen in Table 7, HEIs that have high levels of
commitment and implementation have signed a DCI. In the case of
their commitment to SD, all the elements show a signicant difference when compared to HEIs that have not signed a DCI. The
HEIs that have signed a DCI have stronger commitment to SD. The
SDimplementation variable shows signicant differences between
HEIs that have signed a DCI in all the elements, with the exception
of assessment and reporting. It could, thus, be argued that
commitment may be the leading cause for signing a DCI, and
implementing sustainable development, whilst signing a DCI reinforces a HEI's commitment to SD.
7. Integrative discussion
Fig. 13. Clusters of commitment to and implementation of sustainable development

within the higher education institution's respondents to the survey used in this
research.
The results of the survey show that there has been a stronger
interest in SD integration in HEIs in Europe than in other regions of
the world, which conrms previous research (see Disterheft et al.,
2012; Karatzoglou, 2013; Matten and Moon, 2004). The survey
provided the possibility for performing a broader analysis than
would have been possible using a case-study-based approach on
HESD. In general, the numbers of students or staff per institution do
not seem to be a key factor in the implementation of SD in HEIs, but
further research should be done to explore this in greater depth.
14
The descriptive analysis results show that, in general, there has

been considerable SD implementation throughout the system. This
concurs with the results from the literature review. The exception
was the SD implementation on assessment and reporting, which in
the results was the least recognised element by the respondents,
whilst there have been several papers published on the subject (as
presented in the literature review). HEIs could better engage in
assessing and reporting their SD efforts.
The results from the constant comparative analysis show
some efforts in joining between the system elements (see
Table 5), where the majority of HESD efforts have focused on
operations and education, followed by research, assessment and
reporting, on-campus experiences, and outreach and collaboration. This is similar to the published literature, except that in the
literature, SD-related educational changes have been more
prominent than SD-related campus operations. This shows some
progress towards inter-linking, holistic, and systemic thinking
perspectives (see Ferrer-Balas et al., 2009; Koester et al., 2006;
Sterling, 2004). However, in general the implementation of SD
has been through compartmentalisation. This reinforces the
argument that modern education has continued to rely upon
Newtonian and Cartesian mental models (Lovelock, 2007;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2001) by basing the SD efforts on
compartmentalisation.
The results from the inferential statistical analysis concur with
Lozano et al.'s (2013) proposal that the HEIs that have signed HESD
DCIs could be good examples for other institutions on how to foster
incorporation and implementation of HESD into their systems. It
also partially contradicts the point that signing or endorsing a DCI
does not ensure that the signatory institutions implement SD
within their systems (see Bekessy et al., 2007; Lozano et al., 2013;
Wright, 2004). The results also highlighted that signing a DCI
could encourage the communication on SD implementation to
external stakeholders. The results did not show any HEI that has
been highly committed or has implemented SD that has not also
signed a DCI, which refutes Lozano et al. (2013) point that there
might also be institutions that have not yet signed a declaration or
belong to a charter, but which are, nonetheless, actively engaged
with SD on their campuses.
The premise of Calder and Clugston (2003), Lozano et al.
(2013), and Wright (2004) was that signing a HESD DCI could
provide a framework for better embedding sustainability into the
HEI system. The results from the regression analysis show that
signing a DCI reinforces the commitment from the HEI and its
leaders to SD. It was not possible to detect causality between
being committed, signing DCI, and implementing SD initiatives.
However, it was possible to detect that these three processes are
interlinked, and they suggest that commitment may lead to
implementing SD and signing a DCI. Further research is needed
to test for causality between SD commitment and
implementation.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
Since the early 1970s, HEIs have engaged in efforts to better
embed environmental and SD into their system (including institutional framework, education, research, campus operations,
outreach and collaboration, on-campus life experiences, and
assessment and reporting). Within this context a number of DCIs
have been developed to provide leaders of HEIs with a framework
to better implement SD into their systems. Many peer-reviewed
papers have been published on the subject, with examples on education, and campus operations (mainly through case studies);
however, most of the examples in the literature were focused on
only one or two elements of the system.
This research provides a two-tier holistic analysis: rst, integrating ndings from a literature review with those from empirical
research on the implementation of SD in HEIs; and second, a
mixed-methods analysis (using a combination of descriptive statistics, GT, and inferential statistics) of a survey answered by 87
respondents from 70 HEIs worldwide.
The ndings of the literature review and the results of the survey reveal that many HEIs have engaged in and are continuing to
engage in sustainability efforts. Most HEIs are making some efforts
to contribute to SD. However, this research conrms that, in general, the implementation of SD in HEIs has been compartmentalised
and not holistically integrated throughout the institutions.
The results indicate that there is a strong relation between SD
commitment, implementation, and signing of DCIs. In general, the
results show two HEI clusters: the ones at the forefront, which
show high commitment, have signed a declaration or belong to a
charter, and have engaged in implementing SD; and those HEIs,
which are lagging behind in commitment, implementation, and
declaration signing.
The focus of this research was on answering the question: has
commitment to SD (through signing a declaration, charter, or initiatives for sustainable development) resulted in better implementing sustainable development within higher education
institutions? The analyses showed that there was a high level of
inter-linkages between commitment, implementation, and signing
a DCI. They also suggest that SD commitment leads to signing a DCI
and implementing SD.
The authors of this paper propose the following recommendations for higher educational leaders:
1. Acknowledge that the HEI system is comprised of several interrelated elements (including institutional framework, education,
research, campus operations, community outreach, collaboration with other higher education institutions, on-campus life
experiences, assessment and reporting, collaboration with other
HEIs, SD as an integral part of the institutional framework, oncampus life experiences, and Educate-the-Educators
programmes);
2. Commit to SD by integrating SD into the HEI's policies and
strategies;
3. Show the HEI's commitment by signing a DCI;
4. Establish short-, medium-, and long-term plans for the institutionalisation of SD; and
5. Ensure that SD is implemented throughout the system.
The challenges for HEI leaders and their faculties are to fully
commit to SD and to holistically implement SD into all of their
institution's activities.
Some of the topics for further research that arose in this
research include: (1) to analyse SD implementation data from a
much larger sample of higher education institutions; (2) to explore
causality between commitment, implementation, and guidance
from signing of declarations and charters; (3) to investigate longitudinal differences in the commitment to and implementation of
SD; (4) to better link commitment and implementation through
holistic SD approaches; and (5) to explore the differences between
the lagging and leading HEIs.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Karel Mulder and Dr. Ralf
Barkemeyer for their help validating the survey. They would also
like to thank the respondents of the survey for their participation
and time. A special gratitude goes to the reviewers and the special
volume editor, Dr. Tomas Ramos.
Appendix A. Examples of the implementation of sustainable

