I ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Importance of Sustainability Indicators ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development Gisele Mazon1, Issa Ibrahim Berchin2, Thiago Coelho Soares2 and José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra2 1 Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina, Tubarão, Santa Catarina, Brazil 2 Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Ideologies ▶ Dimensions Education of Sustainability in Higher Synonyms Impact Investing Indicators for sustainability ▶ Value-Based Investments in Sustainability Introduction Impediment Sustainability: Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability Barriers Sustainability indicators provide information for managers to make decisions. Management instrument performance indicators are composed of one © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0 912 or more indicator groups that allow continuous assessment of the position and evolution of a particular activity of a company (King 2016). Sustainability indicators are not just traditional performance metrics, they are also important to supporting city development. During the last few decades, corporations have become more active in publishing sustainability reports (Hahn and Kühnen 2013; Montecchia et al. 2016; Halkos and Skouloudis 2016). Corporations benefit from those publications by improving their public image and their relationships with stakeholders (Kolk 2008; Hahn and Kühnen 2013; Bocquet et al. 2013). Sustainability is thus considered a key factor within the corporations’ performance (Reilly and Hynan 2014; Hahn and Kühnen 2013). In order to characterize the scope of sustainability, the United Nations developed the Agenda2030, presenting 17 sustainable development goals and 169 integrated goals (UN 2015). The 17 objectives are: 1. Ending poverty in all its forms, everywhere 2. Ending famine, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and increasing sustainable agriculture 3. Securing a healthy life and promoting the well-being of everyone 4. Securing inclusive and equitable quality education, providing everyone with learning opportunities throughout their lives 5. Achieving gender equality and empowering women of all ages 6. Securing everyone availability to water and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 7. Securing everyone sustainable and modern access to energy at a fair price 8. Increasing sustainable and inclusive economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all 9. Building resilient infrastructures, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and spurring innovation 10. Reducing inequality within and among countries 11. Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable Importance of Sustainability Indicators 12. Securing sustainable production and consumption patterns 13. Taking urgent actions to fight climate change and its impacts 14. Securing the preservation and sustainable use of oceans and marine resources for sustainable development 15. Protecting, recovering, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, managing forests in a sustainable way, fighting desertification, stopping earth degradation, and stopping loss of biodiversity 16. Promoting peaceful and inclusive societies and supporting their sustainable development 17. Strengthening the means to implement and revitalize a global partnership for sustainable development Setting and defining these goals and targets are important. It is also imperative to create performance indicators to help in controlling and evaluating these sustainable development goals (UN 2015). In concurrence, Cornet and Gudmundsson (2015) consider the need of defining indicators and metrics for performance evaluation and enabling the conceptualizing and operationalizing of sustainability within the institution. Sustainability Indicators (Importance) The importance of pursuing sustainable modes of development has received increased global recognition in recent years (Sardain et al. 2016). If not measured, performance cannot be managed. Efficient management implies the existence of a performance evaluation system based on solid measures that are in line with the strategic objectives of the organization. The performance evaluation permits an estimation of how far the organizations are advancing in relation with the goals that they established in their planning. Such procedures should be based upon the following principles: – Presenting consistency with the organization goals Importance of Sustainability Indicators – Coordination by the professional executing the activity that will be measured by the indicator – Presenting relations between the individual and organizational objectives – Frequently reporting, allowing an effective evaluation – Communication to the appropriated levels within the corporation – Establishing in order to improve the visibility of the items generating costs – Inclusion of financial and nonfinancial activities The definition of indicators for the evaluation of the organization’s performance is essential to guide decision-makers (Guerra et al. 2016). Questions considered relevant to sustainable development, change with time and location. Consequently, sustainability indicators must reflect the reality of what will be measured (Mitchel et al. 1995). Harbour (1997) also says performance indicators are comparative measures used to verify the actual situation regarding the established objectives. Creating performance evaluation models from performance indicators must gather information such as indicated by Radermacher (1999). According to the author (Radermacher 1999), performance evaluation models must meet: – Scientific adequacy: the description and evaluation methods should deal well with the natural environment main characteristics and its peculiar changing movements. – Social adequacy: methods have to provide information able to meet the needs of the stakeholders who support the social procedures of decision-making. – Economic rationality: the suggested action courses emerging from the evaluation process must respect economic efficiency, in order to present a reasonably economic way to reach the foreseen result. – Statistic adequacy: empiric measurement and following aggregation procedures consistent with the guiding theorist principles should be in conformity with reliability, coverage, or representation rules. 913 – Budget realism: the proposed approaches may provide reliable and useful information (judged according to the four consideration terms above), within the limits of resources that may be compromised by the research. Van Bellen (2004) considers as the main purpose of indicators, the aggregation and quantification of information, making its significance more apparent. Indicators simplify information related to a complex phenomenon and thus upgrade the communication process. Van Bellen (2004) uses indicators as a measure summing up relevant information about a particular phenomenon. The idea of developing specific indicators to sustainability was raised in Eco 92, with the Agenda 21. Along with the set of information previously described, Radermacher (1999) and Rahdari and Rostamy (2015) complement it by highlighting eight properties that indicators should possess and should be considered in the choice of sustainability indicators (see Table 1). They are as follows: exhaustive, minimal (relevant), eligible, operational/measurable, monotonic, cumulative, autonomous, and communal. During their research, Rogmans and Ghunaim (2016) corroborated what Mitchel et al. (1995) wrote, underlining three major deficiencies in the existing classification systems: (1) they don’t have unambiguous definitions of sustainability, and they provide insufficient explanation to “why” certain components are included in the classifications and “how” the weights are attributed to each component; (2) classification systems emphasize sustainable design above performance, especially in classifications to the communities; and (3) classifications do not generically respond to the local conditions of a project. Each classifying system has particular strong and weak points, and no system is superior in all aspects. Lehtonen et al. (2016) summarize the intended functions of indicators (see Table 2). Sustainability is commonly evaluated over environmental, social, and economic dimensions and requires technological development and innovation. A crucial aspect of sustainability is the need to ensure intragenerational and intergenerational equality (Steiner and Posch 2006). Therefore, I 914 Importance of Sustainability Indicators Importance of Sustainability Indicators, Table 1 How to select indicators Property Exhaustive Minimal (relevant) Eligible Operational/ measurable Monotonic Cumulative Autonomous Communal Definition and scope Maintaining a “wide-funnel” approach in including indicators that covers both economic and ESG issues. This step ensures that the final SI construct is inclusive Systemic exclusion of irrelevant and/or redundant indicators. The criteria for evaluation of an indicator as relevant are defined properly, within the system boundary, and congruent with objectives of the study A sufficiently small number of indicators so as to be a discussion basis allowing the analyst to assess inter-indicators information necessary for the implementation of an aggregation procedure. The criteria for evaluation of an indicator as eligible are generality, credibility, and availability of data Indicators should be either quantitatively measurable or be operationally used to represent a value qualitatively Consistency between partial and global preferences that implies consistency of the indicators between alternatives (maintaining the principle of monotonicity). Indicators should uphold a hierarchical structure Ceteris paribus, it is just as legitimate to compare alternatives on a subset of the indicators as on a single criterion The chosen indicators should not be functionally related In cases where there are a plethora of references for the indicators’ selection, selected indicator should have (A) the highest frequency and/or the greater importance among the similar criteria from diverse sources that were pooled, with diversity taken into account (frequency and importance) (min. frequency 1/4), and (B) the most common features of similar indicators, when there are overlaps between the definitions of the indicators Source: Rahdari and Rostamy (2015, p. 763) Importance of Sustainability Indicators, Table 2 Summary of the types, intended functions, and indicators’ actual roles Type of indicator Intended indicator functions Descriptive 1. Communication 2. Awareness raising 3. Transparency 4. Target setting 5. Standard setting Actual indicator roles Performance 1. Monitoring and evaluation of performance 2. Engaging stakeholders 3. Support to policy evaluation 4. Early warning 5. Control and accountability 6. Better decisions 7. Guidance to policy analysis and formulation 8. Better government effectiveness 9. Political advocacy 10. Target setting 11. Standard setting 12. Promotion of the idea of integrated action 13. Focusing of discussion Instrumental conceptual political Composite 1. Engaging stakeholders 2. Control and accountability 3. Political advocacy Source: Lehtonen et al. (2016, p. 7) what is perceived as sustainable changes appears like a function of social opinion and technological and scientific progress. Literature suggests that the system’s adapting capacity is an inclusive part of sustainable development and needs to be measured by sustainability indicators (Spiller 2016). Importance of Sustainability Indicators Importance of Sustainability Table 3 Research criteria Objective setting and scope definition Identification of indicators Final selection criteria 915 Indicators, Literature search engine: Google Search, Since Direct, Scopus, etc. Literature type: scientific literature, official report, working papers, dissertation Language: English Time frame: articles published since 2002 Keywords: sustainability indicators Extract indicators from selected publications Categorize Aggregate when needed Scale Scientific background Reputation Data availability, aim of the study, etc. Frequency of use Relevance to the sector Sustainability indicators become increasingly relevant to those who research and those who practice sustainability. However, the sustainable indicators validity depends on how components are pondered and aggregated (Gan et al. 2017). Aiming to research sustainability indicators, Pillain et al. (2017) present a set of activities (see Table 3), such as objective and scope definition, indicator identification, and final selection, which, once implemented, will identify research about the studied thematic and relevant indicators definition. Table 4 shows some researches that addressed or discussed sustainability indicators as a tool to evaluate the performance of organizations. Therefore, sustainability evaluation models are presented to consider performance indicators to measure the studied reality. Source: Adapted from Pillain et al. (2017, p. 835) Importance of Sustainability Indicators, Table 4 Researches about sustainability indicators Author (year) DiazSarachaga et al. (2017) Tahseen and Karney (2017) Guerra et al. (2016) Dohnal and Kocmanova (2016) Theme Sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing countries Hydropower sustainability Sustainability category Management; society; environment; economy Technical, environmental, social, economical, integrated 28 Sustainability in higher education Qualitative models of complex sustainability systems Environmental education programs 50 27 Chong et al. (2016) Renewable and sustainable energy Steen and Palander (2016) Lew et al. (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment Turnover; return on equity; return on assets; earnings after taxes; consumption of renewable energy; greenhouse gas emissions; production of waste; production of hazardous waste; environmentally related penalties; productivity of labor; rate of employee turnover; remuneration corporate governance; investments in environmental protection Lifecycle; environmental indicators; environmental factors; economic indicators; economic factors; social indicators. Social factors; eco-efficiency; socioeconomic; socio-environment Environmental, economical; social Local government budgeting; environmental knowledge; community well-being; social support systems 6 Tourism indicators Indicators 29 44 19 (continued) I 916 Importance of Sustainability Indicators Importance of Sustainability Indicators, Table 4 (continued) Author (year) BanosGonzález et al. (2016) Theme Environmental sustainability Zhou et al. (2015) Sustainable urbanization indicators Lebacq et al. (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming Blancas et al. (2011) Social indicators of sustainable tourism Sustainability category Degradation of landscape and high-quality natural vegetation; abandonment of traditional activities. Dependence on fodder importation. Rising dependence on external, nonrenewable energy resources. Rising concern about key species conservation Education level of all age groups; urban and rural integration in education; city scale; city function; city ecological environment; water supply capacity and water conservation; industrial and agricultural water management; medical facilities and services; public health and infectious disease; population; education; insurance; safety production; industrial structure; income and employment; hi-technology innovation system; innovation environment and resources; human resource; social security; architectural scale; construction energy conservation; new energy and pollution control; environmental protection capacity; cultural industry; cultural facilities; food and drug resources; food and drug safety; industrial structure upgrade; information construction; public security; land resource; land use; city management; urban road; urban transportation; forestry resource; forestry safety; public facilities (water, heat, and gas supply); greening Environmental sustainability (input management), environmental sustainability (quality of natural resources), economic sustainability, social sustainability Social–cultural effects of tourism on the host community; local public safety; conservation of the cultural heritage; effects on the local population structure; social-carrying capacity of the destination; effects on levels of well-being among local population; economic benefits of tourism for host community and destination; sustaining tourist satisfaction; development control; tourist offer – providing a variety of experiences; tourist activity seasonality; tourism employment; transport related to tourism; destination competitiveness; creation of tourist itinerary and routes; infrastructure Conclusions Reality measurement by means of sustainability indicators need to consider differences along time and regional reality in order to reach the goals of sustainable development. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that specific sustainability indicators should exist at global, national, regional, institutional, and corporate levels. Indicators 13 152 90 54 Each sustainability indicator should have a preestablished goal, enabling an evaluation of its performance. The use of performance indicators enables reality measurement and the follow-up of the performance of the goals established during the planning process. Within organizations, actions should be implemented toward regional economic development, the preservation and improvement of the Importance of Sustainability Indicators environmental quality, and local community development, promoting initiatives in favor of sustainable development. They also ought to carry out recycling programs, promote energy efficiency, and provide training to employees to act in a sustainable manner. Nations must create the conditions for moving toward an economically sustainable and inclusive growth, in promoting shared prosperity and dignified work for all, while mindful of different development levels and national capacities. In global terms, we must seek the end of poverty and famine everywhere; fight inequalities within and among countries; build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies; protect human rights; promote gender equality and the empowerment of women; and ensure a lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. Sustainability indicators are used to demonstrate the effects of human intervention on the environment. Thus, in summary, the importance of sustainability indicators lies in informing managers to respond to the expectations of stakeholders. This implies that the results have been achieved according to strategies defined in advance. Thus, the goals follow from the existence of the indicators. Cross-References ▶ Institutional Sustainability Assessment ▶ Sustainability Assessment Tools ▶ Sustainability Indicators References Banos-González I, Martínez-Fernández J, Esteve-Selma MA (2016) Using dynamic sustainability indicators to assess environmental policy measures in Biosphere Reserves. Ecol Indic 67:565–576. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.021 Blancas FJ, Lozano-Oyola M, González M, Guerrero FM, Caballero R (2011) How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: the case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Sci Total Environ 412–413:28–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.066 Bocquet R, Les Bas C, Mothe C, Poussing N (2013) Are firms with different CSR profiles equally innovative? Empirical analysis with survey data. Eur Manag J 31(6):642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.07.001 917 Chong YT, Teo KM, Tang LC (2016) A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator framework for waste-to-energy systems and a proposed metric of sustainability. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:797–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2015.11.036 Cornet Y, Gudmundsson H (2015) Building a metaframework for sustainable transport indicators – a review of selected contributions. Transp Res Rec 2531:103–112. https://doi.org/10.3141/2531-12 Diaz-Sarachaga JM, Jato-Espino D, Castro-Fresno D (2017) Application of the sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing countries (SIRSDEC) to a case study. Environ Sci Pol 69:73–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.011 Dohnal A, Kocmanova M (2016) Qualitative models of complex sustainability systems using integrations of equations and equation less knowledge items generated by several experts. Ecol Indic 62:201–211. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.030 Gan X, Fernandez IC, Guo J, Wilsond M, Zhao Y, Zhou B, Wu J (2017) When to use what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecol Indic 81:491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.068 Guerra JBSOA, Garcia J, Lima MA, Barbosa SB, Heerdt ML, Berchin II (2016). A proposal of a balanced scorecard for an environmental education program at universities. J Clean Prod (In Press): 1–39. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179 Hahn H, Kühnen M (2013) Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J Clean Prod 59:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005 Halkos G, Skouloudis A (2016) National CSR and institutional conditions: an exploratory study. J Clean Prod 139:1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.047 Harbour JL (1997) The Basics of Performance Measurement, 2nd ed., CRC Press, Broken Sound Parkway, NW. [Google Scholar] King LO (2016) Functional sustainability indicators. Ecol Indic 66:121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2016.01.027 Kolk A (2008) Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Bus Strateg Environ 17:1–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bse.511 Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33(2):311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x Lehtonen M, Sebastien L, Bauler T (2016) The multiple roles of sustainability indicators in informational governance: between intended use and unanticipated influence. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 18:1–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.009 Lew AA, Ng PT, Ni CC, Wu TS (2016) Community sustainability and resilience: similarities, differences and indicators. Tour Geogr 18:18–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14616688.2015.1122664 Mitchell G, May A, McDonald A (1995) PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of I 918 indicators of sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 2(2):104–123. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13504509509469893 Montecchia A, Giordano F, Grieco C (2016) Communicating CSR: integrated approach or selfie? Evidence from the Milan Stock Exchange. J Clean Prod 136:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.099 Pillain B, Gemechu E, Sonnemann G (2017) Identification of key sustainability performance indicators and related assessment methods for the carbon fiber recycling sector. Ecol Indic 72:833–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2016.08.056 Radermacher W (1999) Indicators, green accounting and environment statistics. Int Stat Rev 67(3):339–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403710 Rahdari AH, Rostamy AAA (2015) Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. J Clean Prod 108(Part A):757–771. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.108 Reilly AH, Hynan KA (2014) Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: it’s not easy (really) being green. Bus Horiz 57(6):747–758. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bushor.2014.07.008 Rogmans T, Ghunaim M (2016) A framework for evaluating sustainability indicators in the real estate industry. Ecol Indic 66:603–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2016.01.058 Sardain A, Tang C, Podivin C (2016) Towards a dashboard of sustainability indicators for Panama: a participatory approach. Ecol Indic 70:545–556. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.038 Spiller M (2016) Adaptive capacity indicators to assess sustainability of urban water systems – current application. Sci Total Environ 569-570:751–761. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.088 Steen B, Palander S (2016) A selection of safeguard subjects and state indicators for sustainability assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(6):861–874. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11367-016-1052-6 Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14:877–890. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.054 Tahseen S, Karney BW (2017) Reviewing and critiquing published approaches to the sustainability assessment of hydropower. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67:225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.031 UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed on: 15 Nov 2017 Van Bellen HM (2004) Indicadores de sustentabilidade: um levantamento dos principais sistemas de avaliação. Cadernos EBAPE.BR 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1679-39512004000100002 Zhou J, Shenb L, Songb X, Zhang X (2015) Selection and modeling sustainable urbanization indicators: a responsibility-based method. Ecol Indic 56:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.024 Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development Sustainability and Management Practices: A Study in Atibaia, SP, Brazil Marcos dos Santos Simões, Tábata Sabrina Lourenço de Morais and João Luiz de Moraes Hoefel Núcleo de Estudos em Sustentabilidade e Cultura – NESC/CEPE, Centro Universitário UNIFAAT, Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil Definition Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development are related with policies, agreements and subsidies that stimulate and support the incorporation of well-designed environmental management practices and corporate social responsibility, linking business and employee performance with good environmental strategies. In this perspective, education, requalification, improvement, research and development are identified as key priorities. Introduction Currently, the major challenges for sustainability, according to some authors (Ayik et al. 2017; Seto and Satterthwaite 2010), are global environmental changes, inadequate processes of industrial growth, and the intense expansion of urbanization. According to Philippi et al. (2014), the greater the scale of population concentration and agglomeration, the greater the adaptations and transformations of natural environment, which will increasingly require resources, producing a greater amount of waste, making it difficult to recompose the environment or even bringing permanent damage to it. This situation is exacerbated by the global scenario of environmental changes and makes the discussion and implementation of environmentally sustainable actions more relevant. Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development Several strategies such as incentives and grants have been created and developed to promote environmentally sustainable actions. Such incentives include both public and private sector actions being possible to mention laws, standards, and regulations; fees and taxes; seals and environmental certifications; and grant funds and tax benefits, among other socioenvironmental policies (Emas 2015; Nascimento et al. 2013). However, these measures must be followed by educational actions at all levels, from basic to higher education, in order to create sustainable forms of society-nature interactions (Brasil 2007). In this perspective, UNIFAAT, a Higher Education Institution located in Atibaia, São Paulo, Brazil, adopted as institutional policy the inclusion of diverse topics related with sustainability in the curriculum of its undergraduate and postgraduate courses through specific disciplines or as a topic inserted in discipline contents. In addition, a Sustainability and Culture Research Center was created to develop research and extension projects focused on environmental issues of regional relevance. With focus on the problem of investing in regional development and protecting the local resources supply, the profile of companies located in the region of Atibaia municipality is analyzed in this paper, with focus on ISO 14001: 2015 environmental certification. This research was realized by students of the undergraduate courses in Production Engineering and Environmental Management, and in addition to analyzing the adoption of sustainable business strategies, it is part of UNIFAAT sustainability educational policies. Due to its privileged location, Atibaia attracts companies from a wide range of sectors, motivated by the abundance of natural resources and local strategic logistics, as important industrial areas and routes of product flow intersect and cut across this region. These routes are the Dom Pedro I and Fernão Dias highways, both very important for the Brazilian logistics system, since they make connections between ports and airports, as well as passing through the major industrial centers of Southeast Brazil, a region that concentrates the country’s greatest wealth. For the development of the region, the companies located in the surroundings of the highways 919 bring progress and increase of income to the municipality; on the other hand, they increase significantly the traffic in the highways and aggravate the problems of local infrastructure and to the environment. Based on this context, the present study analyzed 75 companies within 2 km of the Fernão Dias and D. Pedro I highways, in order to outline the profile of the companies, the type of productive activities, and their environmental actions and responsibility. Another aspect analyzed was the role of environmental management policies and their relevance as a factor and incentive for sustainable development. It has been noticed that some of the analyzed companies present as a differential aspect the ISO 14001 certification, an internationally accepted standard that defines the requirements to certify an environmental management system in operation (ABNT 2015). At the same time several companies operating in the region are not yet certified by this norm, making it difficult to control their activities that many times exploit the region’s resources and discard their waste from production processes, in often inefficient and even irregular ways. According to researches carried out, the way to manage the use of these resources is a factor that can accentuate or minimize impacts, leading to the success or failure of certain environmental policies (Philippi et al. 2014). For this reason, there is a growing concern about the environmental performance of companies and their repercussions on the unrestrained use of resources and non-environmentally appropriate policies. Some of them are incorrect treatment of solid waste, deposition of waste in inappropriate places, and disposal of contaminated water by processes without treatment, among others. In this perspective properly implemented environmental management systems and Certification ISO 14001 can be considered incentives for sustainable development. Environmental Management: Current Aspects According to Barbieri (2011), environment is all that surrounds or wraps living things. The environment is not only the space where living beings I 920 exist but the very condition for the existence of life on Earth.For the ISO 14001:2015 (ABNT 2015), environment is defined as surroundings in which an organization operates, including air, water, soil, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans, and their interrelationships. According to Jabbour et al. (2013), environmental management refers to the complete incorporation of environmental objectives and strategies into the broader objectives and strategies that exist in an organization. Therefore, environmental management is nothing more than the continuous efforts to preserve and maintain environmental resources, as much as possible intact, aiming at maintaining the ecosystem in total harmony so that there is no shortage of resources for current and future generations. Unfortunately the interests of urban development combined with an unbridled economy, for many years, have been emphasized over the preservation of the environment, and for Tachizawa (2015), one of the biggest challenges facing the world in this new millennium is to make the market forces to protect and improve the environment quality. This way, we arrive at the concept of corporation’s sustainability, and according to Bolzan and Herrera (2012), sustainable company is one that seeks to incorporate consistently the concepts and objectives related to sustainable development into its policies and practices in a consistent way. Another contribution to the definition of sustainability is the introduction of a temporal and spatial perspective in productive practices that include the concept of intragenerational equity and a trade-off between short-term gains and long-term concerns (Gatti and Seele 2014). Thus, before organizations seek any integration or environmental management system, they need to be well aware of what the concepts of sustainability and corporate responsibility really are (Camilleri 2017) and seek to adapt and divulge these ideas in the organizational culture. After that they need to incorporate subsidies to migrate to management systems and contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals set by the United Nations Agenda 2030 (Weitz et al. 2018). Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development As mentioned before many companies in the area analyzed on this paper do not have a quality and certified environmental management system (EMS). Ceruti and Silva (2009) mention that EMS implementation facilitates the identification of environmental liabilities, which are the necessary investments to a company to repair negative environmental impacts generated during years of operations, but also provides subsidies to its correct management. The lack of this management causes companies to incorrectly handle their waste, some because of lack of knowledge, precisely because of the absence of EMS, and others many times because the practice of these actions are expensive to the company. According to the State of Rio Grande do Sul Environmental Protection Foundation, Brazil (FEPAM), micro and small enterprises have difficulty in adequately allocating their waste. This happens, among other reasons, due to the cost of adequate management of this process, as it involves handling, treatment, final disposal, transport, and training, all of them adequate to the effective attainment of its purpose (ROCHA 2006). This way, these companies remain illegitimate instead of adopting EMS. As a consequence, Mello et al. (2016) point out they do not get the benefits of a higher productive quality; better relationships with employees, suppliers, and communities; and greater control of applicable legislation and reduction of operational costs which could be monitored by simple and measurable indicators for the evaluation of their environmental performance. In this scenario of change for sustainable actions, the Norm ISO 14001 is a tool that was developed to parameterize practices in environmental management and guide companies toward an effective EMS. According to this Norm: The purpose of this Standard is to provide organizations with a framework for protecting the environment and enabling a response to changes in environmental conditions in balance with socioeconomic needs. This Standard specifies the requirements that enable an organization to achieve the intended and defined results for its environmental management system. (ABNT 2015) Verde Ghaia, a Brazilian consulting firm (2017) that has been active in the South American Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development and African markets for almost two decades, explains that companies are looking for profits and therefore any environmental program that the company has to adopt must be carried out with a sustainable policy in order to avoid damaging the company economic growth. In this way an EMS linked to environmental certification favors the entire logistics chain and stakeholders, thus being an incentive for sustainable development. Other advantages for certified companies are to open their market and export their products for countries and economic areas that require this certification and create a strategic marketing for the company. Due to the growing population and business expansion, as already mentioned, the amount of solid waste generated increases significantly, and such waste, when discarded irregularly, causes serious problems such as soil and groundwater contamination and air pollution, and accumulation of these wastes in riverbeds causes diverse changes and collaborates to the silting of the water courses, promoting floods. The disposal in open areas also generates other types of problems such as the proliferation of diseases caused by insects such as Aedes aegypti, the dengue and yellow fever disease vector, among others. As a way of dealing with these wastes, the National Solid Waste Policy (PNRS) was created in Brazil. According to the Ministry of the Environment, Law No. 12,305/10 (Brasil 2010), which establishes the PNRS, this law contains important tools to enable the country to advance in addressing the main environmental, social, and economic issues arising from the inadequate management of waste solids, contributing in this way as an incentive for sustainable development. Philippi et al. (2014) define the National Solid Waste Policy in three words, sustainability, innovation, and optimism, and go beyond justifying it as a legislation that proposes new challenges, mentioning the shared responsibility for the product life cycle and reverse logistics, confident in what concerns waste disposal targets in environmentally appropriate landfills, aiming and stimulating sustainability. PNRS was a milestone in the sector for dealing with all solid waste that can be recycled or reused, 921 be they domestic, industrial, and electronics, among others, and also for dealing with waste that cannot be reused, encouraging the correct disposal in a shared way when integrating public power, private initiative, and citizens. This way, it is important to highlight the role of green companies for sustainable development. According to Tachizawa (2015), a green company is synonymous of good business, and in the future it will be the only way to undertake business in a lasting and profitable way, the author adds emphasizing that the sooner organizations begin to see the environment as their main challenge and as a competitive opportunity, the greater the chance of survival. According to Barbieri (2011), companies are expected to stop being problems and to be part of the solutions. In this perspective, the actions of companies that have implemented efficient environmental management systems and even those certified by ISO 14001:2015 can serve as incentives for sustainable development. Another relevant aspect is the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” approved by the United Nations Organization whose goals involve the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. Furthermore, goal 9 stresses the need to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation (Saito et al. 2017). Characterization of the Study Area Methodological Procedures The methodological procedures used consisted of surveys, interviews, and field research. The objective was to collect secondary data about the social and environmental reality of Atibaia municipality, including the profile of the industries. This was carried out through governmental agencies (municipal and state environmental departments – IBAMA), public and private universities, and non-governmental organizations (civil society associations) working in the region. The procedures also involved recognition, through field trips and interviews, of main soil I 922 uses, finding main areas of urban and industrial expansion included in the study area and analyses of possible reflections for the municipality of Atibaia and others around it. Characterization of the Study Area: The Municipality of Atibaia This article uses as study area the municipality of Atibaia located in the Bragantina Region, State of São Paulo, Brazil, inserted in the Atibaia River Basin and also included in the UNESCO Green Belt Biosphere Reserve of São Paulo Municipality and which integrates the Cantareira System Environmental Protected Area (EPA Cantareira) (São Paulo 2000). The creation of this conservation area had as objectives the maintenance and improvement of water quality, mainly in the municipalities around the Cantareira Water System Reservoirs, which supply the São Paulo Metropolitan Region and regulate the flow of water to the Metropolitan Region of Campinas (São Paulo 2000). The Cantareira System is the largest water supply system to São Paulo Metropolitan Region (RMSP), accounting for approximately 50% of the total water supply. The Cantareira System is a set of large-scale hydraulic dams, specifically designed to supply the metropolis of São Paulo and meet the demands of the water courses located downstream of the reservoirs (Whately and Cunha 2007). Despite the proximity of Atibaia with São Paulo Metropolitan Region, there are still in this area significant remnants of Atlantic Forest (Hoeffel et al. 2005). The duplication of the D. Pedro I and Fernão Dias highways significantly facilitated access to this region and to Atibaia municipality (Fig. 1), determining a process of industrial and urban expansion, as well as an increase in tourism, factors that have contributed to the regional socioenvironmental impacts and problems (Hoeffel et al. 2005). The main economic activities carried out in the municipality of Atibaia are based on the tertiary sector, commerce and services (76.22%); the secondary sector, industries (22.69%); and the primary, agricultural sector (1.10%) (Fundação Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development SEADE 2014). In the tertiary sector, tourism and real estate/civil construction sectors are prominent; in the secondary sector, the metallurgical, clothing, and civil construction industries; and in the primary sector, some traditional activities of the municipality such as fruit growing, forestry, and the poultry farming. In recent years, a growing constraint and greater control over productive activities considered to have an impact on natural resources are occurring throughout the State of São Paulo, Brazil. This has gained greater proportions in areas considered strategic, and among these we can cite the Atibaia River Basin. Another aspect to be highlighted was the adaptation of some industrial sectors to the environmental legislation and even the search for a differentiated standard of production and image as the one conferred by the ISO 14001 certification. The D. Pedro I Economic Development Axis, created by the municipality of Atibaia following a regional trend, stimulates the possibility of occupying areas along the D. Pedro I Highway by industrial districts and large deposits of industrialized products, favoring the logistics sector and thus the storage, transport, and distribution of goods (Hoefel et al. 2017). A similar situation is observed along the portion of the Fernão Dias Highway connecting the municipality of São Paulo with regions located in the northern portion of Brazil and crossing the municipality of Atibaia, where there is already a growing industrial expansion allowing diverse environmental changes and impacts. With the duplication of Fernão Dias Highway, the occupation process throughout the area has intensified drastically. The water resources available in the region, associated to the easiness of access, are the main factors that attract investments of industries in the region, besides the municipal incentives, which can be related to its population and urban expansion. In the period from 2000 to 2014, the municipality of Atibaia presented a positive index in relation to the number of industrial establishments and at the same time there was a significant growth of jobs. These data reflect the expansion Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development 923 I Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Map with location of Atibaia municipality and D. Pedro I and Fernão Dias highways (Source: The authors 2018) of the industrial sector that occurs in the study area, especially due to the characteristics of the road axis, Dom Pedro I and Fernão Dias, as mentioned previously, and its proximity to the São Paulo and Campinas Metropolitan Regions. In this way, the proximity of the preserved areas found in the Cantareira System EPA and in Atibaia, and the road axes have consolidated the region as a peripheral area of the São Paulo Metropolitan Region, with direct impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources and natural resources. This situation has required environmental postures and incentives for this growth to occur in a sustainable trend, and some companies, when implementing quality environmental management systems certified by ISO 14001:2015, can be considered as innovative models that can assist in this process, as well as in developing proposals for the sustainable use of regional natural resources. Characterization of Corporate Environmental Actions in Atibaia: Results and Analysis The study area of this work, as already mentioned, is located in the municipality of Atibaia and more precisely in the immediate surroundings of the Fernão Dias and Dom Pedro I highways, an important intersection between the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo, Metropolitan Region of Campinas, Paraíba River Valley, and the South portion of Minas Gerais state (Fig. 1). The highways were chosen for the installation of the companies due to their easy access between the main capitals, airports, and seaports for an easy distribution of their products. The information contained in Table 1 refers to the companies located in the axis of the mentioned highways (Dom Pedro I and Fernão Dias) and in total 75 companies were analyzed. Of these 924 Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development, Table 1 Industries analyzed in Atibaia municipality, São Paulo, Brazil. (Source: The authors, 2018) Production area Food Number of companies 6 Automotive 14 Construction Certified ISO 14001? Environmental licenses No Yes No data 6 Yes No 6 9 5 13 14 14 14 Electricity 1 1 1 Eletronics 3 2 1 2 1 25 1 24 12 7 6 3 3 3 1 8 75 1 8 63 1 9 8 14 Metallurgical Chemical Textile Service Total 12 52 1 12 companies are ISO 14001 certified, most of the companies certified, in a total of 9 companies, are in the automotive industry, mainly due to requirements of customers that require this certification as pre-requirement for the purchase of their products. The other sectors with ISO 14001 certified companies were the electronic sector (two companies) and metallurgical (one company). Certification, however, has been considered a regional differential and an incentive for sustainability, and companies from other sectors already consider making adjustments in their environmental management systems to obtain the certification and add this differential to their business goals and image. The ISO 14001 norm is considered a tool created to help companies to identify, prioritize, and Main waste Solid waste; liquid effluent Solid, electronic, and chemical waste; liquid effluent; environmental interest residue Solid waste; liquid effluent; environmental interest residue Liquid effluent; electronic and solid waste; environmental interest residue Solid and electronic waste; environmental interest residue Solid waste; environmental interest residue Solid and chemical waste; liquid effluent Solid waste Solid waste Main environmental management actions Waste and effluent management Waste and effluent management; environmental interest residue management Waste and effluent management; environmental interest residue management Waste and effluent management; environmental interest residue management Waste management; environmental interest residue management Goal: Landfill for non-recyclable Waste management; environmental interest residue management Waste and effluent management No data available Waste management manage their environmental risks. In order to obtain ISO 14001 certification, the companies implement and consolidate an environmental management system (EMS) that involves activities carried out in conjunction with the company’s operational and administrative process, focusing on reducing environmental impacts caused by the production process, giving correct disposal for each type of waste generated, and controlling the environmental impact of each service provider. This process also requires compliance with certain criteria, such as complying with legal environmental requirements at the federal, state, and even municipal levels and maintaining an ongoing process of EMS assessment. Thus, the incorporation of ISO 14001 has been providing guidelines for the implementation of Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development environmental management systems, in compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, and has stimulated analyses and discussions on corporate responsibility in relation to sustainability proposals (Moura and Silva 2013; Machado et al. 2013). The environmental management system is established and maintained as a way to ensure that environmental impacts of activities performed by companies are in accordance with their policies, environmental objectives, and goals and to increase environmental performance. In order for this to be achieved through risk and opportunity management, the company verifies what external and internal issues are relevant and affect the ability to achieve the intended results of the EMS. It also defines what standards, procedures, and complementary documents must be elaborated in compliance with the requirements of ISO 14001 and that all the routines established in these regulations are effectively implemented. Thus, the environmental management program aims to determine actions aimed at reducing or eliminating an environmental impact identified as significant and how the results will be evaluated. The certification adds a positive aspect and an incentive for sustainability, as it makes companies more concerned about environmental preservation. The research showed that 12 companies out of the 75 analyzed are certified, but the majority are not, being, therefore, considered of some socioenvironmental impact. Although some have environmental management systems, their efficiency is relative, and in some cases, the risks that the manufacturing process generates for the environment as a whole are not effectively considered. Among the certified companies are certifications related to the production process and product quality of the companies. This certification examines some environmental aspects of production, but this does not guarantee sustainable global management of its products, including reverse environmental logistics, and often the post-use wastes are disposed of inappropriately. This situation has been addressed with the current revision of the ISO 14001 standard itself and with specific environmental policies such as the National Solid Waste Policy, which aims to reduce the 925 inappropriate disposal of post-use products. Companies without policies adapted to sustainability can directly harm the environment by discarding their waste in watercourses promoting different impacts, but the same can happen with discards after use. Although 12 companies are certified, on the other hand, of the 75 companies analyzed, 52 were adequate to the environmental licenses required by the environmental agencies in the State of São Paulo, 9 were in irregular conditions, and for 14 it was not possible to obtain data. This data indicates a non-compliance with legal requirements, a situation which is absolutely significant if one considers the location of these companies. This once again highlights the importance of certified companies. Irregular companies may compromise the quality of environmental resources in the study area, and it is important to highlight the significant role of public sector environmental management in developing activities to plan productive activities in the region and to control them. Regarding the profile of the waste generated, it is observed solid and chemical residues, liquid and chemical effluents, electronic waste and those classified as of environmental interest, which require proper disposal, and gaseous emissions. Due to the expansion of industrial activities in the roadways under study, in order for companies to increase their responsibility and action on environmental issues, public policies are also needed to make the already existing measures in the region more efficient. However, one could also think of incentives, such as stimulate ISO 14001 certification, so that environmental action can also be a competitive advantage and an innovative strategic approach. Martins et al. (2016), when analyzing the incorporation of environmental management in small- and medium-sized enterprises, highlight this aspect when considering the great potential that exists for the implementation of a cleaner production approach, since losses in the process, which generate losses of raw material and pollution, also reduce the profitability obtained through the produced product. I 926 Incentives and Grants for Sustainable Development Another aspect to consider is the need for greater population environmental awareness in the region and in the companies themselves. It is observed that a process is necessary that begins in the presentation of sustainable practices, projects that can be inserted from the school even in the industrial sector and that could involve broader environmental transformations like global warming, pollution, scarcity of natural resources, etc. These actions can be highlighted and executed with small attitudes that make the difference, since responsibility for the environment is the task of all people, but for this awareness, broad actions of environmental education are necessary. actions in the region, due to disclosures and work done in universities, companies, schools, advertisements, and even in health centers. Thus, the importance of environmental education is significantly associated with environmental management and certification programs, since it can guarantee the well-being of people and the sustainable use of natural resources. Once more, the relevance of UNIFAAT’s educational policies is highlighted by inserting analyses on environmental issues, sustainability, and strategies for its implementation in the curriculum of its undergraduate and postgraduate courses and in its areas of research and extension. Final Considerations References The strategic location of the municipality of Atibaia has led, in recent years, to a large increase of companies, traffic of vehicles, and trade development. This makes environmental awareness even more relevant. Therefore, companies must carefully observe the practices of their suppliers, destination of waste and certificates of environmental responsibility, among other documents required. For a company to be sustainable, it must be responsible for controlling environmental impacts caused directly by suppliers and third parties, knowing that attitudes toward environmental improvement must always be taken not only in the industrial sector but become a responsibility of all. Although some companies present environmental certification and this characteristic can be considered as an incentive for sustainable development and others are in accordance with the legislation regarding environmental licensing, actions and programs of management in the road axes analyzed are still needed. It is worth mentioning, nevertheless, that among the companies that do not have environmental certifications, some already have well-established environmental management actions and welldefined environmental policies such as effluent treatment, corporate environmental management programs, and adequate waste separation. This shows that in recent years, there has been improvement in the environmental management ABNT-Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (2015) ISO 14001 – Sistemas de Gestão Ambiental: especificação e diretrizes. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro Ayik C, Ayatac H, Sertyesilisika B (2017) A gap analysis on urban sustainability studies and urban sustainability assessment tools. Arch Dermatol Res 7(1):1–15 Barbieri JC (2011) Gestão Ambiental Empresarial, 3rd edn. Saraiva, São Paulo Bolzan JFM, Herrera VE (2012) Sustentabilidade nas organizações: Uma questão de competitividade. Anais 2 Congresso de Pesquisa Científica: Inovação, Ética e Sustentabilidade, UNIVEM, Marilia, 29/10 a 01 Nov 2012, pp 126–132 Brasil (2007) Lei n 9.795 de 27 de abril de 1999. Dispõe sobre Educação Ambiental, institui a política nacional de Educação Ambiental e dá outras providências. MEC, Brasília Brasil (2010) Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos Lei n 12.305/10. http://www.mma.gov.br/política-de-resíduos-sólidos. Accessed 10 Jan 2018 Camilleri MA (2017) Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment. Asian J Sustain Soc Responsibility 2:59–74 Ceruti F, Silva M (2009) Dificuldades de implantação de sistema de gestão ambiental (SGA) em empresas. Rev Acad Ciênc Agrár Ambient Curitiba 7(1):111–119 Emas R (2015) The concept of sustainable development: definition and defining principles. Brief of GSDR 2015. Florida International University. Available at: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 5839GSDR%202015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2018 Fundação SEADE – Fundação Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados (2014) Available at: http://pro dutos.seade.gov.br/produtos/perfil_regional/index.php. Accessed 11 Feb 2018 Incorporation of Sustainability Gatti L, Seele P (2014) Evidence for the prevalence of the sustainability concept in European corporate responsibility reporting. Sustain Sci 9:89–102 Hoefel JL, Seixas SRC, Machado MK (2017) Corporate sustainable strategies in Dom Pedro I industrial road Axis, São Paulo, Brazil. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research, World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham, pp 71–85 Hoeffel JL, Machado MK, Fadini AAB (2005) Múltiplos olhares, Usos conflitantes – Concepções ambientais e turismo na APA do Sistema Cantareira. OLAM 5(1):119–145 Jabbour CJ, Teixeira A, Jabbour B (2013) Treinamento ambiental em organizações com certificação ISO 14001: estudo de múltiplos casos e identificação de coevolução com a gestão ambiental. Prod (online) 29(1):80–94 Machado CJ, Mazzalib L, Souza MTS, Furlaneto CJ, Prearo LC (2013) A gestão dos recursos naturais nas organizações certificadas pela norma NBR ISO 14001. Produção 23(1):41–51 Martins OS, Escrivão EF, Nagano MS (2016) Fatores contingenciais da gestão ambiental em pequenas e médias empresas. RAM (REV ADM MACKENZIE) 17(2):156–179 Mello EP, Conejero MA, César AS (2016) Diagnóstico da gestão ambiental nas Micro e pequenas empresas: Um estudo multicasos na região de Campo Limpo Paulista – SP. REUNA, Belo Horizonte – MG, Brasil 21(1):53–74 Moura LL, Silva RF (2013) Difusão da ISO 14001 no Brasil: análise comparativa dos estados e dos setores de atuação. Revista Gestão Ind 9(4):972–984 Nascimento VM, Nascimento M, Van Bellen HM (2013) Instrumentos de políticas públicas e seus impactos para a sustentabilidade. Gestão Regionalidade 29(86):77–87 São Paulo (2000) Atlas das unidades de conservação ambiental do estado de São Paulo. SMA, São Paulo Philippi A, Romero MA, Bruna GC (2014) Curso de gestão ambiental, 2nd edn. Manole, Barueri Rocha MP (2006) Implantação de um sistema de gerenciamento de resíduos. Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Centro de Tecnologia, Rio Grande do Sul Saito O, Managi S, Kanie N, Kauffman J, Takeuchi K (2017) Sustainability science and implementing the sustainable development goals. Sustain Sci 12:907–910 Seto KC, Satterthwaite D (2010) Interactions between urbanization and global environmental change. Editorial overview. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:127–128 Tachizawa T (2015) Gestão ambiental e responsabilidade social corporativa estratégias de negócios focadas na realidade brasileira, 8th edn. Atlas, São Paulo Verde Ghaia Grupo (2017) História. Available at: https:// www.verdeghaia.com.br/grupo-verde-ghaia/historia/. Accessed 17 Dec 2017 Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M, Skanberg K (2018) Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 agenda. Sustain Sci 13(2):531–548 Whately M, Cunha P (2007) Cantareira 2006: Um olhar sobre o maior manancial de água da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Instituto Socioambiental, São Paulo 927 Incorporation of Sustainability Todd LeVasseur Religious Studies Department and Environmental and Sustainability Studies Program, College of Charleston, Charleston, Santa Catarina, USA Definition Incorporation of sustainability may be defined as the effort to build tertiary, university-level curricular, and co-curricular offerings as well as campus operational procedures (facilities and business operations, both) around the concepts of sustainability, sustainable development, resilience, the triple bottom line, and/or the UN Sustainable Development goals. Introduction This entry briefly summarizes key developments in the overall incorporation of sustainability into higher education. Given space constraints, the focus will be largely on US colleges and universities. However the reader should note that significant gains in the incorporation of sustainability into higher education have been made in Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and increasingly in Latin American and East/South Asian countries, as well as in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. As such, there is no monolithic story about key events, dates, leading figures, or leading programs in regard to providing an overview on this topic. Readers should make sure to actively search out the innovative embedding of sustainability in higher education, past and present, wherever there are institutes of higher education in order to more fully understand the when, why, and how of such embedding. Given the centrality of higher education research and teaching to global sustainability discussions, especially post-Brundtland Report and post-Rio Earth Summit, this entry will necessarily focus primarily on US trajectories. I 928 The “Three Waves” of Integrating Sustainability into Higher Education Early Antecedents of Sustainability in Higher Education “First Wave:” 1900–1980s A concern for teaching about human-nature interactions where such concern moves beyond purely instrumental views and instead recognizes that human survivability is dependent upon ecosystems is long standing in higher education. The Yale School of Forestry adopted the Gifford Pinchot utilitarian model in the late 1800s and early 1900s, while the Odum brothers brought ecological and earth systems insights to natural science schools and programs in the mid-1900s. J. Baird Callicott taught the first course in environmental ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point in 1971 which helped to bring the humanities into higher education’s discussion of humannature interactions. Ethical questions about human-nature interactions were boosted as well by the work of Rachel Carson, Peter Singer, Garrett Hardin, and Paul Ehrlich with the latter two being accomplished natural scientists. Environmental/ecological anthropology also benefited from the work of Victor Turner and Roy Rappaport, among others, during this era, and political science began to slowly investigate human-nature issues, helping to embed them in the social sciences. Two other key developments, of many in the USA, Europe, and globally, were the sustained development of the concepts of resiliency, complexity, and adaptive complex systems. This was driven in large part by the research of the Canadian ecologist Crawford Stanley (C.S.) Holling from the 1950s into the 2000s and also the Sante Fe Institute, itself a nonprofit research and education center founded in New Mexico in 1984. The other was the work of Donella Meadows, lead author of The Limits to Growth, and her professional body of work on systems thinking she cultivated through publications and talks produced from the 1970s until her death in 2001. Overall, the “Age of Ecology” of the 1970s, coupled with the rise of environmental legislation Incorporation of Sustainability in the USA and Europe (and the rise of the Green Party in Europe, especially in Germany), led to the creation of new interdisciplinary environmental studies programs in higher education. The first of these in the USA was at the University of Vermont, with this program founded in 1972. Other colleges and universities began to follow suit, so that by the time of the 1987 Brundtland Report, there existed a variety of environmental studies programs throughout the USA. With the official definition of “sustainable development” provided by the Brundtland Report, and the holding of the Rio Earth summit in Brazil in 1992, the culmination of this “first wave” of embedding critical, interdisciplinary investigation of humannature interactions, with a normative concern of living within limits, had saturated much of higher education in the USA. “Second Wave:” 1990s Through the Early 2000s For heuristic purposes I delineate the “second wave” of sustainability in higher education to occur post-Rio, occurring in the 1990s into the early 2000s. This wave sees the increased attention of those who study economics build on the concept of sustainable development that emerged with the Brundtland Report. Of key import is the work of the British economist John Elkington and his consulting firm SustainAbility. Elkington argued that a truly holistic business ledger must not only focus on economics but also have a “people account” and a “planet account” that measure how business operations impact society and the environment (Elkington 1997). This begins the concept of the “triple bottom line” (TBL) of sustainability, which normatively seeks to create an equitable balance of social, environmental, and economic systems. The economist Herman Daly and the book The Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken help to create the fields of both ecological and environmental economics. Their work helped to create the context for some economics and marketing programs in higher education to begin actively researching and teaching sustainability based on the TBL model and an emerging understanding of and concern about social and environmental externalities. This trend continues to this day with ever-growing numbers of courses, Incorporation of Sustainability journals, and programs in a variety of international higher education settings contributing to an understanding of economic and business approaches to sustainability. Probably the most significant individual academic who helped to solidify sustainability in higher education during this second wave is David Orr, who as of publication of this entry is the Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics Emeritus at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. Orr’s (1991) book, Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World, placed him at the forefront of redesigning modern higher education with a focus on place-based pedagogy, systems thinking, and creating an interdisciplinary exploration of social/environmental/economic issues. Orr also began an innovative model of creating a collaboration (the Oberlin Project) between a college, Oberlin, with its surrounding community with the goal of trying to create sustainability via partnerships and redesign of a shared commons. Orr’s storied career includes numerous publications and countless trainings, consultations, and presentations related to sustainability in higher education the world over. Another key innovation for sustainability in higher education in this second wave began in the 1990s: the systematic embedding of sustainability concepts throughout university curricula by targeted, shared interdisciplinary trainings offered by leading sustainability in higher education experts. The most well-known of these were the Ponderosa Project, begun by Geoffrey Chase, Paul Rowland, and others at Northern Arizona University, and the Piedmont Project begun by Peggy Barlett at Emory University in 2001 (Barlett and Chase 2012). These two projects are designed as 2-day workshops where faculty apply to participate and enter into shared dialogue about different models and definitions of sustainability and how they would teach these in their respective courses. Over time the Piedmont Project has become open to faculty from US and international universities and has hosted and trained hundreds in how to embed sustainability throughout the higher education curricula. 