development in the different system elements
This appendix presents the examples provided by the respondents to the open-ended questions for each of the survey
sections.
A.1. Examples of the implementation of sustainable development in
institutional framework
The examples provided about the incorporation of SD into the
institutional framework were mainly on operations, including:
green/environmental strategy; SD policies within the HEI's operations; a policy on equality and diversity; a policy for enhancing SD
and quality; and a combined sustainable energy, mobility and food
policy.
campus operations
The examples of SD initiatives on energy included: (1) energy
monitoring and energy audits; (2) optimisation of ventilation, air
conditioning, and heating; (3) reduction of energy use and GHG
emissions; (4) activities regarding new infrastructure and new
buildings, including energy efciency measures, solar energy,
cogeneration, and lighting; and (5) activities in which students can
take part, e.g. workshops. Additional examples were provided on
increasing the energy efciency (e.g. lighting and heating) and
mobility (e.g. carbon offset of ights, using bio fuel powered automobiles, encouraging bicycle usage, reducing staff travel, and
encouraging carpooling).
The majority of the examples on waste focused on waste sorting
and recycling activities (e.g. of paper, plastics, and other materials),
whereas waste reduction measures were seldom selected. Water
management initiatives included rainwater collection for toilet use,
monitoring of water use, and optimisation of water use (e.g. water
fountains, automatic taps, optimizing irrigation). In one of the
higher education institutions, a water audit was performed that
was designed to facilitate reduction of water consumption by 45%.
The SD related purchasing initiatives mainly covered guidelines for
sustainable or environmental requirements in purchasing (e.g. ask
for product certications, evaluation of SD aspects in procurement),
and on catering services (e.g. fair trade coffee, sustainable food).
With regard to transportation initiatives, the responses were
divided into three groups: (1) bicycle use (for outreach activities,
rental on campus, repair, maintenance, or charging of electric bicycles); (2) public transport (free or low-priced tickets for students/
staff); and (3) transport policy (e.g. sustainable mobility plan and
promotion of sustainable transport).
Examples of diversity and equality-based activities included: (1)
HEI policies or the assignment of employees to work on diversity
and equal opportunities; (2) specic actions towards certain target
groups (e.g. gender equality, ethnic groups and minorities, foreign
students); and (3) activities towards disabled people (educational
tools for blind or deaf students, facilities for disabled, student
tutoring).
A number of additional topics stated by the respondents (but
not explicitly mentioned in the survey questions) included:
- Buildings, e.g. energy audit/monitoring of buildings, equipment
retrotting, renovation projects and design of new ones, courses
on Efcient Building Design and Sustainable Design and
Construction, research on renewable energy in buildings, and
the development of certication for buildings;
15
- Food/catering: such as reduction of food waste, events and activities promoting locally produced food, elimination of the sale
of soft drinks on campus, and a course on Life Cycle Analysis of
Food Products;
- Paper, including sorting for recycling, usage reduction, printing
reduction, online communication, and purchasing of recycled
paper;
- Health and safety: such as procedures for chemical use, integration of quality and health and safety in certied ISO 14001
system, and management of hazardous chemicals and wastes;
and
- Laboratories, including safety in the laboratories, the creation of
a second hand market for laboratory equipment, and treatment
in situ of laboratory waste.
In summation, there was a broad range of activities that were
highlighted by the respondents within the campus operations
category.
education
The examples of SD implementation in education focused on
technological and environmental issues (such as ecology, sustainable energy systems, green innovation), while business related
courses such as on business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, were also offered at some HEIs. Additionally, there
were examples of introductory SD courses for all in-coming
students.
The sustainability-oriented programmes reported upon by the
respondents covered the Bachelors, Masters, and PhD levels. They
included, for example, an MSc in Environmental Management and
Cleaner Production, a Bachelors/Masters in Environment and Processing Technology, a Master's in Environmental Citizenship and
Participation, and a PhD programme in Social Sustainability and
Development.
research
The survey respondents provided examples of the implementation of SD in research activities. Within the publications on
SD related research issues, the examples included: competences for
SD and social responsibility; the relationships between gender and
environmental issues; SD indicators, sustainable HEIs, or SD in
education; developing indicators and assessment tools for civil
society organisations to examine the value dimensions of SD projects; management systems implementation processes and practices within European HEIs; and the challenge of widening citizen
participation in climate change education.
The SD research section also included the use of SD oriented
patents. The examples of SD oriented patents highlighted by the
respondents included: the use of nanoparticles for removal of
arsenic from water and a social impact detection instrument for
an environmental impact assessment. With regard to funding for
SD research within HEIs, the respondents referred to SD research
projects, scholarships for students involved in SD research to promote SD on the campus and international and national agencies
funding SD (research) projects.
outreach and collaboration
The examples of outreach activities stated by the respondents
included: SD workshops and congresses (for the general public),
16
energy reduction campaigns, cooperation on SD with NGOs,

research projects with society and companies, and communityeHEI partnerships. The examples on SD outreach initiatives
frequently involved collaboration of HEI personnel with nonacademic groups.
The examples of collaboration between/among faculties
included joint faculty training, projects (e.g. on SD promotion on
worksites, on energy-efciency in buildings), lectures and seminars
on SD, cross-faculty lecturers' collaboration, and a sustainability
network of ve academic divisions. Two respondents referred to
exchanges focused upon SD: equality and diversity activities
directed at exchange students, and exchange of teachers among
several faculties in education.
The following examples of collaboration among faculty, staff and
members of external organisations were highlighted: an SD related
patent based on collaboration between an HEI and a private company; SD research on the certication of buildings in cooperation
with the Swedish Green Buildings Council; SD community projects
with NGOs (on measurements of exposure to chemicals from industry and on measurements of radioactivity levels); and collaboration on SD local issues by faculty and community-based
organisations. Most of the efforts were focused on environmental
issues.
on-campus experiences
The examples given by the respondents on SD working groups
included: SD groups or networks of staff of different departments
working on SD implementation; research groups (e.g. on renewable
energy in buildings, or in service studies working on SD); HEI
environmental (coordination) groups or councils with members of
different faculties; and staff members working together on a sustainability report.
The SD on-campus experiences covered: student participation
in sensitization activities on sustainable food (e.g. a weekly local
bio-food market, tasting experiments, and an organic food cookbook); participation of students in HEIs' environmental management groups, faculty councils and in audits of management systems
for quality and SD; student workshops and committees on energy
efciency; research studies and theses on GHG emission reductions
concepts and approaches; waste reduction and sensitization actions for students; promotion of sustainable transport for students.
In summation, student participation was mainly focused on operational (and environmental) activities within the HEIs.
Additionally, some respondents provided examples on SD
events, such as student workshops and events on energy efciency,
activities on promoting bicycling, conferences on SD topics, lectures
on SD topics, and a yearly SD day for students.
assessment and reporting
A limited number of specic examples were provided on the
topic of assessment and reporting. For example, only a few respondents highlighted the use of SD integration instruments and
tools within their HEI (e.g. AISHE, the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) Sustainability Guidelines, Eco-Management and Audit
Scheme (EMAS), and ISO 14001). One respondent highlighted scientic research performed on EMAS within his/her HEI, while one
reected upon the development of a patent for certication of
buildings.
Only three respondents provided a link to their HEI's SD report.
Some HEIs may have a report, but do not have it available on their
website, while other respondents may have been unaware of their
HEI having published an SD report or reports. A limited number of