929 Also beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s was the creation of more sustainabilityfocused programs throughout higher education. This presented a move away from environmental studies and its perceived focus to be about environmental health and protection and to sustainability studies with its more explicit focus on the entire triple bottom line. New sustainability minors, majors, programs, and departments strategically incorporated a variety of perspectives and classes into their planning, bringing together especially the social sciences and natural sciences. However, the formation of these new institutes, programs, departments, and majors occurred within the larger context of the Brundtland Report’s understanding of sustainable development; a more thoroughgoing understanding of economics and politics and how these impact sustainability; the incorporation of engineering, public health, and law into sustainability research and teaching; and a growing concern for anthropogenic climate change. “Third Wave:” Mid-2000s to Present Day The mid-2000s onward saw continued growth in the creation of sustainability certificates, minors, and majors with options available for undergraduates, graduates, and continuing education for professionals. This growth continues to this day and should continue into the future. The large variety of sustainability-centered programs in higher education in this third wave are built on a variety of different understandings and definitions of sustainability, with some studies suggesting anywhere from 50 to 100 definitions of sustainability in existence. It is not clear if this variety of operational definitions is a strength or weakness in regard to how sustainability is taught, researched, and operationalized in higher education. However, there is no expectation of a universal definition emerging that would be adopted by all academics worldwide, nor is such a move desirable. Rather, common attributes of leading definitions of sustainability include a focus on the triple bottom line, intergenerational equity and equality, and redesigning societal laws and economic incentives and uses of technology (Vos 2007: 335). Sustainability in higher education in this I 930 third wave is also increasingly based upon systems thinking, adaptation and resiliency, and trying to solve intergenerational wicked problems. Other significant developments have occurred in this mid-to-late 2000s third wave and onward that impact the integration of sustainability into higher education. One is the development of the environmental humanities, broadly. A variety of humanities disciplines are now engaged in the teaching and research of sustainability, and this focus is being mirrored in adding such faculty to the staff of sustainability programs. Perhaps the single most significant development in this third wave, and the event that largely defines it, at least in a US context, was the 2005 creation of North America’s first academic professional body devoted entirely to sustainability in higher education: the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). Currently comprised of faculty, staff, administrators, and students representing 900 institutions (including 20 countries), AASHE’s mission is “to inspire and catalyze higher education to lead the global sustainability transformation,” and its vision is to “lead higher education to be a foundation for a thriving, equitable and ecologically healthy world” (http:// www.aashe.org/about-us/what-we-do/). AASHE acts on this mission by hosting an annual US conference and expo; hosting a “Green School” listserv; hosting an online “campus sustainability hub” that contains a variety of resources for administrators, students, faculty, and staff; helping build strategic partnerships between universities and between higher education and nonprofit, for-profit, and governmental agencies; and overseeing the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). STARS is a selfreported framework for tracking a variety of sustainability metrics in colleges and universities related to curricula, cocurricular activities, operational management, and hiring processes. The other leading professional groups for sustainability faculty in higher education are the AASHE affiliated Disciplinary Associations Network for Sustainability and the Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium that is also affiliated with AASHE. Incorporation of Sustainability The professionalization of sustainability in higher education hints at another key development of integrating sustainability in this third wave, with AASHE playing a leading role: the incorporation of sustainability practices in the planning, design, and implementation of facilities and business strategic plans and operational decision-making. In many ways it is the non-curricular side of sustainability in higher education that is driving sustainability in this third wave. This is because many higher education institutions already have environmental studies and now sustainability studies programs. It is also driven by the implication inherent in such academic programs: if the triple bottom line is to be taken seriously by higher education, then humans will have to live differently on this planet, including in higher education. Most immediately for this third wave, this means changing operational decision-making practices at the level of facilities and business practices. The result of this development is that many institutions now have offices or institutes of sustainability that are located in business affairs, facilities, under the president, or as a stand-alone office. Often these are overseen by a director of sustainability with a variety of staff support. At some institutions, there may be a single office or center of sustainability that oversees the academic, business, and facilities aspects of sustainability, but many campuses have an academic office or programmatic side and a facilities and business practice side (Hoffman and Axson 2017). Another key development in this third wave that bridges the academic and facilities/business sides of sustainability in higher education is the active learning and leadership opportunities being created for students. Many campuses now have sustainability-themed dorms and living communities; and many have student-led workshops and service learning opportunities devoted to sustainability. There has also been a large growth in creating internship and employment opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students at many higher education institutes, with most of these opportunities for student leadership and engagement occurring with facilities planning of sustainability focusing on dining, waste, energy, and transport aspects of operational portfolios. Students have also taken an active lead in this third Incorporation of Sustainability wave by organizing a variety of sustainabilityfocused campaigns that have impacted campuses and their facilities and business practices. These include but are not limited to banning the sale of plastic water bottles on campuses, working to divest campus endowments and monies from fossil fuels, and creating bike share and bike repair programs. These developments are mirrored by another recent development in this third wave of integrating sustainability into higher education: embedding sustainability into strategic plans and mission statements. This is happening at schoolwide levels, but also increasingly university-wide levels, with this integration driven by a top-down model. Examples of top-down, institutional-wide leadership around and identification with sustainability include the creation of Furman University’s Shi Center for Sustainability by its then president, David Shi in 2008; Arizona State University’s campus-wide adoption of sustainability throughout its curricula, especially in its School of Sustainability that was founded in 2006; the adoption of campus-wide sustainabilityfocused student learning outcomes by Green Mountain College in Vermont, where this commitment is also reflected in its campus-wide strategic plan, Sustainability 2020; and the publication of one-time Unity College president Mitchell Thomashow’s “how to” guide for embedding sustainability into higher education, The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus (2016). Due to this increased top-down and campuswide integration of sustainability in curricular, cocurricular, facilities, and business operations, there is now a more critical focus in US college rankings that are related to sustainability. The Princeton Review and Sierra Club both publish annual rankings of schools they deem to be leading the integration of sustainability into higher education. These rankings are augmented by AASHE’s STARS ranking system. In terms of international influence, the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) finalized and adopted in 2015 has created renewed interest in and impetus for teaching sustainability. These goals provide a shared understanding of sustainability and the 931 pressing issues related to sustainability shared by humanity, as well as goals and metrics of success for solving the problems and issues identified by the goals. They provide a global language of sustainability and sustainable development that should be able to help provide an international discussion about how to teach, research, and practice sustainability where higher education is a key driver. For example, the 2018 AASHE annual conference had “Global Goals: Rising to the Challenge” as its theme, where the conference was focused on how higher education can help achieve the SDGs. Lastly this third wave includes an increased focus on making the meetings of various professional bodies try to incorporate both sustainable practices and more explicit discussions about and the sharing of research related to sustainability. Many professional bodies now have standing task forces devoted to making conference materials (booklets, meals, transport options) sustainable. However, this points to a tension in this third wave, and in higher education’s adoption of sustainability, broadly: is sustainability just another greenwashing term for adopting eco-efficient practices? Or does it imply cultural and operational shifts, where institutes are obligated to align practices under a shared understanding of redesigning their curricula, facilities, administrative capacity and operational budget, and mission and values so as an institutional whole a campus embraces a holistic understanding of and approach to sustainability in higher education? If higher education is to help contribute to solutions to twenty-first century wicked problems, then it is toward the latter that institutions of higher education the world over must most likely devote themselves. Cross-References ▶ Dimensions of Sustainability in Higher Education ▶ Global Campus Sustainability Ranking ▶ Higher Education and Sustainability Initiatives ▶ Higher Education’s Sustainability Assessment Procedures I 932 Indicators for Sustainability ▶ Sustainability Commitments, Institutional Level ▶ Sustainability Domains in Higher Education ▶ Sustainability on Campus ▶ Sustainable University Profiles Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development Yvonne N. Vizina University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada References Synonyms Barlett P, Chase G (2012) Curricular innovation for sustainability: the piedmont/ponderosa model of faculty development. Lib Educ 98(4):14–21 Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Hoffman AJ and Axson J (2017) Examining interdisciplinary sustainability institutes at major research universities: innovations in cross-campus and cross-disciplinary models. Ross School of Business Paper No. 1366. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2961860 or http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2961860 http://dans.aashe.org/ http://www.aashe.org/partners/heasc/ http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals/ Orr D (1991) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. SUNY Press, Albany Thomashow M (2016) The nine elements of a sustainable campus. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Vos R (2007) Defining sustainability: a conceptual orientation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82:334–339 www.aashe.org Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous peoples; Indigenous rights; Sustainable development Definition Indigenous perspectives of sustainable development originate with Indigenous peoples within local traditional territories, are based in ancestral wisdom, and support continued self-determination. Indigenous perspectives are often holistic, including intellectual insight, knowledge of physical implications of decision-making and actions, spiritual considerations, and community-based value systems and protocols. Social, economic, and environmental elements of sustainable development are embedded within Indigenous perspectives of sustainable development. Indicators for Sustainability Introduction ▶ Importance of Sustainability Indicators There are millions of Indigenous people comprising distinct culture groups around the world, each with their own worldview and approach to sustainability. In 2015, it was estimated that there were approximately 390,000,000 to 430,000,000 Indigenous people in some 90 countries around the world (FAO 2018). Indigenous people make up less than 5% of the world’s population and are often among the poorest (UNESCO 2017b). Globally, traditional Indigenous territories cover less than a quarter of Earth’s land but hold approximately 80% of its remaining biodiversity (Sobrevila 2008, p. xii). Indigenous peoples’ cultural traditions are directly linked to their traditional territories, and so they have a vested interest in maintaining the Indigenous Knowledge ▶ Indigenous Development Perspectives of Sustainable of Sustainable Indigenous Peoples ▶ Indigenous Development Perspectives Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development health of the natural world. Indigenous perspectives of sustainable development are reflected in their cultures and languages, arising from the geographical locations, histories, experiences, and worldviews of each culture group. The Diversity of Indigenous Peoples While there is no universally accepted definition of Indigenous peoples, international organizations describe them as cultural communities who are associated with geographically distinct ancestral territories; self-identify and are recognized by others, such as state authorities, as a collective; are descended from cultural groups present in that area before colonization, modern states, or borders were created; have experienced subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion, or discrimination; and perpetuate cultural distinctiveness associated with language, social organization, religion and spiritual values, livelihoods, laws, and institutions that are separate from the mainstream or dominant society or culture (FAO 2018; WHO 2018; ILO 2017). Some examples of Indigenous peoples are the Inuit, who live in arctic regions, Anishinaabe in North America, Karen in Asia, Māori in the Pacific, and Maasai in Africa. There are hundreds of Indigenous groups, each with their own ancestral name. These names often differ from commonly used names derived from external sources. Indigenous peoples claim the right of selfdetermination but sometimes come together with other Indigenous groups to advocate for common goals. The United Nations has a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, a high-level advisory body to the UN Social and Economic Council for six areas including economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health, and human rights, as well as other special thematic areas that vary from year to year (UNPFII 2018). There is an International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, which provides advice on the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (Forest Peoples Programme 2018), and a UN Platform for Indigenous and Local Community Climate Action, which facilitates information sharing on 933 emissions reductions and other climate-related resiliency adaptations (UNFCCC 2017). Indigenous Views of Sustainable Development Sustainable development has been taken up as a global issue over the last few decades. One of the most commonly used definitions comes from the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, which said, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 41). Indigenous peoples hold similar views cautioning about the intergenerational impacts of our actions. The Seven Generations philosophy, attributed to the Iroquois Confederacy in North America, is an ancient foundation for thought and action leading to peace and the well-being of future generations. Indigenous peoples participate in international forums on biodiversity, climate, water, energy systems, and human rights in an effort to convey perspectives based on their cultural worldviews. The 1992 Indigenous Peoples Earth Charter, the 2012 Kari-Oca Declaration 2, and the 2013 Alta Outcome Document describe ongoing effects of colonization and Indigenous peoples efforts to protect their cultures and defend the Earth from aggressive unsustainable development and overexploitation of natural resources such as mining, logging, mega-dams, and exploration and extraction of petroleum. Indigenous peoples believe in a sacred order of creation that places Mother Earth as the source of life which is to be protected, not exploited and commodified as a resource or natural capital (UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2013; Indigenous Peoples 2012). In describing how these beliefs can be translated into action, Indigenous peoples said: In order to achieve sustainable development, states must recognize the traditional systems of resource management of the Indigenous Peoples that have existed for the millennia, sustaining us even in the face of colonialism. Assuring Indigenous Peoples’ active participation in decision making processes affecting them, and their right of Free Prior and Informed Consent is fundamental. States should I 934 likewise provide support for Indigenous Peoples appropriate to their sustainability and self determined priorities without restrictions and constricting guidelines. (Indigenous Peoples 2012, p. 3) Knowing why Indigenous peoples want to engage in sustainable development can help others understand the processes they call for. They explain: As peoples, we reaffirm our rights to selfdetermination and to own, control and manage our traditional lands and territories, waters and other resources. Our lands and territories are at the core of our existence – we are the land and the land is us; we have a distinct spiritual and material relationship with our lands and territories and they are inextricably linked to our survival and to the preservation and further development of our knowledge systems and cultures, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem management. (p. 4) Indigenous peoples also believe women and youth have a special place of importance in sustainable development issues because they are most affected by the negative impacts of commodification of nature (p. 3). Indigenous Self-Determination and Sustainable Development In 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted the outcome document from the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on promoting and protecting Indigenous rights. The outcome document affirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and previous achievements, such as establishing the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the mandate and position of Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A wide range of issues were addressed on raising awareness of Indigenous rights, protection of Indigenous individuals with disabilities; development of appropriate indicators and disaggregation of data relevant to Indigenous peoples; improvement of health, education, and social conditions for Indigenous peoples; protection of culture and language; empowerment of Indigenous women and youth; reduction of violence and discrimination; and Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development access to justice and forms of consultation appropriate to Indigenous peoples on matters of development concerning their traditional territories (UN General Assembly 2014). These, and many other issues, raised by Indigenous peoples around the world, help define the social, economic, and environmental considerations of concern within the constructs of sustainable development. A year later, the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted. It is considered to be universal, addressing human rights, equality, and nondiscrimination through a balanced approach to social, economic, and environmental issues. There are 17 SD Goals, each of which affects Indigenous peoples. The Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) identifies three key issues of concern to Indigenous peoples about the 2030 Agenda, including that (1) there must be protection from the adverse impacts of mainstream development which may undermine Indigenous rights and well-being, (2) there is a right to full participation and benefit from general development efforts, and (3) collective Indigenous rights to self-determined development must be supported (AIPP 2017). They said this because: Indigenous peoples have a strong cultural attachment to land, forests and waters, which constitute the base of their identity, cultures and livelihoods. Through their diverse lifestyles and knowledge systems as well as sustainable resource management and conservation practices, indigenous peoples contribute to sustainable development. However, the historical discrimination against indigenous peoples, has led to loss of land and limited access to natural resources, education and health, political participation, justice and many other basic rights. Therefore, they are often among the poorest and most marginalized. (p. 1) AIPP has provided an Indigenous interpretation of most of the 17 SD Goals and what they see as important examples for targets. For example, on Goal 13: Climate Action, AIPP highlights that even though Indigenous peoples are not causing climate change, they are often affected because of their dependency on living ecosystems. Subsequently, there is a need to “focus on the contributions of indigenous peoples in mitigating climate change while supporting their resilience and adaptive capacity” (p. 24). Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development A significant challenge faced by Indigenous peoples within large national and international processes is the lack of data to support specific development planning. AIPP explains, “The problem for indigenous peoples is that they are often invisible in official statistics. There is thus a significant data gap in most countries, which will need to be closed in order to ensure that indigenous peoples are not left behind” (p. 30). National indicators appropriate to Indigenous peoples’ culture, language, education, and well-being are needed as part of the systemic process. A number of international organizations, including the Indigenous Peoples Major Group for Sustainable Development, developed the Indigenous Navigator to provide tools and a platform for monitoring what is happening with Indigenous rights around the world (Indigenous Navigator 2017). AIPP believes there is a need for countries to have national action plans for the 2030 Agenda, but these should include regular and inclusive progress reviews involving Indigenous peoples. Reviews could then be combined regionally to contribute to global level data for addressing successes, challenges, and trans-boundary issues (AIPP 2017, p. 36). Indigenous Holistic Approaches to Sustainable Development The globalized economy affects all societies, including Indigenous peoples, and unchecked side effects of economic development threaten environmental services that Indigenous peoples depend upon for cultural, spiritual, and physical sustenance. Since the challenges of sustainable development are complex, solutions may emerge through holistic approaches that consider a variety of factors, including Indigenous traditions because in many regions of the world, biodiversity health is closely linked to that of traditional Indigenous cultures. One of the principal tools for biodiversity conservation around the world is the designation of protected areas. These areas are often found within or connected to Indigenous territories (GEF 2008). Monique Barbut, CEO and Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility, noted, “This 935 remarkable spatial convergence presents both an enormous opportunity as well as a challenge for both conserving biodiversity and supporting Indigenous Peoples’ livelihoods” (p. 2). Indigenous groups have been exploring the application of traditional holistic approaches to development as an alternative to Western models (Loomis 2000). Traditional approaches have enabled Indigenous peoples to thrive for thousands of years by caring for their lands with sustainable resource management practices. Ethical Interactions and Environmental Justice Indigenous peoples often are left to live with the aftermath of destructive development practices and environmental decision-making that were conceived outside of their communities. This has resulted in new international instruments designed to avert future disasters. For example, the Akwe:kon Guidelines, developed under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in consultation with Indigenous peoples from around the world, provides important guidance “for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments Regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004). These Guidelines are considered to be voluntary, however, provide key information about what Indigenous peoples believe need to be taken into account in any development that affects them. Another important guide is The Tkarihwaié:ri Code of Ethical Conduct on Respect for the Cultural and Intellectual Heritage of Indigenous and Local Communities Relevant for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, which is applicable in the complex interfaces of sustainable development (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2011). The effectiveness of these, and other similar instruments, will be dependent on the extent of their use and normalization within institutions and processes addressing sustainable development. I 936 The experiences Indigenous peoples have described in suffering injustices are both acute, in that there are immediate threats, and chronic, in that many injustices have been ongoing and the effects on individuals and communities is identifiable (Kress 2015). Haluza-Delay (2013) offers advice on creating environmental education inclusive of environmental justice. The author indicates an important part of environmental education is knowledge about society, its history, structures, and the interplay of social and economic processes with ecological and environmental matters. This moves the focus away from reliance on natural sciences and transmission method of instruction to more holistic thinking. Haluza-Delay believes there must be a shift to education for citizenship, which includes the development of skills that facilitate speaking and writing about what is learned, discourse analysis, and engagement with institutions that are seen to be causing social and environmental damage. As well, teaching and learning must include the means of acting on what is unjust as a moral responsibility. Combining environmental education with justice-related concepts expands opportunities for learners to transform their world to include more fair and sustainable ways (p.400). Indigenous Rights and Sustainable Development The 46 articles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) are an expression of what Indigenous peoples see as their rights and freedoms. (UNPFII 2008). Most UN countries agreed to adopt this document that was developed through Indigenous peoples work and discussion over many years. Some countries, including Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and Australia, initially voted against adopting the Declaration but have since changed their position. A few countries abstained from voting. Resistance to UNDRIP by state authorities cited a variety of reasons, including, among others, concerns around self-determination, potential for Indigenous peoples to reject decisions made nationally about environment and resource use, and the need Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development for free, prior, and informed consent. Despite these challenges, UNDRIP provides an orientation to the broad views of Indigenous peoples about a range of issues affecting social, economic, and environmental aspects of their lives and territories. Adoption of international instruments on universal human rights, military operations, pollution and hazardous wastes, biodiversity, climate systems, and others is intended to create global agreement on systems affecting human survival and well-being. There are at least 25 international instruments connecting Indigenous rights with conservation standards, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in DecisionMaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Jonas et al. 2014, p. 12). The importance of these instruments can be recognized in areas around the world where there are conservationrelated conflicts. Human rights abuses, such as “denial of free, prior and informed consent; lack of engagement with indigenous institutions; eviction; unjust resettlement; destruction of property and livelihoods; denial of access and use of natural resources; intimidation and physical harm; and exploitative employment” (p. 10), are among some of the issues that have been identified. The instruments listed in Jonas et al. (2014) do not include those put forward by Indigenous peoples themselves. The Alta Outcome Document was developed collaboratively by hundreds of Indigenous delegates at a global meeting in Alta, Norway, in 2013 (UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2013). The document, created prior to the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, began the process of expressing key concepts that could be taken up in forums concerning Indigenous peoples. Four major themes the document identified were on (1) Indigenous peoples’ lands, territories, resources, oceans, and waters, (2) UN system action for the implementation of the rights of Indigenous peoples, (3) implementation of the rights of Indigenous peoples, and (4) Indigenous peoples’ priorities for development with free, Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development prior, and informed consent (p.3–8). When Indigenous peoples are able to draft and approve their own documents, there is a greater freedom afforded in how they portray themselves and their connections to the environment. Indigenous peoples describe themselves as original and distinct peoples and nations of their territories who abide by natural laws and have developed