respondents indicated the presence of their institution on SD
related rankings, which could mean that their institution is not
included on those rankings or that the respondent was not aware of
his/her HEI's status on them.
References
Alonso-Almeida, M.M., Marimon, F., Casani, F., Rodriguez-Pomeda, J., 2015. Diffusion
of sustainability reporting in universities: current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 144e154.
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar, I., 2008. An integrated approach to achieving
campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental
management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (16), 1777e1785. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002.
Bekessy, S.A., Samson, K., Clarkson, R.E., 2007. The failure of non-binding declarations to achieve university sustainability: a need for accountability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370710817165.
Boks, C., Diehl, J.C., 2006. Integration of sustainability in regular courses: experiences in industrial design engineering. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 932e939.
Bollen, L., Hassink, H., Bozic, G., 2006. Measuring and explaining the quality of
internet investor relations activities: a multinational empirical analysis. Int. J.
Acc. Inform. Syst. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2006.04.005.
Boman, J., Andersson, U.P., 2013. Eco-labelling of courses and programs at University of Gothenburg. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 48e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2011.10.024.
pez-Franco, R., 2006. Sustainable development: ten years of
Bremer, M.H., Lo
experience at ITESM's graduate level. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 952e957. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.039.
Calder, W., Clugston, R.M., 2003. International efforts to promote higher education
for sustainable development. Plan. High. Educ. 31 (3), 30e44.
pez, F., 2006. Involvement of nal architecture
Cantalapiedra, I.R., Bosch, M., Lo
diploma projects in the analysis of the UPC buildings energy performance as a
way of teaching practical sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 958e962.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.040.
Ceulemans, K., De Prins, M., 2010. Teacher's manual and method for SD integration
in curricula. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (7), 645e651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2009.09.014.
Chalker-Scott, L., Collman, S.J., 2006. Washington State's Master Gardener Program:
30 years of leadership in university-sponsored, volunteer-coordinated, sustainable community horticulture. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 988e993. http://
Chalker-Scott, L., Tinnemore, R., 2009. Is community-based sustainability education
sustainable? A general overview of organizational sustainability in outreach
education. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (12), 1132e1137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2009.02.022.
Cole, L., 2003. Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework. Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada.
Cole, L., Wright, T., 2005. Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses:
the development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. In: LealFilho, W. (Ed.), Handbook of Sustainability Research. Peter Lang Publishing
Group, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, pp. 70e725.
Cortese, A.D., 2003 MarcheMay. The critical role of higher education in creating a
sustainable future. Plan. High. Educ. 15e22.
Crofton, F.S., 2000. Educating for sustainability: opportunities in undergraduate
engineering. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (5), 397e405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09596526(00)00043-3.
Denman, B.D., 2009. What is a university in the 21st century? High. Educ. Manag.
Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v17-art8-en.
Desha, C.J., Hargroves, K. (Charlie), 2010. Surveying the state of higher education in
energy efciency, in Australian engineering curriculum. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (7),
652e658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.004.
Disterheft, A., Ferreira da Silva Caeiro, S.S., Ramos, M.R., de Miranda Azeiteiro, U.M.,
2012. Environmental management systems (EMS) implementation processes
and practices in European higher education institutions e top-down versus
participatory approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 31, 80e90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.02.034.
, J., Huisingh, D., Barton, A., 2013. Learning networks in higher education:
Dlouha
universities in search of making effective regional impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 49,
Ferreira, A.J.D., Lopes, M.A.R., Morais, J.P.F., 2006. Environmental management and
audit schemes implementation as an educational tool for sustainability. J. Clean.
Prod. 14 (9e11), 973e982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.003.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Bruno, J., Mingo, M. De, Sans, R., 2004. Advances in education
transformation towards sustainable development at the Technical University of
Catalonia, Barcelona. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 5 (3), 251e266. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370410546402.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Buckland, H., de Mingo, M., 2009. Explorations on the University's
role in society for sustainable development through a systems transition
approach. Case-study of the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). J. Clean.
Prod. 17 (12), 1075e1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.006.