their own laws, spirituality, and worldviews, governance structures, knowledge systems, and values, which form the basis of their identity and relationship with the natural world. They have faced colonization of their territories and lost access to natural resources, landscapes, waterways, and clean air. Patterns of domination and exploitation of Indigenous peoples have been traced to claims of discovery and conquest, papal bulls, royal charters, and oppressive ideology. The result has been strategically planned and implemented processes designed to destroy Indigenous identity through dispossession of territory, loss of food sovereignty, annihilation of cultures and languages, and even of the people themselves through acts of genocide. These destructive patterns are directly linked to methods of development that are not based on Indigenous peoples’ worldviews and result in the reduction or destruction of the resiliency of Earth systems. Inevitably, this leads to impacts on Indigenous peoples whose traditions are based in the health of the natural world (UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2013; Deloria and Wildcat 2001; Battiste et al. 2000). Systemic transformative systems, such as in education, may help to increase Indigenous peoples’ views in sustainability discourse. Indigenous Peoples and Education for Sustainability There are a number of sustainability declarations and statements relevant in higher education. These include the Talloires Declaration, Agenda 21, World Declaration on Higher Education, the Declaration on the Responsibility of Higher Education, and others. At least 26 such documents were created between 1972 and 2010 (Grindsted and Holm 2012). Similarities among them include 937 idea that universities have a moral obligation to teach, do research, and operate in a way that promotes sustainability, that institutional declarations are thematically similar to international declarations, and that problems of sustainability are viewed as being created outside institutions while the solutions are generated within institutions and require adequate funding to work on the issues (pp. 33–39). Other themes identified in sustainability declarations for higher education since the 1990s include the need for universities to contribute to local, regional, and global sustainability and public outreach and for universities to be models in their own communities, addressing physical operations within institutions, fostering ecological literacy, and developing interdisciplinary curriculum, research related to sustainability, multi-sectoral partnerships, and cooperation among universities (Wright 2004). These declarations, statements, and themes lack connections to Indigenous peoples, even though there is a close relationship between the goals of sustainable development and the goals of Indigenous peoples worldwide. In Canada, for example, most provinces and territories have extensive educational policy and practice supporting the integration of Indigenous knowledges within public education from kindergarten to grade 12. There is also a national effort to “Indigenize” post-secondary education institutions, through the development of policies that attract and retain Indigenous learners such as Principles on Indigenous Education (Universities Canada 2015) and the Indigenous Education Protocol (CICan 2013) in response to decades of calls by First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to address inequities in educational processes. The State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples: Education notes that equality and selfdetermination are two intertwined principles underpinning Indigenous peoples rights in education and identifies five key issues around the world, including nonrecognition of Indigenous knowledge and learning systems, education as a vehicle for assimilation, marginalization of Indigenous peoples in formal education, working toward education that strengthens Indigenous rights, and taking a rights-based approach to I 938 Indigenous education (UNPFII 2017, pp. 3–6). The process of linking education with sustainable development issues would lead to integrating local, regional, and global issues of importance to Indigenous peoples since they share many common concerns. Indigenous knowledges are described as inherently including environmental or landbased knowledge, stressing the importance of holistic connections among all living beings and the Earth, including the relationships among humans, animals, plants, elements, the spirit world, and the cosmos. Typically, environmental education programs are taught from a secular science-oriented perspective and do not engage Indigenous knowledges (Kapyrka and Dockstator 2012). Instead, “a more inclusive pedagogical approach to environmental studies and/or education through the acknowledgement of Indigenous knowledges into its curriculum delivery processes would not only enhance environmental understandings, but also better prepare students and instructors to effectively address the world’s growing ecological concerns” (p. 98). Indigenous knowledges are not only valuable to Indigenous peoples but to all learners concerned with sustainability. A UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) review of education for sustainable development (ESD) over the last decade acknowledged that Indigenous peoples are among those most affected by climate change, such as the increasingly intense and frequent extreme weather events and natural disasters (UNESCO 2017a, p. 9). One of the focus areas of UNESCO, to carry out research and improve education for youth from Indigenous and traditional societies, is being conducted in 17 countries across 5 continents (p.30). Yet, UNESCO notes, “Since indigenous knowledge systems are still only loosely integrated into most curriculum content, the relevance of education as a mechanism for sustainable development still faces serious problems” (p.66). The weak integration of Indigenous knowledges in educational curriculum is also a reflection of the Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development challenges of understanding the complexity of sustainability, in general, and its integration within higher education. UNESCO takes the position that: Education for sustainable development is no longer an “add-on” in the curriculum alongside environmental, consumer or climate education; instead it is an approach offering an opportunity to fundamentally rethink education. Increasingly this means taking a holistic systems approach, one which assumes that education for sustainable development and the idea of sustainability are not only important for teaching and learning processes but also for the development of educational institutions, whether they are day-care centres, schools, universities or vocational institutions. (p.8) Educational leadership might benefit from new discourse on the relationship between Indigenous knowledges and sustainability science, which is grounded in high-level problem-solving. Research in this area shows some promise but is still at an early stage where conflicting ideologies have not yet found a method of interaction (Johnson et al. 2016). Sustainability policy instruments, such as the Sustainability Tracking, ® Assessment & Rating System™ (STARS ), created by the Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education for use in postsecondary institutions (AASHE 2017), lack connection to Indigenous perspectives on sustainability. Development of an engagement process might assist in facilitating a greater understanding of the relationship between Indigenous and nonIndigenous views. Creating “ethical space” where participants operating from different paradigms or worldviews can work together without relinquishing core beliefs has been recommended as a strategy for successful interaction and engagement (Ermine 2007). Holdsworth et al. (2013) describe the need for a significant transformation by universities to meet sustainability education challenges. The authors indicate theoretical and practical foundations are still at early stages of development and lack holistic models. They say for sustainability education to become institutionalized as educational praxis, more research is needed on disciplinary pedagogies, methods of teaching and learning, and curriculum. It Indigenous Perspectives of Sustainable Development is their position that both curriculum and systemic organizational change are necessary to change university culture to one that supports successful sustainability education (Holdsworth et al. 2013, p. 356). Institutional holistic models identified as absent by Holdsworth et al. (2013) may be created locally. Holistic Lifelong Learning Models created by First Nations, Métis, and Inuit reference groups in Canada provide illustrations of what these respective Indigenous communities believe constitutes important elements of cultural education. While these Indigenous models were not developed as templates for direct conversion to sustainability education, they do reflect major areas of consideration in sustainable living. For example, consideration of social, economic, environmental, spiritual beliefs, language, and cultural value systems is some of the many interconnected themes in the models (AERC and FNAHEC 2007). Indigenous perspectives of sustainable development are unique to each cultural community. Their experiences over thousands of years provided critical knowledge about their traditional territories, social constructs, and relationships with the world around them. Some Indigenous peoples continue to live in much the same way as their ancestors, while others have adapted to life within industrial and technological societies. Some Indigenous peoples have not survived, and others have been marginalized, oppressed, or displaced from their traditional territories. Differences in social, economic, and environmental context are critical considerations in Indigenous peoples’ views about sustainable development. Indigenous peoples generally include broader issues within their traditional holistic frameworks, such as self-determination, social and cultural capital, and governance structures, rather than narrower capitalist valuations of the natural world (Berkes 2012; Hartley et al. 2010; Loomis 2000). Final Remarks This brief overview describes some of the major issues of consideration when discussing 939 Indigenous peoples as a large global demographic. The knowledge and practices of Indigenous communities vary significantly and must be taken into account along with international and national processes. Sustainable development affects social, economic, and environmental aspects of Indigenous peoples’ lives, and so their perspectives are relationally complex and distinct. Awareness of collaborative positions can assist in interpreting and understanding local issues, concerns, and remedies specific to Indigenous communities. References AASHE (2017) STARS. Retrieved 12 Sept 2017, from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education: https://stars.aashe.org/pages/about/ stars-overview.html AERC & FNAHEC (2007) Redefining how success is measured in aboriginal learning: holistic lifelong learning models. Canadian Council on Learning, Ottawa AIPP (2017) Leaving no one behind: practical guide for Indigenous peoples. Retrieved 30 Jan 2018, from AIPP: https://aippnet.org/leaving-no-one-behindpractical-guide-for-indigenous-peoples/ Battiste M, Youngblood Henderson J (2000) Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage. Purich Publishing Ltd., Saskatoon Berkes F (2012) Sacred ecology, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis/Routledge, New York CICan (2013) Indigenous education protocol. Retrieved 12 Sept 2017, from Colleges and Institutes Canada: https://www.collegesinstitutes.ca/policyfocus/indigenouslearners/protocol/ Deloria JV, Wildcat DR (2001) Power and place. Golden. Fulcrum Resources, Colorado Ermine W (2007) The ethical space of engagement. Ind Law J 6(1):193–203 FAO (2018) Indigenous peoples. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/en/ Forest Peoples Programme (2018) International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB). Retrieved 30 Jan 2018, from Forest Peoples Programme: https://www. forestpeoples.org/partner/international-indigenousforum-biodiversity-iifb GEF (2008) Indigenous communities and biodiversity. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from Global Environment Facility: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/pub lications/indigenous-community-biodiversity_0.pdf Grindsted TS, Holm T (2012) Thematic development of declarations on sustainability in higher education. Environ Econ 3(1):32–40 I 940 Haluza-Delay R (2013) Educating for environmental justice. In: Brody M, Dillon J, Stevenson R, Wals A (eds) The international handbook on environmental education research. Routledge, London, pp 394–402 Hartley J, Joffe P, Preston J (eds) (2010) Realizing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples: triumph, hope, and action. Purich Publishing Ltd., Saskatoon Holdsworth S, Thomas I, Hegarty K (2013) Sustainability education. In: Stevenson RB, Brody M, Dillon J, Wals A (eds) International handbook of research on environmental education. Routledge, New York, pp 349–358 ILO (2017) C169 – Indigenous and tribal peoples convention, 1989 (No. 169). Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from International Labour Organization: http://www.ilo. org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0:: NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314 Indigenous Navigator (2017) Indigenous Navigator. Retrieved 30 Jan 2018, from Indigenous Navigator: http://indigenousnavigator.org/index.php/en/ Indigenous Peoples (2012) IEN. Retrieved Jan 30, 2018, From Kari-Oca 2 Declaration: http://www.ienearth.org/ docs/DECLARATION-of-KARI-OCA-2-Eng.pdf Johnson JT, Howitt R, Cajete G, Berkes F, Pualani Louis R, Kliskey A (2016) Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustain Sci 11:1–11 Jonas H, Makagon J, Roe D (2014). Conservation standards: From rights to responsibilities. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from IIED: http://pubs.iied.org/14666IIED/?a= H+Jonas Kapyrka J, Dockstator M (2012) Indigenous knowledges and Western knowledges in environmental education: acknowledging the tensions for the benefits of a “twoworlds” approach. Can J Environ Educ 17:97–112 Kress M (2015) Sāsīpihkēyihtamowin. Can Women Stud 31(1, 2):52–64 Loomis T (2000) Indigenous populations and sustainable development: building on Indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development. World Dev 28(5):893–910 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Akwé: Kon guidelines. Retrieved 13 Mar 2013, from Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/akwebrochure-en.pdf Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) The Tkarihwaié:ri code of ethical conduct on respect for the cultural and intellectual heritage of Indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Retrieved 21 Mar 2013, from Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/ traditional/code/ethicalconduct-brochure-en.pdf Sobrevila C (2008) The role of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation. Retrieved Dec 31, 2017, from The World Bank: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/ Indigenous Rights INTBIODIVERSITY/Resources/RoleofIndigenous PeoplesinBiodiversityConservation.pdf UN General Assembly (2014) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 22 Sept 2014: A/RES/69/2. Retrieved Jan 30, 2018, from United Nations: http:// www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/ RES/69/2 UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (2013) Alta outcome document. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: http://www. un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/wc/AdoptedAlta_ outcomedoc_EN.pdf UNESCO (2017a) A decade of progress on education for sustainable development. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from UNESCO: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/ 002523/252319e.pdf UNESCO (2017b) International day of the World's Indigenous peoples. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from http:// www.unesco.org/new/en/indigenous-peoples-day UNFCCC (2017) New UN platform for Indigenous and local community climate action. Retrieved 30 Jan 2018, from UNFCCC: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/parisagreement/new-un-platform-to-boost-indigenous-pe oples-and-local-communities-climate-action/ Universities Canada (2015) New principles on Indigenous education. Retrieved 12 Sept 2017, from Universities Canada: https://www.univcan.ca/media-room/mediareleases/new-principles-on-indigenous-education/ UNPFII (2008) UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Retrieved 10 Jan 2018, from United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: http://www. un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf UNPFII (2017) State of the World's Indigenous peoples: education. Retrieved 10 Jan 2018, from UN DESA: https://www.un.org/development/desa/ indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/12/ State-of-Worlds-Indigenous-Peoples_III_WEB2018.pdf UNPFII (2018) Permanent forum. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from UN DESA: https://www.un.org/development/ desa/indigenouspeoples/unpfii-sessions-2.html WCED (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Retrieved 25 June 2013, from United Nations: http:// www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf WHO (2018) Indigenous populations. Retrieved 14 Jan 2018, from World Health Organization: http://www. who.int/topics/health_services_indigenous/en/ Wright T (2004) The evolution of sustainability declarations in higher education. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AE (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 7–19 Indigenous Rights ▶ Indigenous Development Perspectives of Sustainable Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development 941 Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development Svetlana Globa1 and Viktoria Arnold2 1 Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia 2 Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany Definition Industrial ecology is a new view on environmental management for industry that transforms the industrial system to adapt its inputs and outputs to the concept of sustainable development and to bring it in circular economy. The main goal of IE is to move from linear to closed-loop system in all areas of human production and consumption (Lowe and Evans 1995). Introduction It is important to note that the industry has a very large impact on the environment around the world. To counteract this pernicious influence, the countries were united to implement the concept of sustainable development, the idea of which has already integrated almost in all spheres of human activity. January 1, 2016, entered into force the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 15 years, adopted by the UN countries (as a part of the Agenda 2030 “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”). Goal 9 “Industrial innovation and infrastructure” should establish a strong infrastructure, promoting comprehensive and sustainable industrialization and innovation. Like the three main components of sustainable development, industry, universities, and the environment also interact with each other. Figure 1 is a diagram of the interaction of industry, universities with their educational programs and research groups, and the environment. Using Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development, Fig. 1 Schematic mapping of influence of industry, university, and environment on each other the arrows it shows that the industry and universities have approximately the same influence on each other. Industry dictates what staff should be trained and give topics for applied and in some cases fundamental research projects. In turn, universities can influence the knowledge base of graduates, for example, by directing them toward sustainable development using various tools, such as Minor program at the University of Chile (Vargas and Lean 2015). In addition, universities conduct research projects that affect the regulatory and technological features of the conditions in which the industry should operate, in addition to market requirements. The impact of industry and universities on the environment is expressed in the consumption of natural resources, energy, and emissions. It is much greater than the influence of nature, expressed mainly in climate effects, seismic activity, and natural disasters. Universities play an important role in promoting the concept of sustainable identity in various fields through new programs of study, research, cooperation with other entities, and pilot projects (Segalas et al. 2010). So the implementation of these plans is possible only when universities prepare qualified, sustainable developmentoriented, and innovation-ready specialists. This means that it is necessary to modernize the industry in the framework of sustainable development, to make proposals for its optimization and reduction of its environmental impact (such as the introduction of the concept of “Industry 4.0”), as well as to prepare young competent force with novel ideas that will focus on the Goals of the Agenda. Such personnel (specialists and managers of factories) are trained by higher education institutions, such as universities. I 942 Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development The entry presents the influence of the industrial sector on the environmental situation, methods/ ways of the influence of universities on the existing situation, further steps to improve the quality of training young professionals, and the transfer of technology and knowledge on the example of two universities from different countries as a part of their cooperation. The Impact of Industry on the Environment According to statistics, the industrial sector is responsible for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions (see Fig. 2). This indicator of environmental pollution is currently one of the main ones besides freshwater consumption, the use of nonrenewable natural resources, emissions of hazardous substances, waste generation, and reduction of natural areas, such as forests. The concept of sustainable development is based on the idea of meeting the needs of the current generation, without prejudice to interests of the future generations and leaving them a chance for such favorable life that people have now (“Our Common Future” 1987). Thus, based on this definition, sustainable development is rather the goal of human development, and the ways of its implementation in each specific situation remain open (“Nachhaltige Entwicklung als Leitbild”). According to another, more specific definition, sustainable development is a triunity Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development, Fig. 2 CO2 emissions worldwide by sectors in 2015 (IEA Statista 2018) of ecological, economic, and social concepts, which are equally significant toward each other. This means that any action must comply with the requirements for environmental protection, must be done without the detriment of human and his needs, but at the same time be economically effective. Currently, in the industrial sector, two of the three sustainable development concepts are well implemented: economical and in developed countries – social. In a market economy, inefficient enterprises are doomed to bankruptcy. At the same time, in the context of the complexity of tasks in the workplace, qualified employees with experience in a relevant enterprise are increasingly valued. Thus, the industry has moved from low-paid labor with a high degree of employee turnover to the policy of increasing the value of an individual employee and encouraging him to work effectively for an enterprise. That way factories create the working and living conditions for their employees that meet their needs. In developed countries, such as Germany, the ecological component of sustainable development is implemented at a high level, especially in large enterprises. On the one hand, it is due to strict legislation. For example, for waste incineration plants, the federal emission control law on incinerators for waste and similar combustible substances has been enacted since 1974 (current version – 37 BImSchV “Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetzes über Verbrennungsanlagen für Abfälle und ähnliche brennbare Stoffe”), which permanently 7% 3% 6% 41% 19% 24% Electricity and heat generation Transport Industry housekeeping Services Other Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development reduces permissible values by the emission of harmful substances. It turns out that even a waste treatment facility, which is already a great contribution to the care of the environment, must be no less environmentally friendly in terms of emissions than any other. On the other hand, a lot of effort has been put into spreading the idea of sustainable development in the society, it is funded a lot of research and developed methods for its implementation, specifically like this encyclopedia. Several methods (indicators) have been developed for assessing the environmental impact of an action, such as an “ecological backpack” (“ökologischer Rucksack”), “virtual water” (“virtuelles Wasser”) (Gebhardt 2013), and urban ecological footprint (Rees 1992). William E. Rees with other scientists has developed such an indicator of available “natural capital” – the urban ecological footprint. They have calculated that if all of human life in the same conditions as, for example, citizens of the USA, then it should be five Earths to provide the needs of all. The same thing for living standards of Germany or Russia – there would be needed three Earths. One Earth is enough only when all people on the planet live like citizens of India or, for example, Nigeria (Rees 2013) (Global Footprint Network 2013). Every year this indicator increases, and the main idea is that people in developed industrial countries should reconsider their consumption. In the present time, one of the most common and relevant in the context of climate change is an indicator of CO2 emissions. That’s why in 2015, the Paris Agreement on Climate Protection was signed. To get closer to the fulfillment of the goals set therein, the largest industrial countries decided to quit the coal electric power industry before 2050. In 2016, the industrial sector in Germany was responsible for 188 million tons of CO2 emission, which is 44% less than in 1990. The most part of this emission (three quarters) was produced by the energy-intensive industry. In addition, according to 2015, most of the emissions come from burning and power generation (Klimaschutz in Zahlen: Der Sektor Industrie 2017). Recently, reduction of emissions is a very slow pace; therefore, the government is taking measures to reorient the 943 sector to renewable energy sources and tightening the legislative framework for emissions. The main existing measures to reduce emissions in the industrial sector are: • EU emissions trading • Financial support for efficiency measures, for example, incentives for investment in higher energy productivity about promotional programs • Regulation of climate-relevant F-gases (ibid) In order to reach the goal in Germany, for example, the old coal power plants, which account for the majority of CO2 emissions, should be closed till 2020. In 2017 in Germany, coal is still a leader as a source of electricity in energy mix (39,6%, at the same time, renewable energy already accounts for 38.5% – by 5.1% more than a year earlier) (“Der Strommix in Deutschland 2017”). Consequently, on the initiative of the government when leaving the coal industry in the near future, CO2 emissions should be significantly reduced. The Impact Between Universities and Industry Industrial Ecology Not so long ago, 30 years ago after a publication “Strategies for Manufacturing” (Frosch and Gallopoulos 1989), a new direction of ecology appeared – industrial ecology. Industrial ecology is an interdisciplinary study field, which embraces and develops technical and managerial approaches for designing industrial ecosystems by simulating the appropriate properties of biological ecosystems. It tries to develop closed, balanced, and diverse industrial ecosystems that gradually vary in their characteristics in terms of substance exchange and energy cascading (Li 2018a). This idea has defined Tibbs (1992) like “involved designing industrial infrastructures as if they were a series of interlocking man-made ecosystems interfacing with the natural global ecosystem” (Cote and Hall 1995). On other words, “Industrial ecology offers a bridge between the specific innovations occurring I 944 in cleaner production and the attainment of an industrial system supplying human needs within the constraints of global and local carrying capacity. IE’s concepts and tools will provide the systemic context for design and decision-making regarding such specific changes. With this context we may be able to find the path to sustainable development” (Lowe and Evans 1995c). There are some real examples of such industrial eco-parks like Kalundborg EcoIndustrial Park, Denmark – in which companies in the region collaborate to use each other’s by-products and otherwise share resources (Li 2018b). US-EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation has taken a lead part in catalyzing the development of a prototype of another ecoindustrial park (EIP) in Texas, USA. First, they researched for potential locations. Then they studied what is necessary for its occurrence (Lowe and Evans 1995b). Often such projects are initiated by universities located near the industrial area. For example, the development of another EIP in Rochester, England, has promoted Cornell University. In such projects often both scientists and students are involved and get their relevant knowledge and experience. However, industrial ecology is still not universally recognized as a separate scientific direction. An empirical study of Prof. Leal on the value of Industrial Ecology in Higher Education (Leal 2007) makes it clear that the deals are anchored much more strongly in the university education in the Anglo-American than in Europe. In Germany, this field of study has not yet established itself as an independent degree course, but at best through modules and courses at universities and technical colleges. First activities are, e.g., at the University of Bremen and at the University of Kaiserslautern, at the TU Braunschweig, at the TU Munich in cooperation with the Nanyang Technical University, Singapore, etc. (Isenmann 2008). Other Methods of Universities: Integration of Concept of Sustainable Development in Learning Process Another way for universities to have an effect on the industry is to integrate the concept of sustainable development into the curriculum. There are Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development many techniques that were developed and tested in various universities. The integration can be made in two ways: “bolt-on” as an extra study or “built-in” integrated into existing educational programs as well as with staff development. One university has developed and implemented another method based on the principle “train the trainer.” Curitiba University, Brazil, has developed an “Educational Development Program” (EDP) for teachers and university staff. In 2 years of study, teachers master the knowledge of sustainable development and innovative teaching methods. The teacher is regarded as a digital curator who broadcasts connective knowledge using methods, for example, transmedia (Cortelazzo 2015). In another example, the Nottingham Trent University, UK, adopted a unique approach to center engineering education for sustainable development around the specific, but interesting for all people topic “food” in form of curricula with a certificate (Puntha et al. 2015). When the UK education of sustainability has become mainstream, in other countries, such as Germany and Russia, the process is at the beginning (Pritchard and Atlay 2015). However, there is a positive trend in the current system of work of professors in German universities. In addition to their academic work, many of them carry out research activities, and often together with partners from the industry, and sometimes on request of the industry. Often, the professor builds a network of contacts with industries, and his department conducts innovative research, which then, with proven efficiency, is fully or partially implemented in enterprises. Such projects are usually co-financed by foundations and ministries that specifically plot the vector for sustainable development. Thus, there is a selection of priority projects aimed at the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. In turn, in departments that are actively working on research, students are involved in these projects, often as part of their graduation projects. As a consequence, takes place a practice-oriented training of qualified staff, who often comes to work in the same enterprises after a successful graduation from university. Their advantage lies in the fact that they already understand in what way an Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development enterprise should develop further in order to meet the requirements of the concept of sustainability. For example, in Russia, such joint research work is not as well developed as in Germany. Professors are mainly engaged in educational activities. Collaboration between the university and the industry has not been established, although attempts are being made to develop it. In addition, the concept of sustainable development is also very poorly represented in curricula. Joint Activities of Universities on the Example of Brandenburg Technical University (BTU) and Siberian Federal University (SFU), Contributing to the Achievement of the Stated Goal To improve the existing situation, in addition to joint projects with the industry, universities can effectively cooperate with each other and can produce technology transfer not only in the production areas but also in the methodology of education. For several years of cooperation between the BTU and SFU, two forms of exchange have shown themselves to be most effective in extending knowledge about sustainable development: summer schools and academic exchange. The high efficiency of academic exchange has long been known; therefore, in German universities, almost 30% of students already free will do a semester or two at a university abroad (Wissenschaft weltoffen Kompakt 2014). Here is shared the experience of a joint summer school at a Russian university with German and Russian professors and staff, together with representatives of the city and business partners. The authors of the idea of such a school were Prof. Angelika Mettke (Construction recycling, BTU), Prof. Eike Albrecht (Environmental law, BTU), Prof. Wolfgang Spyra (Contaminated sites, BTU), and Prof. Rashit Nazirov (Building design and real estate expertise, SFU). The school topic is “Recultivation of former industrial areas and re-use of materials and constructions”; it has already been held four times. The authors have been actively involved in its organization and implementation since the inception of this idea. The novelty of this school lies in the fact that it is held at the intersection of theory and practice. 