Fisk, D.J., Ahearn, A., 2006. Creating policy analysis skills in postgraduate engineering for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 946e951. http://
Gao, C., Hou, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, H., Gong, W., 2006. Education for regional sustainable development: experiences from the education framework of HHCEPZ
project. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 994e1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.11.043.
Geng, Y., Liu, K., Xue, B., Fujita, T., 2013. Creating a green university in China: a case
of Shenyang University. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 13e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.07.013.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1999. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Glavi
c, P., Lukman, R., Lozano, R., 2009. Engineering Education. Environmental and
chemical engineering technology curricula e a European perspective. Eur. J.
Eng. Educ. 34 (1), 47e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790802710193.
Goodnough, T., Kildegaard, A., Kuchenreuther, M., Rasmussen, L., Wyckoff, P., 2009.
Leveraging assets: a case study of the sustainability initiative at the University
of Minnesota, Morris. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (12), 1138e1142. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.12.002.
Gudz, N.A., 2004. Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia: an analysis of the implications for organisational
learning. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 5 (2), 156e168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14676370410526242.
Harpe, B.D.L., Thomas, I., 2009. Curriculum change in universities: conditions that
facilitate education for sustainable development. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 3 (1),
75e85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097340820900300115.
Herat, S., 2000. Education and training for cleaner production: a exible learning
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (5), 361e364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09596526(00)00038-X.
Hesselbarth, C., Schaltegger, S., 2014. Educating change agents for sustainability e
learnings from the rst sustainability management master of business administration.
J.
Clean.
Prod.
62,
24e36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.03.042.
m, M., Peet, D.-J., Mulder, K., Ferrer-Balas, D., Segala
s, J.,
Holmberg, J., Svanstro
2008. Embedding sustainability in higher education through interaction
with lecturers: case studies from three European technical universities. Eur.
J.
Eng.
Educ.
33
(3),
271e282.
03043790802088491.
Huisingh, D., Mebratu, D., 2000. Educating the educators as a strategy for
enhancing education on cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (5), 439e442.
IBM Corp., 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. IBM Corp, Armonk,
NY.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Sarkis, J., Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S., Govindan, K., 2013. Understanding the
process of greening of Brazilian business schools. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 25e35.
Jain, S., Aggarwal, P., Sharma, N., Sharma, P., 2013. Fostering sustainability through
education, research and practice: a case study of TERI University. J. Clean. Prod.
61, 20e24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.021.
Johnson, S.C., 1967. Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika 32, 241e254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02289588.
Jones, P., Trier, C.J., Richards, J.P., 2008. Embedding education for sustainable
development in higher education: a case study examining common challenges
and opportunities for undergraduate programmes. Int. J. Educ. Res. 47 (6),
341e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.11.001.
jera, M., Dieleman, H., Turpin-Marion, S., 2006. Sustainability in Mexican
Ju
arez-Na
higher education: towards a new academic and professional culture. J. Clean.
Prod. 14 (9e11), 1028e1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.049.
Jupp, V., 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. SAGE publications,
London.
Kamp, L., 2006. Engineering education in sustainable development at Delft University of Technology. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 928e931. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.036.
Karatzoglou, B., 2013. An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and
contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J. Clean.
Prod. 49, 44e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.043.
Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T.L., 2013. Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions at institutions of higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 48,
Kleinbaum, D., Kupper, L., Nizam, A., Rosenberg, E.S., 2013. Applied Regression
Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods, fth ed. CENCAGE Learning, Andover, Hampshire, United Kingdom, p. 1052.
Koester, R.J., Ein, J., Vann, J., 2006. Greening of the campus: a whole-systems
approach.
J.
Clean.
Prod. 14,
769e779.
j.jclepro.2005.11.055.
Larsen, H.N., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., 2013. Investigating the carbon
footprint of a University e the case of NTNU. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 39e47. http://
Lee, K.-H., Barker, M., Mouasher, A., 2013. Is it even espoused? An exploratory study
of commitment to sustainability as evidenced in vision, mission, and graduate
attribute statements in Australian universities. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 20e28. http://
Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Jrgensen, T.H., 2009. University
engagement and regional sustainability initiatives: some Danish experiences.
J.
Clean.
Prod.
17
(12),
1067e1074.
j.jclepro.2009.03.013.
17
Lidgren, A., Rodhe, H., Huisingh, D., 2006. A systemic approach to incorporate
sustainability into university courses and curricula. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11),
Lovelock, J., 2007. The Revenge of Gaia. Penguin Group, London.
Lozano, R., 2006a. A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities (GASU).
J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 963e972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.041.
Lozano, R., 2006b. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 787e796. http://
Lozano, R., 2010. Diffusion of sustainable development in universities' curricula: an
empirical example from Cardiff University. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (7), 637e644.
Retrieved from: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/20419/.
Lozano, R., Peattie, K., 2009. Developing a tool to audit curricula contributions to
sustainable development. In: Leal Filho, W. (Ed.), Sustainability at Universities e
Opportunities, Challenges and Trends, vol. 31. Peter Lang Publishing Group,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Lozano, R., Watson, M.K., 2013. Chemistry education for sustainability: assessing the
chemistry curricula at Cardiff University. Educ. Quim. 24 (2), 184e192.
Lozano, R., Young, W., 2013. Assessing sustainability in university curricula:
exploring the inuence of student numbers and course credits. J. Clean. Prod.
49, 134e141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.032.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations
for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through
addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006.
ndara, G., Perrni, O., Manzano, M., Herna
ndez, D.E.,
Lozano-Garca, F.J., Ga
Huisingh, D., 2008. Capacity building: a course on sustainable development to
educate the educators. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9 (3), 257e281. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885880.
Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., Glavi
c, P., 2009. Fostering collaboration between universities
regarding regional sustainability initiatives e the University of Maribor. J. Clean.
Prod. 17 (12), 1143e1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.018.
Marinho, M., Gonalves, M.D.S., Kiperstok, A., 2014. Water conservation as a tool to
support sustainable practices in a Brazilian public university. J. Clean. Prod. 62,
Martinez, R.L.M., Gerritsen, P.R.W., Cuevas, R., Rosales, A.J., 2006. Incorporating
principles of sustainable development in research and education in western
Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 1003e1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.11.044.
Matten, D., Moon, J., 2004. Corporate social responsibility education in Europe.
J. Bus. Ethics 54, 323e337.
user, E., Norde
n, B., Hansson, L., Foung, C., Arnfalk, P., et al.,
McCormick, K., Mhlha
2005. Education for sustainable development and the Young Masters Program.
J.
Clean.
Prod. 13
(10e11), 1107e1112.
j.jclepro.2004.12.007.
Mcmillin, J., Dyball, R., 2009. Developing a whole-of-university approach to
educating for sustainability: linking curriculum, research and sustainable
campus operations. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 3 (1), 55e64. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/097340820900300113.
Moore, J., 2005. Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the
university level: a guide for change agents. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 6 (4),
326e339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370510623829.
Muhar, A., Visser, J., van Breda, J., 2013. Experiences from establishing structured
inter- and transdisciplinary doctoral programs in sustainability: a comparison
of two cases in South Africa and Austria. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 122e129. http://
Nicolaides, A., 2006. The implementation of environmental management towards
sustainable universities and education for sustainable development as an
ethical imperative. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 7 (4), 414e424. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/14676370610702217.