945 A real site with buildings and other waste within the city is selected as an object of study, and a visit with a group of students is coordinated with business partners – the owners of this site (see Fig. 3). At the same time, the participation of an agent of the city administration is prepared in the form of the lecture for students. The city government presents a development plan and indicates the existing organization of the area around the selected area and its needs, taking into account the further development of the city. At the beginning of the event, students are presented with the original data and the situation; they are divided into groups of four to six people, preferably different specialties (e.g., architect, civil engineer, city planner, ecologist, economist, lawyer, etc.); and the task is given. It is the development of a project on a site of a former industrial facility that fits into the surrounding buildings and meets the local needs of the area. But at the same time, it should be done with the possible reuse of buildings, structures, and materials located on the territory. As a result, the project must also meet the economic requirements and have a high capitalization. Possible hazardous wastes on the territory of the former enterprise are not forgotten, students are taught methods for the rapid recognition of hazardous substances, and also they learn the regulatory requirements for their disposal of waste in order to make a decision on reuse or disposal. Thus, Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development, Fig. 3 Visit of the former industrial area with the students in Russia (summer 2017) I 946 students become involved in working within the framework of the trinity of sustainability on a concrete practical example. As a result of the school, students present their projects and receive the appropriate grades and certificates for participation. This format of the summer school, when students are involved in work on the development of their hometown within the framework of sustainability, for the fourth time has caused a great resonance among both students and teachers, as well as industry/business and city partners, who participate in the selection committee for project evaluation and have the opportunity to pick up the ideas for the further development of the territory. Conclusion In December 2002 the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development was proclaimed. The United Nations General Assembly emphasized that education is an achieving element of sustainable development (DESD-United Nations, 2005– 2014). The universities have all the possibilities to bring industry to sustainability: techniques, knowledge, highly qualified people, and ideas. There are a lot of methods, which are developed in different universities. This experience must be translated in other countries, and the best examples should be implemented in practice. Also, a new study industrial ecology should be integrated into all educational programs of universities at least as an extra discipline. It is an excellent platform for the cooperation of industry and science in order to reduce the harmful effects on the environment. Since the concept of sustainable development is a triunity of environmental, social, and economic components, it should be taught and implemented at the junction of specialties and, as practice has shown, with specific examples. Interdisciplinarity and international cooperation will help higher education to touch the industry and to offer innovative ideas for optimizing it to reduce the environmental impact, as well as to focus on the needs of humans: its employees, customers, and the population living in close proximity. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Development Cross-References ▶ Role of Teachers on Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Sustainability on Campus ▶ Sustainable Development Innovation: Education, Research, and Enterprise Activities at Universities References Cote R, Hall J (1995) Industrial parks as ecosystems. J Clean Prod 3(1–2):41–46 de Camargo Cortelazzo IB (2015) Preparing teachers for sustainable development in higher education. In: Integrating sustainability thinking in science and engineering curricula. Innovative approaches, methods and tools, pp 3–19. ISBN 978-3-319-09474-8 Der Strommix in Deutschland (2017) Available vie Stromvergleich. https://1-stromvergleich.com/stromreport/strommix/. Accessed 1 Nov 2018 DESD-United Nations (2014) Decade of education for sustainable development-DESD. https://en.unesco.org/ themes/education-sustainable-development/what-isesd/un-decade-of-esd/. Last accessed on 24 Feb 2019 Frosch RA, Gallopoulos NE (1989) Strategies for manufacturing. Sci Am 261:144–152 Gebhardt H (2013) Ressourcenkonflikte und nachhaltige Entwicklung – Perspektiven 1. Jahrhundert Mitteilungen der Fränkischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 59:1–12 Global Footprint Network (2013) Available vie https:// www.footprintnetwork.org/. Accessed 1 Februar 2019 Isenmann R (2008) Industrial Ecology auf dem Weg zur Wissenschaft der Nachhaltigkeit? In: von Gleich A, Reisemann SG (eds) Industrial Ecology. Erfolgreiche Wege zu nachhaltigen industriellen Systemen, p 306. ISBN 978-3-8351-0185-2 Klimaschutz in Zahlen: Der Sektor Industrie (2017) Available vie BMUB. https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_ BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/klimaschutz_in_ zahlen_industrie_bf.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2018 Leal WL (2007) Ausbildung in Industrial Ecology. Industrial Ecology: Mit Ökologie zukunftsorientiert wirtschaften, hrsg. von R. Isenmann; M. von Hauff. Elsevier, München, pp 279–288 Li X (2018a) Industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis – definitions and development histories. In: Industrial ecology and industry symbiosis for environmental sustainability. Definitions, frameworks and applications, p 34. ISBN 978-3-319-67501-5 Li X (2018b) Industrial ecology applications in the four areas. In: Industrial ecology and industry symbiosis for environmental sustainability. Definitions, frameworks and applications, p 42. ISBN 978-3-319-67501-5 Lowe EA, Evans, LK (1995a) Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems. J. Clean Prod 3(1-2):47 Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development Lowe EA, Evans LK (1995b) Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems. J Clean Prod 3(1–2):48 Lowe EA, Evans LK (1995c) Industrial ecology and industrial ecosystems. J Clean Prod 3(1–2):52 Modul 2. „Nachhaltige Entwicklung als Leitbild“. Lehrmaterial aus der Serie „Nachhaltigkeit lernen“, p 7 „Our Common Future“. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Developmentб 1987, chapter 3, paragraph 27 Pritchard D, Atlay M (2015) Sustainability and employability: alliances at the University of Bedfordshire. In: Integrating sustainability thinking in science and engineering curricula. Innovative approaches, methods and tools, p 50. ISBN 978-3-319-09474-8 Puntha H, Molthan-Hill P, Dharmasasmita A, Simmons E (2015) Food for thought: a university-wide approach to stimulate curricular and extracurricular ESD activity. In: Integrating sustainability thinking in science and engineering curricula. Innovative approaches, methods and tools, pp 31–48. ISBN 978-3-319-09474-8 Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban 4:121–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 095624789200400212 Rees WE (2013) Ecological footprint, concept of. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 2, 2nd edn. Waltham, MA: Academic Press, pp 701–713 Segalas J, Ferrer-Balas D, Mulder KF (2010) What do engineering students learn in sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. J Clean Prod 18:275–284 Tibbs HC (1992) Industrial ecology: an environmental agenda for industry. Whole Earth Rev Winter, 4–19 Vargas LS, Lean CM (2015) A minor programme on sustainability for the engineering curriculum at the University of Chile. In: Integrating sustainability thinking in science and engineering curricula. Innovative approaches, methods and tools, pp 21–30. ISBN 978-3-319-09474-8 Verteilung der energiebedingten. CO2-Emissionen weltweit nach Sektor im Jahr 2015, IEA Statista 2018 Wissenschaft weltoffen Kompakt (2014) Facts and figures on the international nature of studies and research in Germany, p 11 947 Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development Jurgis Kazimieras Staniškis and Egl_e Staniškien_e Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania Definition To become a good and critical learner one must acquire facility with the following three tools: the ability to doubt and to ask good questions; the willingness to imagine; and the ability to listen and engage in constructive dialogue. The goal of education is to encourage thinking – not so much what to think but, specifically, how to think. Thus, our overall goal in developing learning tools is not to reach the final state of knowledge in which everything is known, but to consistently refine and modify these tools and approaches in order to advance our understanding of the world (Reardon et al. 2018). Sustainability learning approaches require new ways of transdisciplinary knowledge production with involvement of actors from outside of academia in order to meet the goals of sustainability science as a community-based transformational scientific field. Thus, innovative approaches to learning in sustainable development should include broad range of the communities actively engaged in sustainable issues that concern them and fundamentally interdisciplinary to both teaching and research. Ingestion Introduction ▶ Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable Development Higher education, especially nowadays, is subject to endless discussions and substantial reforms of performance management in universities across the world. The roots of the modern university go back of 1000 years to the University of Paris where the unique aim was education and training. This was the first mission realized in the context of Catholic Church. The way and the form of the Innovation ▶ Curricular Innovation for Sustainability I 948 Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development modern university development throughout history always have been influenced by social triggers. The trigger for the second mission of research was Humboldt – led establishment of the University of Berlin in 1810. The major catalyst of the third mission and the university role of technology transfer was the emergence of an independent relationship between science, industrial innovation, and government policy leading to so-called “knowledge-based” economy. Yet the emergence of global entrepreneurial approach is not the last step in the ever-evolving modern university. There are many good examples, where co-creative partnership for sustainability is implemented which is fundamentally different from conventional third mission activities. Sustainability learning challenges require new ways of transdisciplinary knowledge production with involvement of actors from outside of academia in order to meet the goals of sustainability science as a community-based transformational scientific field. Thus, innovative approaches to learning in sustainable development should include broad range of the communities actively engaged in sustainable issues that concern them and fundamentally interdisciplinary to both teaching and research. Review of Education for Sustainable Development Approaches Education for sustainable development (ESD) is an increasingly important feature of higher education, which poses new challenges for teaching and learning. There are two options: ESD might focus entirely or mainly on developing new education, if this type of education is completely absent, or ESD might aim to change the existing education. On one hand, sustainable development itself is a field of study that is complex by its very nature, while on the other hand, the systems of education are also highly complex. Therefore, it is no surprise that education for sustainable development appears to be a subject to many barriers and resistance. For instance, MPhil program in Engineering for Sustainable Development at Cambridge University has been in operation since 2002, where sustainable engineering topics have moved from the “more-general” to “more- specific.” Instead of broad definitions of sustainable development, students are introduced to aspects of systems theory, industrial ecology, supply chains, and global/humanitarian engineering. According to the latest assessment of the courses and programs at the University of Gothenburg, one third of courses and programs deal with environment and sustainable development, while two thirds do not (Boman and Andersson 2013). In many countries around the world, ESD is understood as integration of sustainable development in the education, research, and operations as a starting point in the strategic policy of a university. In principle, university has four roles in the society. First, university acts as an educational institution and in terms of impact on society has to guide and assist students with their learning processes and thus deliver sustainably educated professionals. Secondly, the university is a research institution, and from this perspective it delivers the results of fundamental or applied scientific research to society. Thirdly, a university is an organization, which has all kinds of operational interactions with the outside world as any other organization, e.g., the procurement; the employment of staff members; the use of materials, energy, and water; the transport of people and goods; and the production of waste and air pollution. Fourth role is its direct interaction with the society, for instance, participation in the implementation of joint local Agenda 21 projects and cultural events together with local community (Nesbit et al. 2013; Thomson 2013; Velazquez et al. 2011; Staniškis 2016). Several tools have been developed to assess universities’ sustainability so far, for instance, the Auditing Instrument for Sustainable Higher Education (AISHE) (Roorda 2010), the Graphical Assessment for Sustainability in Universities (GASU) tool (Lozano 2006), the Environmental Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire, and the EMS Self-Assessment (Shriberg 2000). Many of these tools are focused on improving the sustainability of campus operations. The STAUNCH system (Lozano and Young 2013) is aimed at helping universities to assess the depth and breadth of their SD-related curricula in a holistic and systematic way and to produce standardized Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development and comparable results. A challenge that remains is how to assess the contribution and impact that curricula and university life may have on student’s personal life during their studies and for their professional life in helping to make societies more sustainable. Since the students’ ability to cope with uncertainty varies both within and across courses and classes, there is no single solution for how to guide the students through the phases of sometimes very deep uncertainty and doubt without delimiting their imagination, creativity, and innovation (Wangel et al. 2013). To tackle the problem of evaluation and identification of the cognitive contents associated with the concept of sustainable development, a method of analysis based on a cognitive map is proposed (Lourdel et al. 2005; Segalas et al. 2008). Cognitive maps can be a useful tool to represent changes in the knowledge structure of students over time. Human development needs to be critically evaluated, and the need for an alternative mission and so-called social contract between academic science and society is urgently needed. “In contrast to the narrow economic scope of the third mission, for a variety of reasons, the function of co-creation for sustainability is far better equipped to bring about the sustainable transformation of a specific geographical area or societal sub-system. . . The function of co-creation for sustainability aims to address localized sustainability issues by creating socio-technical and environmental transformations with the goal of materializing sustainable development in given geographical vicinity” (Trencher et al. 2013). Systematic comparison of the functions of technology transfer and co-creation for sustainability reveals clear differences which are so great that it is impossible to consider the role of co-creation for sustainability to be just as a mere offshoot or different enactments of the third mission. Besides the fact that third mission is formulated entirely in economic terms, a clash of interest could also be expected in costeffectiveness, commercialization of results, and short- to midterm economic gains. Nevertheless, these two approaches could be considered as two distinctly differing but compatible missions. 949 Below is shortly presented 2 out of 39 cases in order to show how a university may exploit the co-creation approach to bring about the sustainable transformation of a particular geographical area or societal sub-system. The second aim is to illustrate the larger point that the function of co-creation for sustainability is in fact capable of becoming an institutional priority/mission in a very different context (Trencher et al. 2013). Cases of Innovative Approaches First two cases clearly demonstrate the implication of global emergence of co-creation for sustainability in the mission of university – a subject which until now has been overlooked. The third one is successfully designed MSc and PhD multidisciplinary engineering programs for sustainable industries. 2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel This is the program mainly performed by the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology (ETH), University of Applied Sciences of Basel (FHBB), and novatlantis. This case seeks to foster a city-wide transition to 2000-watt per capita society, with the wider ambition of accelerating a national decarbonization effort. ETH established itself as a frontrunner transformative university where one of the priorities/missions became that of bringing about socio-technical transformations in view of realizing a 2000-watt society. Right from the start of the redevelopment process, particular attention was given to the requirements of a 2000-watt society, and there are plans for a proactive dialogue with both current and future users. It focuses on five themes designed to promote practical and reproducible steps toward a more sustainable future: – Energy: Integrated energy services with progressive contractor models; maximizing the percentage of renewable energy sources and minimizing energy losses; attractive energy agreements between landlords and tenants – Material flows: Maximum and sustained reductions in the use of resources; reuse of existing building fabric; integration of sustainable recycling systems I 950 Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development – Building ecology: Consistent use of environmentally sustainable building materials; healthy and motivating indoor environment; mutually beneficial materials’ agreements between landlords and tenants – Mobility: Targeted, attractive, and reproducible transport culture; integrated public transport provision and mobility for cyclists and pedestrians; increased safety for nonmotorized transport users – Quality of life: Individual and transparent added-value by means of associated socioeconomic and socio-environmental projects with performance indicators to measure the transformation (www.novatlantis.ch; Trencher et al. 2013). The Oberlin Project The project is an alliance between the Oberlin College and the city of Oberlin. Described as a “full spectrum sustainability” experiment, the project functions as a decentralized system of individual sustainability initiatives, where each of them contributes to the prosperity, resilience, and sustainability of the larger community. There is clear potential for the frontrunner institution of Oberlin College to leapfrog the widely promoted model of entrepreneurial university and become a prototype of a transformative institution – one dedicated to co-creating societal transformations with a view to materializing sustainable development (Orr 2011). The main goals of the project: • Shift the city and college to renewable energy sources, radically improve efficiency, sharply reduce our carbon emissions, and improve our economy in the process. City residents and businesses presently spend ~$15 million each year on electricity and natural gas – twice as much as we would need to spend if we were as efficient as is now economically advantageous and technologically feasible. We propose to reduce energy use by improving efficiency (saving millions of dollars), building a local renewable-energy economy that creates jobs and ownership, and growing the local economy while buffering Oberlin from rising energy prices and sudden cost increases. • Establish a robust local food economy to meet a growing percentage of our consumption while supporting local farmers. Presently, only a minuscule fraction of what we eat is grown in Northeast Ohio. As with local energy consumption, money unnecessarily flows out of the community. We propose to expand the market for locally grown foods and improve the local farm economy and create new employment opportunities in farming (including summer jobs for teens) and food processing, while improving the taste and nutritional quality of food we eat. • Create an educational alliance between the college, the Oberlin schools, a nearby vocational school, and Lorain County Community College focused on education appropriate to the challenges and opportunities of sustainability. The transition to sustainability and a more resilient economy poses large challenges to educators at all levels. What does the rising generation need to know to live well and purposefully in the decades ahead? How do we teach them to think in systems? • Broaden and deepen the conversation on sustainability to include all of the humanities, the arts, the sciences, and the social sciences. • Collaborate with other projects and communities across the United States that are also developing sustainably by integrating food, agriculture, energy, sustainable economic development, education, public policy, community engagement, health, and transportation (Orr 2014). MSc and PhD Programs of Engineering for Sustainable Industries The focus of environmental work in recent decades has shifted from dealing entirely with emissions and wastes of industrial production to including the total environmental responsibility and performance into all types of enterprises, where environmental properties of processes and products become more and more important. Environmental issues today affect all types of industrial enterprises. An increasing number of corporations have also come to the conclusion that any sustainable development of a company Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development needs investments in its environmental activities and profile. Thus, in the framework of the BALTECH consortium, technical universities of the Baltic Sea region, on an initiative of the Kaunas University of Technology (KTU) Institute of Environmental Engineering, decided to develop and implement a new MSc program in environmental management and cleaner production, based on an integrated approach of industrial ecology toward current and long-term/strategic environmental issues, focusing on technologies and concepts in environmental planning and management for a sustainable industrial development. This is a 2-year (120 ETCS credits) program suitable for graduates with qualifications in many engineering fields such as chemical engineering, energy and electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, environmental engineering, and the others. The program started at APINI in September 2002 (Staniškis and Katiliūt_e 2016). The first PhD program in Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management at APINI started in 1994. The main research and education topics of the program initially were related to environmental technologies. Fast development of preventive concepts and the idea of sustainability gradually led to change of priorities, contents, and structure of the PhD education. Therefore, a new interdisciplinary PhD program in Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management was launched in 2012. The program is designed to educate researchers and university teachers in engineering, social, economic, and natural science disciplines that underpin sustainable development. The research results presented in the program’s doctoral dissertations are based on integrative, interdisciplinary research that is needed to explore science and policy issues in the area of sustainable development. Integrated assessment methods and concepts (e.g., transitions, modelling, scenarios, and analysis) are instrumental to provide answers to the central questions of sustainable development. Taking into account that a number of companies applying different preventive environmental measures are growing, there is an increasing demand for engineers with high competence in 951 technologies for cleaner production and integrated environmental management. The presented PhD and MSc programs make it possible to satisfy this demand. Both programs are structured according to the following main guiding principles: – Interdisciplinary approach. The environmental field is in its nature multidisciplinary, which is mirrored in the course structure of the programs, because engineers need to know how to work along with economists, biologists, ecologists, and many other professionals in order to avoid the negative externalities and/or side effects generated by their economic activities. More sustainable industrial engineering requires the professional formation of industrial engineers who should have the competence to develop and implement the strategies of incorporating economic, environmental, and social dimensions into the practice of their profession. The compulsory part of the programs includes the areas such as environmental technologies, management, policy, law, and economics and environmental strategies such as cleaner production and eco-design. The optional part widens interdisciplinarity of the programs with the topics such as sustainable development, systems analysis, monitoring, and modelling as well as advanced courses in various technical areas. To summarize, the programs have a strong emphasis on engineering, management, and policy to make sure that graduates have a broad understanding and capability to work with complex issues of sustainable industrial development. – Strong research connection. Most of the optional courses are treating advanced topics with close research connections. The subject matter and the topics of course assignments and projects are closely linked to the research of the APINI. This ensures R&D cooperation with industry, in the framework of projects driven by the need to generate solutions to current environmental or environmental management problems, in particular industrial companies. The connection with research is particularly ensured in thesis supervised by active researchers. I 952 Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development – Practical education. Institute of Environmental Engineering has very strong links to industry and governmental institutions. APINI has implemented a number of training programs for industrial enterprises and assisted more than 150 companies in development and implementation of cleaner production innovations. MSc students of the program in environmental management and cleaner production and PhD candidates have an opportunity to participate in the projects aimed at improvement of environmental performance in industry and to acquire valuable practical experience. – Integrated program. The aim is to provide students with a solid theoretical knowledge and hands-on experience in the real world. Comparison of the perspectives provided by the multidisciplinary research and systems theory with some of the perspectives of environmental education shows a number of interesting similarities. The programs are based on a balanced and integrated theoretical/practical education. MSc students use theoretical knowledge in their practical assignments accomplished in industrial companies that result in practically applicable sustainability performance improvement projects. By integrating the systems theory (research) with environmental education and other programs, students can learn more about the relationships between natural resources, environmental sustainability, and human well-being. This knowledge accompanied by appropriate action is prerequisite in maintaining not only our natural resources but also our way of life. Thus, research and environmental education require closer cooperation and more involvement in expanding their combined effect. This will help industrialists, on one hand, and educators, on the other, to do more than ever to help people to understand and to act on environmental concerns. Conclusions With a new mission, managerialism entered the university with performance management as its integral part. Traditionally, performance management in universities has had a development role – helping individuals to improve their (future) performance. However, the new system is more judgmental – i.e., seeking to qualitatively evaluate (past) performance. There is a danger that the new system could inhibit creativity and anxiety about how the systems are used (Bogt and Scapens 2016). The traditional model of the university based on the preeminence of the single-discipline department should be stretched and challenged, because there is clear evidence that departmentbased structure is essentially at odds with transdisciplinary collaboration and thus learning a sustainable development. The university of the future should include a broad range of the community, actively engaged in issues that concern them, relatively open to commercial influence, and fundamentally transdisciplinary in its approach to both teaching and research (Editorial 2007). Today higher education is a short-term business system of delivering student examinations for a not well-defined global market. The co-creation for sustainability programs as usual is started with great enthusiasm by a group of dedicated teacher. But gradually funding squeeze, continuous internal reorganizations, and external political decision-making have led to the dismantling of the faculty organization, which more or less have “killed” an organized teacher influence. In the meantime, from the material gathered for that and our experience, there are windows of opportunity in the existing institutional and cognitive settings. The success of these processes, however, is still to be seen, and a strategy remains to be conceived for scaling up the possible successes to other engineering programs (Valderrama et al. 2013; Staniškis and Katiliūt_e 2016). Achieving sustainable outcomes will require engineers who can engage with diverse stakeholders, employ new tools for decision support, conduct adaptive management, and find creative solutions by integrating natural, human, and manufactured systems in novel ways. There is demand now for the services of engineers who are skilled in integrating natural, human, and manufactured systems to achieve sustainable consumption and production. That demand is likely to Innovative Approaches to Learning Sustainable Development grow. Thus, there is likely to be a useful role for a 2-year, full-time, master’s degree program that nurtures systems-integration skills at a high level. Such a program would draw upon existing curricula in sustainable engineering but would probably have to break some new ground in curriculum design. As usual, many of the original courses have survived in the new programs, and others have disappeared. But with the existing recruitment situation, many courses have too few students to be economically viable. However, many of the teacher staff has started to challenge the non-inclusive and more and more bureaucratic school system that hinders the development of high-quality master programs. The question that therefore emerges is: “How can government policy and incentive systems such as funding mechanisms acknowledge this and encourage university actors to pursue a much broader development agenda founded upon placebased sustainability needs?” (Trencher et al. 2013). Empowering educators must be central to any professional development initiative. Educators are important agents for change within education systems. Effective educational transformation is dependent upon educators being motivated to going about change, as well as being capable of and supported in doing so (Economic Commission for Europe 2013). To achieve similar learning outcomes, the method of future studies as a tool for ESD with some examples was proposed by Wangel et al. (2013). It was shown that future study methods work well in a problem-based learning setting in which students are to define and elaborate both problems and solutions. However, there is a need to somehow assess to what extent students’ perception on sustainable development has changed as a result of these methods. Universities are beginning to recognize their unique roles as leaders in the society by demonstrating sustainability on their campus operations and, more importantly, educating the next generation on advancing sustainability in practice. In response to this recognition, a number of university sustainability assessment methods have been developed. Assessing the sustainability of higher education institution is a complex problem; hence, 953 the relative importance of the multi-aspects should be taken into consideration when assessing the overall performance. A similar alternative university sustainability assessment framework and the associated rating system were presented which are based on three levels: (i) formal statement, (ii) governance, and (iii) strategies for fostering sustainability, including education, research, outreach and partnership, and campus sustainability. The study at Chalmers, based on courses’ analyses and questionnaire to students and alumni, has revealed that the courses should have an emphasis on environmental issues, but to meet alumni and industry needs, the courses also must have a reasonable emphasis on economic issues, sustainable business management, social issues, and green technologies (Hanning et al. 2012). Research in Australia showed that while many universities publicly endorsed goals and values related to sustainability, the commitment was not reflected in the vision, mission, and graduate attributes of business faculties/schools within the same institution. In fact, when commitment to higher education for sustainable development is not endorsed as a publicly espoused value at multiple levels of a university, the organization’s commitment to ensuring sustainable development is enacted as strategic and operational levels of the organization may be questioned (Lee et al. 2013). Acknowledgments This research was co-financed by a grant (No. S-MIP-17–122) from the Research Council of Lithuania. References Bogt HJ, Scapens RW (2016) Performance measurement in universities. Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. Eur Account Rev 21(3):451–497 Boman J, Andersson U (2013) Eco-labelling of courses and programs at University of Gothenburg. J Clean Prod 48:48–53 Economic Commission for Europe (2013) Empowering Education for a Sustainable Future. Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development. Geneva, p 44 Editorial (2007) The University of the Future. Nature 446,949 https://doi.org/10.1038/446949a Hanning A, Abelson AP, Lundqvist U, Svanstrom M (2012) Are we educating engineers for sustainability? Comparison between obtained competences and I 954 Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development Swedish industry’s needs. Int J Sustain High Educ 13(3):305–320 Lee K-H, Barker M, Mouasher A (2013) Is it even espoused? An explanatory study of commitment to sustainability as evidenced in vision mission, and graduate attribute statements in Australian universities. J Clean Prod 48:20–28 Lourdel N, Gondran N, Laforest V, Brodhag C (2005) Introduction of sustainable development in engineers curricula. Problematic and evaluation methods. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(3):254–264 Lozano R (2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J Clean Prod 14(9):787–796 Lozano R, Young W (2013) Assessing sustainability in university curricula: exploring the influence of student numbers and course credits. J Clean Prod 49:134–141 Nesbit ES, Cruickshank HJ, Nesbit CJ (2013) Educational principles for engineering education for sustainable development: experiences from U.K. and Canada. In: Proceedings of engineering education for sustainable development EESD13, Cambridge, 22–25 Sept 2013, Paper 69 Orr DW (2011) Oberlin project. Oberlin Alumni Magazin. Orr D (2014) The Oberlin project. Solut J Earth Inc 5(1):7–12 Reardon J, Madi MA, Cato MS (2018) Introducing a New Economics: Pluralist, Sustainable & Progressive. Pluto press, p. 364 Roorda N (2010) Sailing on the winds of change. The odyssey to sustainability by the universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. Ph.D. thesis, Maastricht University Segalas J, Ferrer-Balas D, Mulder KF (2008) Conceptual maps: measuring learning process of engineering students concerning sustainable development. Eur J Eng Educ 33(3):297–306 Shriberg M (2000) Sustainability management in campus housing – a case study at the University of Michigan. Int J Sustain High Educ 1(2):137–153 Staniškis JK (2016) Sustainable university: beyond the third mission. Environ Res Eng Manag 2(72):8–20 Staniškis JK, Katiliūt_e E (2016) Complex evaluation of sustainability in higher education: case & analysis. J Clean Prod Elsevier 120:13–20 Thomson G (2013) System integration for sustainable outcomes a proposed curriculum. In: Proceedings of engineering education for sustainable development EESD13, pp 650–660 Trencher G, Yarime M, McCormick KB, Doll C N, Kraines SB (2013) Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci Public Policy 41(2):151–179 Valderrama A, Jorgensen U, Mathiesen BV, Remmen A (2013) A how is sustainability incorporated into the engineering curriculum? The case of DTU and AAU. In: Proceedings of engineering education for sustainable development EESD13, pp 291–302 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Esquer J (2011) Engineers for more sustainable industrial engineering. In: Filho WL (ed) World trends in education for sustainable development. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 173–184 Wangel J, Hojer M, Pargman D, Svane O (2013) Engineers of the future: using scenarios methods in sustainable development education. In: Proceedings of education for sustainable development EESD13, Cambridge, 22–25 Sept 2013, Paper 107, 704–713 Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development Alastair M. Smith Global Sustainable Development, School of Cross-Faculty Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Definition The formal teaching of sustainable development is arguably innovative within itself. However, innovation in the teaching of sustainable development can be interpreted to imply nonmainstream, though not necessarily new, teaching practices, embedded in pedagogies identified as promoting more effective learning experiences. Introduction Education for sustainable development (ESD) is a fundamentally innovative educational field. As in many other areas, it naturally draws on longstanding progressive educational traditions and mirrors innovative education elsewhere. However, it now displays widely agreed characteristics that go beyond subject content to incorporate new agglomerations of education philosophy and praxis; ESD therefore exemplifies many individual pedagogical practices that while not strictly “new,” justify classification as innovative in that they remain marginal in formal university education. Identifying innovations in the field of ESD can be challenging, as relevant work is often not explicitly discussed using common signifiers or reported in connection to the ESD literature. Furthermore, it remains the case that while there is an Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development abundance of information available about the objectives and outcomes of ESD, the sharing of specific teaching methods is still lacking. Therefore, while some of the sources drawn on below come explicitly from the ESD, many find inclusion through more implicit association. To present this discussion of innovative teaching methods, the entry first summarizes the scope of ESD and draws out common “planes of innovation,” before turning attention to a synthesis of specific pedagogies within which innovative methods can be identified. It is hoped that the discussion presents a balance of theoretical and practical information, which can be followed up through associated citations by those seeking to invest more in innovative practices. ESD and Broad Themes of Innovative While a full discussion of the “Scope of Sustainable Development” is found elsewhere, it is importantly useful to provide a summary of this as background to discuss innovations. Broadly speaking ESD is: • Normatively motivated and focused on providing education that promotes the sustainable development agenda • Inherently applied, in creating knowledge for progressive social action and the management of issues and problems identified as part of less sustainable development trajectories • Transdisciplinary in nature, requiring learners to traverse boundaries between traditional disciplines 955 • Explicitly intended to promote not just learning of substantive knowledge but also affective transformation, as student develops process and transferable skills, as well as normatively reflective practices • Self-sustaining, as it promotes the creation of lifelong learners In order to provide this broad-based education, ESD regularly aligns with a wide range of longstanding pedagogies often interpreted as progressive, within which innovative practices are embedded; “innovative” in the sense that they have not been widely adopted in educational process (Armstrong 2011). Many of the pedagogies associated with ESD overlap considerably, and very often different terms are used to represent virtually the same educational practices. In many other cases, there is sufficient difference to consider them separately. Before moving on to discuss some of these in more detail, it is firstly useful to recognize that despite their differences, innovations with ESD teaching might be interpreted through several broad planes for innovation (Table 1). Arguably, the most foundational plane of ESD innovation aims to move beyond didactic methods – which focus on communicating knowledge, leaving the responsibility for its assimilation largely to learners – through explicitly transactional and participatory teaching methods, strongly associated with constructivist epistemologies. Such praxis has a long history and can be traced to Dewey’s (1916, pp. 179–180) insistence that students are required to think: a position that has long inspired a wide range Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development, Table 1 Planes of innovation Pedagogical characteristics Transactional level Authenticity Problem orientation Knowledge management Community composition Location in space/ place Traditional/less innovative Information transfer Abstract None or highly structured Student knowledge learning/individual knowledge creation Students and teachers Institutional classroom Radical/more innovative Highly interactive Applied to real world Highly unstructured Communal knowledge creation Learners, facilitators, and real-world stakeholders Real-world setting I 956 Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development of educational practices at all levels (Boyles 2018). Indeed, Armstrong (2011) explicitly argues that ESD updates the progressive education agenda of the 1930s, which was underpinned by dialectical constructivism – where knowledge is understood as constructed through continual interaction between the individual and the environment – and therefore being characterized by active learning and social interaction. Here, innovations can be created in traditional spaces and communities of formal university learning, for example, employing methods that require reflection (Schlottmann 2008), multigenerational analysis (Haigh 2008), democratic dialogue (Landorf et al. 2008), stakeholder analysis (Collins and Kearins 2007), and modeling thought processes, offering multiple perspectives on topics, scenario building, and backcasting – which plans needed action based on a desired endpoint rather than the current situation and (Dale and Newman 2005). However, innovation can be deepened along three other important planes of teaching methods. ESD methods can also innovate along the plane of authenticity. Here, pedagogies abandon subject learning in abstract or entirely hypothetical terms and focus on promoting applicable learning for life and not just for school. This can be achieved in terms of subject knowledge but also process skills, by exposing learners to social dynamics closer to more varied configurations found elsewhere in human lived experience (the so-called real world). Indeed, the widespread recognition that SD is an applied area of knowledge, gives rise to the expectation that ESD should mirror this. In creating subject and process authenticity, innovations move beyond the structured problems of traditional approaches, where students work toward a known answer, and create learning through work on unstructured problems, which have no predefined answer or solution. This means that instead of primarily focusing on the assimilation of existing knowledge, learners are actively involved in answering questions that do not have answers. Here, innovations require not only research-led learning, that from existing knowledge, but research orientedlearning, in which they are actively involved in primary data generation and analysis. To a great extent, innovative teaching can create applied problem-oriented methods within the university, for example, learning through realworld case studies (Molderez and Fonseca 2018). However, these aspirations can also push to embed learners in knowledge communities that reach beyond academics and include actors from outside of education, thus creating a networked or engaged approach. An often-related plane of innovation is through spatial diversify, where education is planned for spaces and places away from those dedicated to the task. Here, ESD innovations might seek to create contact with “natural world,” be this that characterized with low levels of human impact, such as the countryside or desert, or, conversely, highly anthropogenic environments, such as urban, yet “real-world” living. Innovative Pedagogies As mentioned above, ESD is often associated with specific pedagogies that embed the above identified planes of innovation and offers a useful focus for their discussion. Research-Based/Inquiry-Oriented Learning Many teaching methods depart from knowledge transfer by involving student research and inquiry. One long-standing example might be inquirybased learning, which, narrowly defined, can be understood as a student-centered, active learning approach focused on questioning, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Such pedagogies investigate questions through which learners develop their individual understandings via research, experimentation, and reflection. This method is often used in technological and science education, perhaps through active experimentation. However, in this case, the inquiry is ultimately a structured problem, where student “findings” are known to the teacher. To move beyond this, innovations create research-based learning. Here, students no longer research to find answers from existing knowledge but instead learn through primary knowledge creation. This might be by the participation of students in staff research projects, or directed Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development and supervised, independent projects, similar to traditional dissertations. A more practical process has been created by the Technical University of Braunschweig, in which students undertake live research in a simulated factory environment (Blume et al. 2015). Successes are likely to emerge where research is explicitly supported by methodological training, and research competencies have significant overlap with the ESD agenda. While research can of course be applied, perhaps intended to solve certain problems (see Project-Based Learning), it can also be more academically focused. It might take the form of action research in which students are seeking to create knowledge from their own experiences in the area of sustainability, and such practices are strongly related to experiential learning. Problem-Focused Academics: Project-Based and Problem-Based/Problem-Focused Learning Pedagogies that fundamentally address problems are contrasted with education that focuses on learning subject content. Subject learning usually involves the presentation of information to learners by a teacher, which they must then learned themselves. This might be followed by the application of this new knowledge to “problems,” perhaps answering/solving a set of problem questions. However, these activities tend to present learners with “structured” rather than “unstructured problems,” meaning that they can be solved with the specific knowledge available, rather than being problems with no predefined solution or even expected methodological approach. By contrast, problem-focused pedagogies use problems as the starting point to structure the educational process. These approaches also draw an important distinction between genuine or authentic and simulated or mock problems. Indeed, another important difference, as argued by Paula Freire, is that problem-focused learning can be extended beyond activities designed to solve problems, instead requiring learners to identify, construct, and propose them in the first instance (Beckett 2013). Problem-focused pedagogical praxis is of course far from new and can be traced to origins 957 in the work of Dewey (1916, p. 192) and emerging practices in the first quarter of the twentieth century, for example, in General Science and Medicine. However, there are clear synergies with the sustainable development agenda, which presents a range of already conceived yet unstructured problems, as well as the potential for new problem creation. Such a board approach can be operationalized in many ways, but two subtle different options are sometimes identified: project-based and problem- based learning. Although these signifiers are sometimes used synonymously, differences in innovation opportunities are worth sketching. Project-based learning is usually associated with the creation of a final physical or intellectual “product,” where learning often follows a defined process of project management (Brassler and Dettmers 2017). In this sense, there is crossover with critical pedagogies that reflect on the embedded network of relationships in problemsolving processes and look to transform these. Outcomes from projects might be entirely defined by the instructor, though also potentially in collaboration with real-world stakeholders, such as through the Ecollaborative at the University of Cincinnati where students design or redesign products and create a complementary business model for a real-world corporate client, specifically embedding sustainability characteristics (Welsh and Murray 2003). Another notable example is Oberlin College’s work, structuring students learning while positioning them as agents of change in promoting town-wide climate neutrality and sustainability (Rosenberg Daneri et al. 2015). By contrast, problem-based learning is often interpreted as a more specific pedagogy, where learners explore topics in shorter units, which will include the requirement to clarify concepts and formulate a problem statement (Herrington and Herrington 2006). Such sessions usually follow ill-structured problems and are designed for learners to maximize their autonomy. The focus here is largely on the process skills of problem analyses, through which substantive subject knowledge is also developed. However, there are hybrid innovations in which problems might be I 958 Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development defined by students, but there is still a final product in the form of policy recommendations or a real-world solution (Yasin and Rahman 2011). Experiential Education and Learning The Association for Experiential Education supports many methodologies that purposefully engage learners in direct experience and focused reflection, to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop capacity for community contributes. Here, “experience” involves combined sensory cognition but also senses, emotions, and physical conditions, to offer holistic stimulation for learning. This is desirable, as research finds that real-life experiences elicit strong emotions that are critical in sustaining personal changes, hereby indirectly linking realworld experiences with the interpersonal competence, and better supporting affective learning objectives (Ball 1999). Experiential learning requires, but is not limited to, practices of “learning by doing,” as pedagogies must include activities that actively promote learner reflection, rather than rely on autonomous motivation and efficacy to do so. Perhaps one of the most influential interpretations of such a process was codified by David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle: establishing the importance of learners moving from Experience > Reflection > Conceptualization > Active Experimentation and around again. In some senses, experiential learning can offer easy access innovation. Traditional seminars or workshops are of course direct multisensory experiences, and educators can create activities that promote reflection, as well as mirror wider lived realities through scenario building and role play discussion, etc. Another example is the inclusion of weekly written reflective accounts required based on the experience of postgraduate students taking socio-ecological economics via new flipped-classroom pedagogy (Foster and Stagl 2018). Other programs require reflective diaries throughout, both as a teaching method and also as a form of summative assessment (Blewitt 2011). ESD can also draw from pedagogical traditions in the arts – such as drama, dance, visual studies, music, and film – to offer more immersive learning experiences. One option is to use films about sustainability, perhaps as a way to access less proximate narratives and promote reflection on values, such as “ethical” behaviors (Giacalone and Jurkiewics 2001). Innate potential for experiential learning can be heighted by screening sustainability films in more immersive environments such as lecture theatres and cinemas. Thoughtprovoking films – such as “The Forgotten Space,” about the role of container ships in globalization – can be embedded with active thinking tasks, such as prompt questions, and reflective discussions (Schramm and Anderluh 2016). This idea can be extended through affective, multisensory, and immersive storytelling, which might unfold narratives of food histories and associated sustainability issues, using kinesthetic, taste, touch, smell, and oral components (Bendor et al. 2017). Storytelling can also be used by requiring student research and production, perhaps as part of group storytelling exercises. Elsewhere, experiential ESD learning has innovated through “real-world” activities or more practical doing. For example, students are invited to audit their own environmental impacts and reflect on this. A slightly different approach sees learners actively amend one selected environmental behavior, such as energy use, over a semester, while being required to reflect on and write about the enablers, obstacles, and personal feelings during the process. A further extension is to practical project work on campus or wider afield (see “Service Learning”), perhaps addressing energy, resource management, or food systems (Brylinsky and Allen-Gil 2009). Here, the process of learning by doing in scoping, planning, and implementing a project, as embedded in active reflection, can promote subject and professional skills, as well as affective learning (Brylinsky and Allen-Gil 2009). In another example, the construction of an urban campus garden offered learning opportunities through its creation as well as subsequent use, and such a resource might then facilitate multisensory learning opportunities for subjects such as bioecology (Jagger et al. 2016). Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development Another form of experiential learning is discovery learning, in which students are “immersed in a rich context where they encounter some element of mystery, the learners become curious and begin to make sense of their encounter through exploration and meaning-making” (UNESCO 2012, p. 27). While this pedagogy is strongly associated with younger learners, for example, using puppetry to engage the public in science education, it has also been deployed to foster sustainability awareness in graduate engineers (Ramanujan et al. 2014). Problem-Focused Experiences: Gamification and Serious Play Another set of active learning innovations see problems embedded in game scenarios, designed to promote the learning of skills and knowledge. These might require physical participation or be created using information technology, using digital platforms and even virtual worlds. Escape room learning or locked in learning provides a physical manifestation of game-based learning (GBL). Inspired by online puzzle games, these lived learning experiences are based on escape activities designed for entertainment but also embedded with many of the characteristics of simulated experiential learning (Were 2017). At the broadest level, escape scenarios require participants to solve a series of problems within a given time, to reach a tangible goal: which might be opening a box to reveal a prize or being freed from a room. Escape games are structured problems, so do not offer the unstructured challenges desirable within ESD. However, they do require team communication and the construction of analysis through dialogue. Although the ultimate problem is designed, contextually constructed games can also require problem identification and framing skills. Such pedagogies have been deployed to teach research and library inductions (Hsu et al. 2009) and have been adapted to teaching physics or enthusing students about mathematics (Glavas and Stascik 2017) and teaching history and social science analysis skills (Were 2017). Treasure hunt learning is another possible experiential pedagogy that lends itself to ESD. 959 This can be used to create placed-based learning experiences, concerning the history of an area such as King’s Cross in London (Battista et al. 2005). Fawcett and Bell’s (2002) Hegemony Treasure Hunt allow students to apply theoretical understanding to their own lived experience, by searching for embodiments of ecological hegemonic around university campus or wider afield. The application of mobile technology allows for augmented reality treasure hunts. These might leverage student literacy and fascination with SMART phone technology to develop both knowledge and normative appreciation of the natural environment, such as that concerning the importance of plants to ecological process as part of a field visit to a Botanic Garden (Kissi and Dreesmann 2017). Increasingly, virtual reality (VR) technology allows experiential learning opportunities that are difficult or impossible in the real world. This can range from the use of virtual laboratories, for example, focused on the physics of circuit boards (Meyers and Bittner 2012), to environments that allow interaction with significant capital technology, such as energy generation and the wider design and construction of sustainable buildings (Sewilam et al. 2017). VR field trips can also be created, and there are an increasing number of innovations that use technologies such as Google Glasses to provide immersive experiences connected to ESD and even create live, field-based and distance learning experiences. Such VR environments might be relatively small but can also extend to simulations in which complex systems and scenario thinking can be played out, such as for sustainable water and flood management (Sewilam et al. 2017) and thinking through the issues associated with climate change (Lee et al. 2013). Service Learning With roots in the educational revolution of the early twentieth century, service learning is an experiential pedagogy designed to facilitate student learning – of subject knowledge, personal skills and promote affective development – in the process of producing outcomes explicitly designed to directly benefit wider stakeholders (Molderez and Fonseca 2018). Learning I 960 Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development opportunities therefore engage outside of formal educational institutions, into local or more distant and scattered communities (Gibson et al. 2011), and even as a field based, study abroad experience (Syring 2014). Students who participate in service learning are argued to develop more sophisticated metacognitive abilities, better strategic planning and task-analysis skills, better ability to discriminate useful from insignificant information, and better understanding of client needs and constraints. Indeed, Kendall (1990) links service learning with the systems-thinking competence by stating that students learn to understand problems in a more complex and interconnected way. Other work concludes that service learning promotes energy, enthusiasm, a sense of adventure about the world, and a wish to make a difference amongst students participating (Bamber and Hankin 2011). Therefore, service learning might be linked to discovery learning. Likely undertaken in groups, the pedagogy is argued to promote team working and leadership skills. Moreover, given that working relationships might be created with outside stakeholders, it has the potential to promote understanding of cultural differences. The defined objective of providing outcomes of value to wider stakeholders might also have affective impacts on students’ ethics and civic responsibility. Service learning might be embedded as part of campus operations, where learning produces outcomes for other stakeholders beyond the teaching departments. More complex projects connect to wider communities. The Brookstreet Project (BSP), part of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) module at KULeuven, is a place-based learning experience in which students work in groups to research, create, and present a sustainable development physical planning project. Designs must facilitate connections between diverse stakeholders, including the numerous student residents and promote a better quality of life (Molderez and Fonseca 2018). In this case, the ultimate product is a poster, preliminary model or sketch or a digital file, to be exhibited in the Brookstreet area. In other cases, however, student work feeds into concrete interventions. In India, rural higher education institutes (RHEIs) in the state of Gujarat have implemented the Samvardhan program (which means “to nurture” in Gujarati), in which student learning is embedded within the development of university extension services (Kiran 2010). In the USA, where traditions of service learning are arguably the most widely developed, there are many stand out examples, including work at the Netter Centre for Global Society, where the Angaston Urban Nutrition Initiative promoted undergraduate learning through active research around the illstructured problem food poverty and malnutrition (Harkavy et al. 2017). Work-Based Learning This is defined as learning derived from doing a job or taking on a workplace role. Work placements provide students with the opportunity to experience real-world sustainability work first hand and ideally be meaningfully involved. This provides hands-on experience to learn professional practices and link knowledge from formal learning to genuine action for SD. The focus of activity might be about bringing knowledge management and research skills to a real-world organization (Rosenberg Daneri et al. 2015). However, internships or work placements can have a more practical focus, perhaps as embedded with reflective exercises to promote experiential learning. In some cases, workplace innovation can be created by reworking traditional dissertation projects, to allow knowledge inputs to be generated through work placements rather than academic research (Shah and Treby 2006). Work experiences might be found within the university itself, for example, where students undertake internships focused on sustainable development/sustainability, such as energy management (Barnes and Jerman 2002). These might be alongside their classes or as an opportunity during nonteaching time. In other cases, students leave the campus for a given period to work full time with private companies, third sector organizations, or even government departments (Rosenberg Daneri et al. 2015). In some disciplines, work placements are a common characteristic that might be reoriented to focus specifically on SD issues, such as the regeneration of Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development brownfield sites within civil engineering (Vojvodikova et al. 2016) or Costal Management (Ballinger and Lalwani 2000). Living Labs A living lab is often defined and used as a research and innovation tool to address a define problem. They offer a user-centered, open innovation ecosystem, often operating in a territorial or regional context (such as a city of city-region), integrating concurrent research and innovation processes within a citizen-public-private partnership (BergvallKareborn and Stahlbrost 2009). It is the participatory nature of the approach that links it to the sustainability and sustainable development agenda. The emphasis is on innovation, and products can include a physical object (e.g., a solar panel), a service (e.g., waste recycling services), a technology (e.g., decentralized sanitation), an application (e.g., electric cars as energy storing systems at home), a process (e.g., a participative neighborhood development method), or a system (e.g., a new logistic waste collection system) (Steen and Bueren 2017). However, living labs are also used as pedagogical processes, through research-based or inquiryoriented learning. Very similar to project-based learning, students respond to a specific task, creating and trialing innovation for problem-solving, although specifically in a co-creative process with wider stakeholders. For example, this approach has been used in architecture, focused on renewable energies and nearly zero energy buildings and green energy infrastructure (Dabaieh et al. 2018). It is argued that such an approach builds knowledge, skills, and motivation to promote sustainable living. Field-Based Learning Field-based modules have long been included to promote learning of sustainability topics in disciplines such as Physical/Human Geography and Ecology. Teaching in this context can be particularly relevant to the ESD agenda as there are possibilities to promote affective learning such as ecological appreciation. However, where fieldtrips rely on traditional pedagogies of information transfer they can be rather passive experiences, with only minimal advantages (Mintz and Tal 2013). Instead, innovations can improve 961 outcomes through active field exercises (Herrick 2010), for example, by employing experiential learning opportunities where the field experience is linked to reflection activities, conceptualization, and active experimentation. Field-based learning can be used for researchbased/inquiry-oriented learning for ontologically objective topics, as well as ontologically subjective understanding, for example, the teaching of Malawian deforestation was embedded in critical reflection on the respective roles of indigenous and western scientific epistemologies (Glasson et al. 2006). Other proposed innovations are to incorporate students into the design and implementation of field experiences, which might move pedagogies beyond learning around structured problems, to offer the opportunity for learners to engage in unstructured problems and problem identification. Beyond this, extended field-based experiences can be created through residential field-based learning (RFBL) in which learning opportunities are densely connected to field experience, perhaps as part of a study abroad program for a whole semester/term and beyond. These practices are used to teach specific issues, such as about the management of common ecological resources, but also broader programs of ESD. One example is the School for Field Studies, which provides study abroad opportunities for US undergraduates (Farrell and Ollervides 2005). Learning is highly interdisciplinary, with students from a variety of backgrounds taking a combination of natural science and social science-based modules where onsite classroom opportunities are embedded in wider field exercises, for example, students might learn foundations of social and ecological surveying methodologies in order to design their own instruments, before generating and analyzing data. The SFS model comprises 2 months of experiential-based modules before students undertake a directed research project, in which they conceive, design, and execute an individual project within an area of research defined by faculty members. Both the module- and research-based components can be interpreted as offering not just researchled, research-tutored, and research-oriented learning but also research-based opportunities where learners are fundamentally involved in the creation of new knowledge/research. I 962 Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development Future Directions: The Future of Innovation? The chapter struggled with the definition of innovative approaches, as while many progressive teaching methods are far from new (see, e.g., Dewey 1916), they have remained at the margins of higher education. At the base level, this has been because the interests and incentives for higher education staff have poorly supported investment in innovative and quality teaching: largely as research has been much more highly valued and rewarded. Some innovative teaching approaches require higher investment costs, often in staff time for preparation, or fit poorly into the physical or temporal structures of university operation. Some institutions formally stifle individual innovation through standardization of learning and teaching methods but particularly assessment. Moreover, the trends in many countries, particularly those intensifying neoliberal governance structures, are toward larger student cohorts and very often reduced staff-to-student ratios. This context continues to minimize the opportunities for even motivated staff to invest in innovative practices. Positively, there have been trends to promote university teaching quality and drive educational innovation in general. Universities have begun to operationalize long-held views that higher education needs a variety of expertise; the many institutions now place more emphasis on pedagogical knowledge, experience, and innovation. Teaching quality is increasingly evaluated and reviewed, with growing incentives for staff to invest in this area. Unfortunately, progress has been very slow, and many reforms are arguably superficial. For example, teaching-only roles are often part and fixed term as departments and universities fail to invest in staff dedicated to driving teaching quality. While institutions have introduced prizes and awards for teaching quality and innovation, these are arguably a poor substitute for offering full-time, stable positions for those genuinely capable and motivated to further develop the pedagogies discussed above, finally pushing them out of the margins and into the mainstream of education for sustainable development and beyond. Cross-References ▶ Assessment for Learning on Sustainable Development ▶ Engagement with the Community and Sustainable Development ▶ Learning Activities for Environmental Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Research-Based Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Technology-Enhanced Learning and Education for Sustainable Development ▶ Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development References Armstrong CM (2011) Implementing education for sustainable development: the potential use of timehonored pedagogical practice from the progressive era of education. J Sustain Educ 2(2):2011 Ball GDS (1999) Building a sustainable future through transformation. Futures 31(3–4):251–270 Ballinger RC, Lalwani CS (2000) The role of internships in marine policy and integrated coastal management higher education. Ocean Coast Manag 43(4):409–426 Bamber P, Hankin L (2011) Transformative learning through service-learning: no passport required. Educ Train 53(2):190–206 Barnes P, Jerman P (2002) Developing an environmental management system for a multiple-university consortium. J Clean Prod 10(1):33–39 Battista K et al (2005) Exploring ‘an area of outstanding unnatural beauty’: a treasure hunt around King’s Cross, London. Cult Geogr 12(4):429–462 Beckett KS (2013) Paulo Freire and the concept of education. Educ Philos Theory 45(1):49–62 Bendor R et al (2017) The imaginary worlds of sustainability: observations from an interactive art installation. Ecol Soc 22(2):17 Bergvall-Kareborn B, Stahlbrost A (2009) Living lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. Int J Innov Reg Dev 1(4):356–370 Blewitt J (2011) Transdisciplinarity and reflective practice in sustainable development learning. Plan Theory 24(1):37–41 Blume S et al (2015) Die Lernfabrik – research-based learning for sustainable production engineering. Procedia CIRP 32:126–131 Boyles D (2018) From transmission to transaction: John Dewey’s imaginative vision of teaching. Education 3-13 46(4):393–401 Brassler M, Dettmers J (2017) How to enhance interdisciplinary competence—interdisciplinary problem-based Innovative Approaches to Teaching Sustainable Development learning versus interdisciplinary project-based learning. Interdiscip J Problem-Based Learn, Osijek 11(2): 15–30 Brylinsky, S., Allen-Gil, S. 2009. Learning by doing: the university as a curricular tool for sustainability and environmental security. Dordrecht. Springer Netherlands Collins E, Kearins K (2007) Exposing students to the potential and risks of stakeholder engagement when teaching sustainability: a classroom exercise. J Manag Educ 31(4):521–540 Dabaieh M et al (2018) Living labs as a pedagogical teaching tool for green building design and construction in hot arid regions. Archnet-IJAR 12(1):338–355 Dale A, Newman L (2005) Sustainable development, education and literacy. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4): 351–362 Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. The Macmillan Company, New York Farrell TA, Ollervides F (2005) The School for Field Studies Centre for Coastal Studies: a case study of sustainable development education in México. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(2):122–133 Fawcett L, Bell AC (2002) Guiding our environmental praxis teaching; an learning for social and environmental. In: Filho WL (ed) Teaching sustainability at universities: towards curriculum greening. Peter Lang, New York, pp 223–228 Foster G, Stagl S (2018) Design, implementation, and evaluation of an inverted (flipped) classroom model economics for sustainable education course. J Clean Prod 183:1323–1336 Giacalone RA, Jurkiewics CL (2001) Lights, camera, action: teaching ethical decision making through the cinematic experience. Teach Bus Ethics 5:79–87 Gibson M et al (2011) Reflective practice in service learning: possibilities and limitations. Educ Train 53(4): 284–296 Glasson GE et al (2006) Understanding the earth systems of Malawi: ecological sustainability, culture, and placebased education. Sci Educ 90(4):660–680 Glavas A, Stascik A (2017) Enhancing positive attitude towards mathematics through introducing Escape Room games. In: Kolar-Begovic Z et al (eds) Mathematics education as a science and a profession. Faculty of Education and Department of Mathematics, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, pp 281–294 Haigh M (2008) Internationalization, planetary citizenship and Higher Education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 38(4):427–440 Harkavy I et al (2017) Knowledge for social change: Bacon, Dewey, and the revolutionary transformation of research universities in the twenty-first century. Temple University Press, Philadelphia Herrick C (2010) Lost in the field: ensuring student learning in the ‘threatened’ geography fieldtrip. Area 42(1): 108–116 Herrington JA, Herrington AJ (2006) Authentic conditions for authentic assessment: aligning task and assessment. In A. Bunker & I. Vardi (Eds) Proceedings of the 2006 963 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc (HERDSA): Critical Visions: Thinking, Learning and Researching in Higher Education: Research and Development in Higher Education (29):141–151 Hsu S-H et al (eds) (2009) The experience of adopting game-based learning in library instruction. Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Jagger S et al (2016) What’s growing on here? Gardenbased pedagogy in a concrete jungle. Environ Educ Res 22(2):271–287 Kendall JC (ed) (1990) Combining service and learning: a resource book for community and public service. Vol. 1. National Society for Experiential Education, Raleigh, NC Kiran BC (2010) Higher education and curriculum innovation for sustainable development in India. Int J Sustain High Educ 11(2):141–152 Kissi L, Dreesmann D (2017) Plant visibility through mobile learning? Implementation and evaluation of an interactive Flower Hunt in a botanic garden. J Biol Educ 52(4): 344–363. Landorf H et al (2008) Education for sustainable human development. Theory Res Educ 6(2):221–236 Lee JJ et al (2013) GREENIFY: a real-world action game for climate change education. Simul Gaming 44(2–3): 349–365 Meyers EM, Bittner R. (2012) “Green washing” the digital playground: how virtual worlds support ecological intelligence...or do they? ACM International Conference Proceeding Series Mintz K, Tal T (2013) Education for sustainability in higher education: a multiple-case study of three courses. J Biol Educ 47(3):140–149 Molderez I, Fonseca E (2018) The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education. J Clean Prod 172:4397–4410 Ramanujan D et al. (2014) Contextualizing environmental sustainability in design engineering curricula. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference Rosenberg Daneri D et al (2015) Students as change agents in a town-wide sustainability transformation: the Oberlin Project at Oberlin College. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:14–21 Schlottmann C (2008) Educational ethics and the DESD: considering trade-offs. School Field 6(2):207–219 Schramm H-J, Anderluh A (2016) How to bring sustainability issues in global supply chains into the classroom? In: Ojala L et al (eds) Nofoma 2016 – proceedings of the 28th annual nordic logistics research network conference. Turku Sewilam H et al (2017) Competence-based and gamebased capacity development for sustainable water management in Germany. Environ Earth Sci 76(3):131 Shah A, Treby E (2006) Using a community based project to link teaching and research: the bourne stream partnership. J Geogr High Educ 30(1):33–48 I 964 Steen K, Bueren EV (2017) Urban living labs a living lab way of working. Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions, Delft University of Technology, Delft Syring D (2014) Service-learning, sustainability, and the need for cosmopolitan experiences in undergraduate education: a view from anthropology. eJ Public Aff 3(3) UNESCO (2012) Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 full-length report on the UN decade of education for sustainable development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris Vojvodikova B et al (2016) Evaluation of the effects of students short – term internships in the context of a longer time horizon in the field of sustainable land use education. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM Welsh MA, Murray DL (2003) The ecollaborative: teaching sustainability through critical pedagogy. J Manag Educ 27(2):220–235 Were W (2017) Lessons learned while escaping from a zombie: designing a breakout EDU game. Hist Teach 50(4):553–564 Yasin RM, Rahman S (2011) Problem oriented project based learning (POPBL) in promoting education for sustainable development. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 15:289–293 Inquiry-Based Learning ▶ Research-Based Teaching Methods for Sustainable Development Institutional Change and Sustainable Development Mohammad Al-Saidi Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar Introduction The study field of institutions and institutionalism is quite complex, encompassing theories, concepts, and tools that can be applied in various ways related to sustainable development. At the same time, sustainable development is not uniquely defined and can imply a range of policy, normative, or resource use issues at various Inquiry-Based Learning scales. Therefore, institutions and their change over time can be analyzed with regard to specific topics on sustainable development such as institutional reforms, learning, institutional interplay, and appropriate designs. Often, institutional designs and institutional change are useful approaches for investigating unsustainability in economic development (Opschoor 1996). This happens when institutions are understood as a structuring element of human–nature relationships, and institutional change is used to redirect institutional failures during the development process. Here, the institutional failures and rigidity explain why one-sided development processes can cause environmental degradation and unsustainable outcomes. However, the terms and metaphors to explain sustainability failures or successes depend largely on the type of institutionalist theory used for the analysis. Depending on the branch of institutionalism and the understanding of institutions used, different theories offer different drivers, categorizations, and consequences of institutional change and what this means for sustainable development. According to Wegerich (2001), one can differentiate the theories of new institutional economics by determining whether they see change as demand- or supply-induced. Demand-induced institutional change represents a bottom-up approach which can be related to changes in prices, technologies, environmental issues, or demographics. For example, sustainable development patterns can be seen as driven by ecological innovations or technological change resulting in new economic reality. In contrast, supply-induced changes occur in a top-down approach, or as a result of a change in the environment of an institution. Such a change can happen because of certain opportunities or important events or in relation to pressures from elites. In this regard, political parties, protest movements (e.g., Green movements), or a major environmental disaster can result in a shift toward sustainability. Thelen (2009) explained institutional change in advanced political economies. She highlighted the fact that the debate between “agency” and “structure” as drivers of change is a recurrent and unsolved theme in institutional change theories. The two Institutional Change and Sustainable Development drivers coexist and result in different types of changes that can affect institutional governing issues such as those related to sustainable development. She highlighted four types of institutional change depending on the characterization of the change process as incremental or abrupt, and the result of change as continuity or discontinuity. These four types are reproduction by adaptation (incremental continuity), survival and return (abrupt continuity), gradual transformation (incremental discontinuity), and breakdown and replacement (abrupt discontinuity). This conceptualization can be used to characterize the specific trajectory of sustainable development in a certain country and region. Overall, the understanding of the concept of institutions as applied in any institutional theory is instrumental for empirical analysis of the institutions’ influence, and for postulating the causality in institutional change and its effects on sustainable development. This chapter illustrates this by introducing understandings of institutional change, theories, and common applications to sustainable development issues. In this context, related concepts such as institutional or organizational learning are briefly explained and related to sustainable development. Some examples of the impacts of sustainable development on institutional change in different fields are presented with a focus on the higher education sector. Institutionalism and Sustainable Development Institutional change represents a key theme within theories of institutionalism, the interdisciplinary study field of institutions. Institutionalism is a growing field of study encompassing mainly contributions from sociology, economics, and political sciences. In fact, it is a mainstream research theme in sociological thinking. According to Sjöstrand (2015), institutionalism in sociology focuses on identifying structures as contexts to local situations, or identifying actors in social and economic life. At the same time, disciplines such as political sciences and law draw on multidisciplinary knowledge of institutions such as game theory, 965 sociological institutionalism, or collective action theories. The field of economics has also developed quite specific tools of classical and neoclassical economics in order to investigate how individuals think and act, as well as the attached rules and explanation to people’s behavior (ibid). While all these fields are relevant for explaining the role of institutions and their change with regard to sustainable development, they are not primarily concerned with sustainable development as such. It is important to understand that the change toward sustainable development cannot be isolated from societal change at large. For example, sustainability focused institutions share the same context as institutions governing other fields or systems in a society, and are shaped by the same individuals. In this sense, this chapter explains the approaches of institutionalism that are most prevalent in sustainable development studies. It explains major insights for sustainable development while recognizing that there is no unique proposition on the perfect institution for sustainable development or an accepted norm for institutional change in this field. In this section, common classifications of institutionalism are introduced and related to sustainable development. While there is no one common classification of theories on institutionalism, two classifications relevant for institutional change and environmental issues have been highlighted by Lindegaard (2013). Firstly, Hall and Taylor (1996) identified three approaches of new institutionalism that represent a reaction to the prominent behavioral perspective on institutions in the 1960s and 1970s. These are historical, rational-choice, and sociological institutionalism. Historical institutionalism emphasizes structuralism in institutions, rather than the functionalism of earlier approaches which emphasized the responses to the needs of political systems. Historical institutionalism also highlights the prominent role of power and asymmetrical power relations, as well as the persistent feature of institutions as embedded in their historical development (path dependence). This branch of institutionalism can provide important insights on difficulties associated with adopting a sustainable development agenda. For example, the costs of I 966 changing the status quo toward more sustainability need to be considered alongside the welfare benefits from sustainability. Further, politics and history of sustainability are important to study since powerful interests groups (e.g., industrial or agricultural resource users) can resist sustainability reforms and determine their outcomes. On the other hand, rational choice institutionalism emphasizes the role of concepts from organizational theory such as property rights, rent-seeking behavior, and transaction costs. Institutions thus sustain equilibrium and constrain the behavior of rational and strategically thinking individuals. Closely related to this is the field of new institutional economics, which addresses issues such as the role of agency, bounded rationality, and opportunistic behavior (Bardhan 1989). In this sense, sustainable development studies might look at economic incentives and cost-benefit analysis of actors and organizations affected by sustainability issues. In contrast, sociological institutionalism regards institutions as embedded within culturally specific practices and conceptions of states and markets. It also defines institutions in a broader manner as not only formal rules and procedures, but also symbols or moral norms that guide human action. Thus, sustainability is also embedded in culture and can be enhanced or hindered by norms, role models, or public debates. The second classification of institutionalism to be considered is that of Cleaver (2012), namely critical and mainstream institutionalism in the context of natural resources management. Mainstream institutionalism presents institutions as rational and based on clear functions that can be designed and altered. Here, similar to rational choice theories, interventions in altering incentives or designing more efficient institutions can induce sustainable development. In contrast, critical institutionalism offers a more nuanced picture of institutions embedded in social and power relations, as well as interactions between nature and people. According to Lindegaard (2013), the key differences between these different classifications lie in how much they emphasize structure or agency, formal or informal institutions, and the role of power. For example, in general, sociological and critical institutionalism might better Institutional Change and Sustainable Development incorporate the role of agency, informal institutions, and power relations. With regard to sustainable development, this is reflected in, among others, the studies advocating a strong role of education and informal actors such as religious leaders, musicians, marketing, or awareness campaigns. Definitions of Institutions, Institutionalization, and Relations with Sustainable Development In order to understand the role of institutions and their effect on sustainable development, one needs to define and locate them within the field of institutionalism. A narrow understanding of institutions can lead to an overemphasis of formal organizations or the public sector role. At the same time, institutions are usually understood in a wide manner, which means that they are omnipresent in the analysis of sustainable development. There are many different understandings of institutions, and some prominent classifications of these understandings. Scott (1987) reviewed four sociological formulations of institutionalization, the underlying process that produces institutions. Firstly, “institutionalization as a process of instilling value” refers to the process of supplying intrinsic value to structure beyond its instrumental function. This process represents a consciously designed intervention. Secondly, “institutionalization as a process of creating reality” refers to the process of repeating actions and assigning meaning to them. In fact, this act of “habitualization” is a prominent understanding of institutions in sociology, while the belief systems that lead to such habitualization are understood as culturally determined. At the same time, some guiding principles for the development of institutions, such as the pursuit of modernity, rationality, or bureaucratization, can converge across cultures. Thirdly, according to Scott (1987), the characterization of “institutional systems as a class of elements” focuses on the existence of different sources and loci for various purposes and beyond the discretion of single individuals or organizations. In this sense, institutions Institutional Change and Sustainable Development are embedded in environments to which they adapt in order to acquire resources, conformity, and legitimacy. Fourthly, the conceptualization of “institutions as distinct societal spheres,” similar to the third formulation, stresses the plurality of institutions and corresponding belief systems, and regards institutions as systems of social beliefs and organized practices in different functional areas of societal systems. This structural–functional understanding therefore generally explains institutional change by ascribing it to the adaptation to changing societal functions in different spheres (e.g., economy, culture, or the political system). If one reflects on the different definitions of institutions, different implications arise about/ with reference to their influence on the change toward sustainable development. A clear understanding or a definition of institutions can reveal much about institutions and whether and how they change. Defining institutions as a class of elements, as systems, or as spheres implies that they change over time. Institutions change in order to provide value to a new set of rules providing directions on how to govern society. For example, if sustainable development is adopted through society-wide consensus or overarching development strategies, institutions change to reflect the values behind this shift. On the other hand, the cultural understandings of institutions are more concerned with the nature of institutions. It provides an important insight on the contribution of the manifestation of institutions through habitualization, but little insights with regard to institutional change. An important consequence with regard to sustainable development might be that formal adoption or implementation of sustainability is not enough. Institutions need to lead a process of habitualization or repeated actions. Finally, the understanding of institutions either as systems or as elements merely fulfilling certain functions can fail to predict and explain adaptation and change. With regard to the understanding of institutions removed from the process of instituitonalization, Roland (2004) identifies two general approaches to classifying institutions. Firstly, the functional approach, which is often used by economists, 967 defines institutions in relation to their function of fulfilling efficient contracting. Accordingly, such an approach does not explain the needs, evolution, and change of a specific institution nor does it reveal much about how institutions interact. This approach is helpful in understanding the design of institutions focused on sustainable development or their usefulness in this regard. It is however, not often used to explain institutional change over time. Secondly, a macrosystemic approach classifies institutions through institutional descriptions using general and specific categories as well as rules. It is therefore more capable of providing an understanding of specific institutions as well as systems of institutions. In fact, in the context of sustainable development, it is very important to provide insights into how institutions change, differentiate, and complement or substitute each other. From this perspective, sociological theories using structural–functional approaches and theories of new institutionalism and critical institutionalism might be more useful to shed light on problems of institutional failures, inefficient performance, and inadequate regulation associated with the management of ecosystems and common-pool resources. For example, Portes (2006) showed that by using sociological theories of institutions related to culture and social structure, one can better explain failures to transplant institutions from the developed north to the global south than one can by relying on classic economic (mostly functional) literature. Theoretical Relevance of Institutional Change for Sustainable Development To explain institutional change and its relevance to sustainable development issues, one can outline the theoretical insights in this regard of the five major specific institutional approaches, namely rational choice theories, historical institutionalism, evolutionary theories, political institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism. In this section, key messages from these theories are summarized with regard to their potential to explain institutional change in the broad field of sustainable development. I 968 Firstly, contemporary rational choice theories emphasize issues such as property rights (rules of the game) and the associated transaction costs. Actors engage in strategic behavior to modify their institutions after calculating the benefits of change. Change represents the departure from the institutional equilibrium represented by the status quo. In this line, North (1990) explains institutional change as a result of the implementation of property rights and the modification in incentives attached to institutions (e.g., relative changes of prices for labor and land). He also relates institutional change to economic performance and explains that institutional development in certain countries may lead to path-dependent development. In sustainable development issues, the property rights approach represents a quite common way to explain the change in resource use patterns and the institutions governing these resources. Since many environmental issues involve common-pool