Nomura, K., Abe, O., 2010. Higher education for sustainable development in Japan:
policy and progress. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 11 (2), 120e129. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371011031847.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 2001. Organizational knowledge creation. In: Creative
Management, second ed. SAGE Publications, Inc., London, UK.
O'Brien, W., Sarkis, J., 2014. The potential of community-based sustainability projects for deep learning initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 48e61. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.001.
Pappas, E., Pierrakos, O., Nagel, R., 2013. Using Bloom's taxonomy to teach sustainability in multiple contexts. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 54e64. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.039.
QSR International, 2014. NVIVO 10. Retrieved from: http://www.qsrinternational.
com/products_nvivo.aspx.
Ramos, T.B., 2009. Development of regional sustainability indicators and the role of
academia in this process: the Portuguese practice. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (12),
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. Free Press, New York.
Roorda, N., 2001. AISHE: Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education.
Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education.
Sammalisto, K., Lindhqvist, T., 2007. Integration of sustainability in higher education: a study with international perspectives. Innov. High. Educ. 32 (4),
221e233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9052-x.
Shi, H., Lai, E., 2013. An alternative university sustainability rating framework with a
structured criteria tree. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 59e69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.09.006.
18
Steiner, G., Posch, A., 2006. Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, realworld problems. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 877e890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.11.054.
Sterling, S., 2004. Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning.
In: Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A. (Eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
pp. 47e70.
Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, second ed. SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Thomas, I., 2004. Sustainability in tertiary curricula: what is stopping it happening?
Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 5 (1), 33e47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14676370410517387.
UNEP, 1972. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
UNEP.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.
Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid97&articleid1503.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., 2000. Fostering P2 practices in northwest
Mexico through inter-university collaboration. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (5), 433e437.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00047-0.
Waas, T., Verbruggen, A., Wright, T., 2010. University research for sustainable
development: denition and characteristics explored. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (7),
Walton, J., 2000. Should monitoring be compulsory within voluntary environmental
agreements? Sustain. Dev. 8, 146e154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-1719.
Ward, J.H., 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat.
Assoc. 58, 236e244. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2282967.
Watson, M.K., Lozano, R., Noyes, C., Rodgers, M., 2013. Assessing curricula contribution to sustainability more holistically: experiences from the integration of
curricula assessment and students' perceptions at the Georgia Institute of
Technology. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 106e116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.09.010.
Weiss, N.A., 2012. Introductory Statistics. Pearson Education Limited, London, UK, p. 944.
Wemmenhove, R., de Groot, W.T., 2001. Principles for university curriculum
greening. An empirical case study from Tanzania. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2
(3), 267e283.
Wright, Tarah S.A., 2002. Denitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 3 (3), 203e220.
Wright, T.S.A., 2004. The evolution of environmental sustainability declarations in
higher education. In: Wals, A.E.J., Corcoran, P.B. (Eds.), Higher Education and the
Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 7e19.
Wright, T.S.A., 2006. Giving teeth to an environmental policy: a Delphi study at
Dalhousie University. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (9e11), 761e768. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.007.
Xiao, Z., Jones, M.J., Lymer, A., 2002. Immediate trends in internet reporting. Eur.
Acc. Rev. 11 (2), 245e275.
Xiong, H., Fu, D., Duan, C., Liu, C., Yang, X., Wang, R., 2013. Current status of green
curriculum in higher education of Mainland China. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 100e105.

A Review of Commitment and Implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education, Results From A Worldwide Survey PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Review of Commitment and Implementation of Sustainable Development in Higher Education, Results From A Worldwide Survey PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable

At the Stockholm Conference in 1972 (UNEP, 1972), education

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

auditing instrument for sustainability in higher

elements (including education, research, campus operations,

Source: Adapted from Lozano et al. (2013).

This research was designed to answer this question through an

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

Section 8 offers the authors' conclusions and recommendations

SD visibility throughout the campus, SD awareness raising in the

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

(Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015).

(Boman and Andersson, 2013)

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

3.1. Data analyses

3.1.1. Descriptive statistics analysis

3.1.2. Constant comparative analysis of grounded theory

3.1.3. Inferential statistics

The SDimplementation index consisted of Likert scale answers

Mission, vision and values

SD included in mission, vision and values

Staff member dedicated to SD

Budget for SD initiatives

SD is considered in quality accreditation

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

research (9 items; the values range from 0 to 18); outreach (9

Geographical area (GeoArea)

early adopters of SD implementation, while a non-response bias

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

The Copernicus Charter and the International Sustainable

The responses on the implementation of SD in education are

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

respondents for the implementation in education are included in

selection between 30% and 50% focussed upon: the number of SD

4.5. Implementation of sustainable development in research

The responses on the implementation of SD in community

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

exchange SD programmes (42%) joint degrees with other HEIs (31%)

4.8. Implementation of sustainable development in assessment and

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

of the sections. The answers to the open-ended questions were

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

campus experiences (with three); operations and research (with

6.1. Regression analysis of the SD commitment and implementation

Sig is the statistical signicance value.

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

Cluster 1 had 40 HEIs (53.3%). This group had, on average, the

Outreach and collaboration

Assessment and reporting

Fig. 13. Clusters of commitment to and implementation of sustainable development

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

The descriptive analysis results show that, in general, there has

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

Appendix A. Examples of the implementation of sustainable

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18

energy reduction campaigns, cooperation on SD with NGOs,

HEI having published an SD report or reports. A limited number of

R. Lozano et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 108 (2015) 1e18