resources, a change in ownership or access rights to allow the economization of these resources can result in improved development of institutions in areas such as markets, community businesses, or resource user groups. For example, Coleman and Mwangi (2015) explain two principle rational choice theories, the Cooperation Theory and the Conflict Theory, and their ability to explain common property institutions that exist in land management in Kenya. Here, the inherently functional cooperation theories emphasize that groups adopt new institutions if they increase net gains. In contrast, conflict theories stress the bargaining process, the associated costs, and the dominance of powerful actors due to asymmetric distribution of power. With regard to common property issues, conflict theories might have a better explanatory power. Accordingly, the societal benefits of common property do not outweigh private property due to resulting resource overuse. This means that the prevalence of common property in the examined case study in Kenya cannot be explained by cooperation theory; rather, the asymmetric power relations favor large landholders who promote and benefit from common property arrangements (ibid). Institutional Change and Sustainable Development Historical institutionalism can provide important insights on how historical events or decisions shape the pathways to sustainable development. Countries or sectors adopting an unsustainable technology or production pattern get “stuck” in such decisions and cannot change easily. Historical institutionalism does not endorse a specific theoretical approach. It explains institutional change using contextual and institutional factors related to a certain time and place (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). The key idea in historical institutionalism is that of path dependence, whereby actions and decisions at critical junctures determine the change pathway. In the aforementioned theory of North (1990), historical decisions on property rights and incentives induce path-dependent economic development. However, a certain development pathway of a country – for example, by promoting polluting fossil fuels – does not necessarily mean being locked into this decision. In fact, less radical versions of historical institutionalism suggest that path dependence might not be that influential, and advocate the idea of small and incremental changes rather than major irreversible disjunctures (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). Sustainable development is therefore conceived as a process of historic choices concerning the pattern of resource use or economic growth model. This perspective might be more aligned with evolutionary theories of institutional change. Evolutionary theories build on Darwin’s ideas such as selection, fitness, mutation, and evolutionary drift. Accordingly, institutional change and evolution results from the proliferation and internalization of ideas, while such internalization is affected by how ideas are framed, perceived, and challenged as relevant solutions to environmental challenges (Lewis and Steinmo 2012). Evolutionary theories do not contradict historical institutionalism, but rather develop a muchnuanced and theoretically rich toolkit to examine institutional change (see Lustick 2011). In this sense, a decision for or against change toward sustainable development is a result of debates about the best solutions for a certain societal, cultural, economic, or technological context. Furthermore, political institutionalism analyses Institutional Change and Sustainable Development how macrolevel political decisions and state policies often affect institutions, which in turn shape politics and political actors. Similar to the perspective of historical institutionalism, political institutionalism often examines how new incentives, specialized programs, and changes in state policies in the social sphere facilitate institutional change over time (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). As an example, a public strategy to promote sustainable development through the use of renewable energies can result in various changes in terms of pricing incentives, subsidies, and investments, ultimately leading to significant institutional changes. Finally, sociological institutionalism can provide valuable analyses on how the broad sustainable development agenda result in the proliferation of (often similar) organizations within and across countries. It looks at the organizational and cognitive elements that underlie organizational change. For example, scholars of sociological institutionalism note that institutional change often implies homogenization or so-called structural isomorphism. This means that institutions evolve to reproduce common cultural, cognitive, or normative principles that define what is an appropriate form of political organization (so-called logic of appropriateness), and for achieving certain policy goals (see Scott 2014). Institutional change occurs when organizations – based on a bounded or “garbage can” mentality, and in the pursuit of legitimacy – search solutions from a shared repertoire or by emulating other organizations (Amenta and Ramsey 2010). From this perspective, sustainable development, which is largely coined through broad economic, societal, and environmental recommendations on the global level, can result in a convergence of institutions in order to fulfill the new global norms. Often, the convergence of institutional design is induced by a “shared global agenda” (world polity) based on common principles on how problems should be solved. One can argue that the global sustainable development agenda with its specific sets of goals (e.g., the Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Agreement) reflect such world polity principles and induce institutional isomorphism. In fact, according to Kontinen and 969 Onali (2017), institutional isomorphism can be observed in the case of the development of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In the work of NGOs, program mechanisms in the field of consultancy have accordingly converged over time. Glover et al. (2014) show how common and dominant logics of cost reductions and profit maximization in the food supply industry have hindered the emergence of more sustainable practices. Another example of sustainable development issues can be mentioned here: Häikiö (2014) analyzed the institutionalization of sustainable development in Finland over the last two decades. Accordingly, sustainable development presented a utopia and a logic of appropriateness that induced important institutional change. At the same time, the vagueness of the concept meant that local normative conceptions of growth and prosperity remained prevalent in society. Institutional Change, Learning, and Sustainable Development Institutional change theories are quite useful in assessing environmental change issues and topics related to sustainable development. In fact, institutional change is prevalent in many domains related to key areas of sustainable development, such as the management of natural resources, ecosystems management, the governance of common pool resources, or newer issues related to the transition toward sustainability and holistic sustainable development policies. For example, Carney and Farrington (1998) introduce an analysis of institutional reforms related to land management and the changing roles of extension services in the developing world. Connor and Dovers (2004) examined the extent to which countries establish working institutions for sustainable development. They found that the integration of policies and institutions, the implementation of the subsidiarity principle, and the installation of reiterative processes have been a key result of the adoption of the sustainable development agenda. Accordingly, although the sustainability paradigm has been institutionalized in the studied case of Australia, New Zealand, I 970 and the EU, policy learning and coordination of methods, as well as applications, was slow-moving. In fact, learning from past experiences and institutional trajectories is highly important in institutional change. For example, Markóczy (1994) explained organizational learning as the encoding of past experiences into the organizational routines of the day-to-day operations of organizations as well as the institutionalization of rules and their interpretation. Accordingly, such learning can affect the outcome and performance of the institutions under change. Tamtik (2016) explained, using the example of research policies of the European Union, the different approaches for policy learning during the transformation of institutions, namely via changing administrative processes, using networks, updating policies, and reframing issues. Furthermore, institutionalism and institutional learning can contribute to understanding of institutional reforms in environmental and natural resources governance. Young et al. (2008) have presented various case studies highlighting the institutional dimensions of environmental change using theories of new institutionalism. While they did not focus on the aspect of institutional change as such, their empirical analysis of institutional fit and interplay reveals that institutions matter greatly in common-pool issues. While changes in institutions can have big impacts such as crossing certain thresholds or tipping points in ecosystems, substantial changes in environmental outcomes often require radical moves in terms of institutional designs (Young 2008). For example, adaptive management through various institutional and social learning processes can improve institutional fit, bring out effective and participatory governance systems, and ultimately help in increasing the resilience of ecosystems (Galaz et al. 2008). As another field of application, the institutional change perspective can enrich the study of institutional reforms such as the decentralization of natural resources. Marothia (2010) explains how institutional theories can explain the resistance to change, the issue of resource mobilization, and the costs and benefits of decentralization of natural resources in the context of India. He advocated the Institutional Change and Sustainable Development consideration of more pluralistic and polycentric institutional approaches to the management of natural resources, as well as multilayered institutional frameworks, in order to achieve complementarity. This idea of improving connectedness or nestedness of institutional rules, especially between informal and formal institutions, is important during decentralization of reforms and, in general, for the governance of natural resources. This idea has also been reiterated by other studies (Rahman et al. 2017; Bartley et al. 2008). Becker and Ostrom (1995) emphasized that during institutional change, it is important to understand the relationships between natural resources, the communities involved in their management, and the meta-rules for changing rules. Accordingly, institutional diversity is needed in order to include institutions that restrain unsustainable behaviour and provide flexible and adaptive rules. Finally, institutional change can explain transformation or transition processes toward sustainability. Opschoor (1996) explained how market failures can induce institutional change through the adaptation of institutional arrangements such as standards, charges, tradeable rights, and voluntary agreements. Since environmental degradation is closely linked to markets and economic activities, institutional, change in the economic sphere is instrumental in moving toward sustainability. In contrast, Hoffman (1999) showed how, in the case of the chemical industry in the USA, corporate environmentalism positively evolved over many decades based on the interplay of regulative, normative, and cognitive aspects, with little influence of markets and technologies. Change and Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Higher education institutions (HEIs) provide a good example of how the sustainable development idea induces institutional change within these institutions while they themselves promote this idea and help catalyze change in other areas. Within HEIs, the dissemination of the idea of sustainable development has had tangible impacts Institutional Change and Sustainable Development on both their education and organizational missions. This is particularly true for the last couple of decades. During the 2002 UN Summit on Environment and Development in Johannesburg, the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) was declared between 2005 and 2014. According to Everett (2008), the DESD was embraced by many HEIs and was translated into principles advocating intra- and interdisciplinary collaboration, including with societal stakeholders, as well as promoting sustainability education and research. In fact, education for sustainable development (ESD) has long been theorized and promoted as a force for change in terms of fostering creativity, innovation, and stakeholder participation in research and education work within HEIs (Tilbury 2004). In recent years, there is evidence of HEIs taking initiatives toward implementing sustainable development, e.g., curricula reforms, improvement of campus operations, sustainability accounting and reporting, and comprehensive sustainability assessments (Ramos et al. 2015; Godemann et al. 2014). However, institutional change toward sustainable development is still an emergent issue with many barriers facing those institutions seeking comprehensive reforms. Mulà et al. (2017) reviewed sustainable development initiatives targeting educators at HEIs and concluded that universities lack capacity to mainstream ESD into training or integrate it into teaching and learning priorities. Godemann et al. (2014) noted that there are only few HEIs implementing comprehensive sustainable development actions in teaching, research, knowledge exchange, and operations. They emphasized the need for experimentation and co-creation of sustainability trajectories for HEIs as well as understanding how HEIs transform themselves in response to the changing modes of social accountability, stakeholder engagement, and societal change in general. In this line, Hoover and Harder (2015) reviewed studies on organizational change toward sustainability in HEIs and pointed toward the complexity and contradictions of sustainability change processes. Further, the barriers to sustainability change within HEIs (e.g., resistances, bureaucracy or lack of resources, 971 engagement communication, regulations, and institutional frameworks) seem to be common for universities across different regions (BlancoPortela et al. 2018; Velazquez et al. 2005). Despite these multiple difficulties, the sustainable development agenda has led to tangible changes and transformed debates about the role of HEIs as change agents for sustainability (see Stephens et al. 2008). Conclusion Institutional change is pervasive in sustainable development although it is not often linked to it in terms of an overarching theory or exhaustive empirical evidence. The reason for this is that sustainable development as a global agenda, a normative modus of development, or a set of practical environment-related problems cannot be associated with one dominant or preferable type of institution or change pathway. In fact, institutions and their change are embedded in diverse schools of scientific thoughts that do not isolate the changes in governing one issue or societal system from another. Therefore, insights from institutional change science on sustainable development can sometimes be perceived as either too broad or too issue- or context-specific. Besides, the ability and language used to explain the phenomenon of institutional change depends on the theoretical perspective used in defining institutions and analyzing them in their historical, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts. For example, mainstream institutional concepts regard institutions as rational and rule-based elements that can be redesigned toward certain functions. Institutions focused on sustainable development are thus designable in reaction to demands by governing systems, peoples, or elites. This mainly economic view of institutions is highly influential in explaining the emergence of institutions that benefit powerful groups or minimize certain costs. As an example here, technological innovations such as clean energies lead to changes driven by cost and economization considerations. Especially influential are models of new institutional economics that incorporate critical issues such as incomplete markets, complexity, the role of agency, bounded I 972 rationality, and uncertainty. In this sense, actors promoting sustainability are concerned about future unpredictable or uncalculated risks from environmental degradation and the inability of current institutions to address them. However, if compared with sociological theories linking function to certain social systems’ functions, pure functional approaches are less capable of explaining the motives, evolution, and changes in specific institutions. Historical, political, and evolutionary approaches provide more nuanced and contextual information related to path dependences during development of institutions, the role of elites, and the ability of policymakers to steer change. This approach is more directly linked with the debates about the global sustainability agenda and how it influenced the creation of regulatory institutions, incentive and economic programs, or new development strategies across the world. Political actors, role models, and elites drive this change and are involved in power struggles that affect the outcomes. In analyzing institutional change in relation to sustainable development issues, there is no one correct methodological approach, but rather different frameworks used for different questions. Institutional change needs to be seen as a multifaceted perspective that can illuminate the different faces of the concept of sustainable development. For example, over the past three or four decades, the global sustainable development agenda has produced a plethora of new institutions that are often similar in their integrative policy approach. Sociology scholars have analyzed this approach as evidence of some kind of isomorphism following the global logic of appropriateness. Furthermore, in order to solve market failures related to common-pool resources, economists contributed to a great deal of institutional reforms through regulating property rights and setting incentives. At the same time, the study of decentralization reforms in the use of natural resources has revealed much about the role of informal institutions as well as the need for multilevel and complementary institutional arrangements. As another example, the ongoing institutional change to facilitate a low-carbon economic transition which has offered many Institutional Change and Sustainable Development opportunities for the use of different theoretical tools for studying the underlying, often multilevel, drivers affecting the change of local, national, and international institutions governing sustainability issues. Finally, institutions of higher education represent an interesting case for studying institutional change toward sustainability. While many such institutions are still undergoing changes in their activities regarding education, research, and operations in response to the sustainable development idea, the few leaders in this field have overcome serious and common challenges. Evidence shows that the sustainable development agenda made higher education institutions appreciate similar values such as inter-, intra-, and transdisciplinary research and education, innovation, stakeholder engagement, and holistic management approaches. Cross-References ▶ Institutional Sustainability Assessment References Amenta E, Ramsey E (2010) Institutional theory. In: Leicht KT, Jenkins JC (eds) Handbook of politics: state and society in global perspective. Handbooks of sociology and social research. Springer, New York/London Bardhan P (1989) The new institutional economics and development theory: a brief critical assessment. World Dev 17(9):1389–1395 Bartley T, Andersson K, Jagger P, Laerhoven FV (2008) The contribution of institutional theories to explaining decentralization of natural resources governance. Soc Nat Resour 21(2):160–174 Becker CD, Ostrom E (1995) Human ecology and resource sustainability: the importance of institutional diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:113–133 Blanco-Portela N, R-Pertierra L, Benayas J, Lozano R (2018) Sustainability leaders’ perceptions on the drivers for and the barriers to the integration of sustainability in Latin American higher education institutions. Sustainability 10:2954 Carney D, Farrington J (1998) Natural resources management and institutional change. Routledge research. ODI development policy studies, Routledge, New York Cleaver F (2012) Development through bricolage: rethinking institutions for natural resource management. Routledge, New York Institutional Change and Sustainable Development Coleman EA, Mwangi E (2015) Conflict, cooperation and institutional change on the commons. Am J Polit Sci 59(4):855–865 Connor R, Dovers S (2004) Institutional change for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Everett J (2008) Sustainability in higher education – implication for the disciplines. Theory Res Educ 6(2): 237–251 Galaz V, Olsson P, Hahn T, Folke C, Svedin U (2008) The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (eds) Institutions and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 147–188 Glover JL, Champion D, Daniels KJ, Dainty AJD (2014) An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practice across the dairy supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 152:102–111 Godemann J, Bebbington J, Herzig C, Moon J (2014) Higher education and sustainable development. Exploring possibilities for organisational change. Account Audit Account J 27(2):218–233 Häikiö L (2014) Institutionalization of sustainable development in decision-making and everyday life practices: a critical view on the Finnish case. Sustainability 6: 5639–5654 Hall PA, Taylor RCR (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit Stud 44(5):936–957 Hoffman AJ (1999) Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Acad Manag J 43(4):351–371 Hoover E, Harder MK (2015) What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. J Clean Prod 106:175–188 Kontinen T, Onali A (2017) Strengthening institutional isomorphism in development NGOs? Program mechanisms in an organizational intervention. Sage Open 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016688725 Lewis OA, Steinmo S (2012) How institutions evolve: evolutionary theory and institutional change. Polity 44:314–339 Lindegaard LS (2013) Power and change: locating institutional change theories in a power context. DISS working papers 2013:20. Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen Lustick IS (2011) Taking evolution seriously: historical institutionalism and evolutionary theory. Polity 43(2):179–209 Markóczy L (1994) Modes of organizational learning: institutional change and Hungarian joint ventures. Int Stud Manag Organ 24(4):5–30 Marothia DK (2010) Decentralisation of natural management in India: an institutional perspective. Indian J Agric Econ 65(1):1 Mulà I, Tilbury D, Ryan A, Mader M, Dlouhà J, Mader C, Benayas J, Dlouhý J, Alba D (2017) Catalysing change in higher education for sustainable development. A review of professional development initiatives for 973 university educators. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(5): 798–820 North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Opschoor JB (1996) Institutional change and development towards sustainability. In: Costanza R, Segura O, Martinez-Alier J (eds) Getting down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics. Island Press, Washington, DC Portes A (2006) Institutions and development: a conceptual reanalysis. Popul Dev Rev 32(2):233–262 Rahman HMT, Saint Ville AS, Song AM, Po JYT, Berthet E, Brammer JR, Brunet ND, Jayaprakash LG, Lowitt KN, Rastogi A, Reed G, Hickey GM (2017) A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. Int J Commons 11(2):823–853 Ramos TB, Caeiro S, Hoof BV, Lozano R, Huisingh H, Ceuleman K (2015) Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: environmental management for sustainable universities. J Clean Prod 106:3–10 Roland G (2004) Understanding institutional change: fastmoving and slow-moving institutions. Stud Comp Int Dev 38(4):109–131 Scott WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Adm Sci Q 32(4):493–511 Scott WR (2014) Institutions and organizations. Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage, Thousand Oaks Sjöstrand S-E (2015) On institutional thought in the social and economic sciences. In: Sjöstrand S-E (ed) Institutional change: theory and empirical findings. First published in 1993 by M.E. Sharpe. Routledge, New York, pp 3–34 Stephens JC, Hernandez ME, Román M, Graham AC, Scholz RW (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):317–338 Tamtik M (2016) Institutional change through policy learning: the case of the European Commission and research policy. Rev Policy Res 33(1):5–21 Thelen K (2009) Institutional change in advanced political economies. Br J Ind Relat 47(3):471–498 Tilbury D (2004) Environmental education for sustainability: a force for change in higher education. In: Corcoran PB, AEJ W (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. Problematics, promise, and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 97–112 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):383–391 Wegerich K (2001) Institutional change: a theoretical approach. Occasional paper no 30. School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). University of London, London Young OR (2008) Institutions and environmental change: the scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC research. In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (eds) Institutions I 974 and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–46 Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (2008) Institutions and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge Institutional Sustainability Assessment Katerina Kosta Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Definition Institutional sustainability assessment in higher education refers to universities assessing their sustainability performance across operational and educational activities. Introduction As the countries of the world move toward meeting the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the importance of higher education institutions (HEIs) as drivers and enablers of sustainability has been levelled up. At the same time, the legally binding Paris COP21 agreement asks participating countries to measure and reduce their contribution to global warming. Consequently, the profile of sustainability assessment is rising, while the market of sustainability assessment indicators is expanding. Within this context, multiple universities use institutional sustainability assessment (ISA) to evaluate their sustainability performance and measure progress. In the literature, ISA is perceived as a necessary step for sustainability implementation as it makes progress operational and facilitates decision-making (Alghamdi et al. 2017; Disterheft et al. 2012; Maragakis and van den Dobbelsteen 2015; Rammel et al. 2016; Ramos and Pires 2013; Shriberg 2004). Exploring sustainability assessment tools for HEIs on a global scale, Fischer et al. (2015) claim that there is Institutional Sustainability Assessment reciprocity between assessing and developing a sustainable university, while Beveridge et al. (2015) discover strong correlations between higher education (HE) sustainability assessment and performance. The history of higher education (HE) institutional sustainability assessment starts with universities as public body entities having to conform to environmental regulations. Since then, international initiatives like the UNESCO Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) (2005–2014) have placed HEIs at the forefront of delivering sustainability. This made measurement and evaluation necessary for HEIs that wished to demonstrate their contribution to the DESD. In certain contexts, universities are invited to conduct sustainability assessments as part of quality assurance procedures. Such is the case of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for higher education in the UK, which has complemented its audit criteria with an ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) component (QAA 2014). However, as sustainability assessment was first taken up by the corporate world (Ramos and Pires 2013), the majority of sustainability assessment standards do not include indicators for the educational aspects of HEIs (Rammel et al. 2016). Yet, the uniqueness of universities lies in their research and teaching activity rather than operational performance. Thus, to conduct sustainability assessments, HEIs have two options: to either develop their own sustainability assessment tools or modify existing ones. For Rammel et al. (2016), a simple transfer of corporate ISA tools to the higher education context would easily face dead ends. Designing ISA for universities is only a recent trend with the first higher education sustainability assessment tools appearing in 2010 (Bullock and Wilder 2016). HE-specific sustainability assessment standards are expected to comprehensively cover sustainability activity across the institution. According to the literature, this activity is usually divided into the five areas of teaching, research, operations, governance, and engagement/outreach (Fischer et al. 2015; Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). What follows is a section on different analytical perspectives to ISA indicators. Next, a small Institutional Sustainability Assessment presentation is made of studies comparing ISA systems before discussing the quality and validity of ISAs for higher education. Finally, an attempt is made to predict the future of HE sustainability assessments in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), digitization and big data. Analytical Perspectives on ISA Sustainability assessment standards have been proliferating worldwide with some authors seeing the emergence of a new sustainability indicators’ industry (Ramos and Pires 2013). Yet, research on the comparison and evaluation of indicator frameworks is limited and inconclusive (Ramos and Pires 2013). Three studies are presented below as they provide comprehensive analysis and well-informed insights into ISA indicators. In the first study, Alghamdi et al. (2017) identify three ways in which sustainability assessments materialize; the accounts, narrative, and indicator-based assessments. Accounts assessments convert raw data into monetized units, covering highly important yet limited aspects of sustainability. Narrative assessments are familiar and flexible, yet their choice of topics is unsystematic, limiting transparency and reducing their usefulness in decision-making. Finally, indicator-based assessments codify, measure, and thus facilitate the communication of sustainability to various stakeholders. The authors consider indicator-based ISAs as the most systematic and comparable (Alghamdi et al. 2017). In the second study, Ramos and Pires (2013) conceptualize sustainability assessment indicators into two opposing groups. The first group consists of technocratic or expert-oriented indicators which are perceived as drawing on a robust methodology and are expected to directly feed into policy-making by virtue of their scientific validity. The aim is to measure sustainable development in a way that challenges its uncertainty and complexity. The second group comprises participatory or citizen-oriented indicators which are seen as a tool for community empowerment and collectively inspired actions. Questions of who participates, who decides, and for whom are indicators 975 meaningful are central and actively pursued (Ramos and Pires 2013). The two groups overlap significantly in the case of university ISAs, where a combination of technocratic and participatory indicators is usually encountered. In the third study, Disterheft et al. (2012) identify two approaches to implementing ISA at universities: the top-down and bottom-up (Table 1). The top-down approach involves a limited amount of participants from the institution’s management level, it is less time-consuming and focuses on meeting regulatory compliance. On the other hand, the bottom-up approach is more time demanding and human resource intensive as it adopts grassroots processes that focus on awareness creation and empowerment. It is claimed that bottom-up approaches to ISA implementation are more impactful and closely aligned with the educational role of universities. While universities may adopt any of the above approaches to ISA, the definition of sustainability espoused by each institution determines the indicators and criteria selected. Different definitions are adopted by different sustainability assessment standards. For instance, in the corporate world, the “triple bottom line” (TBL) model of sustainability is usually adopted which consists of environmental, social, and financial indicators. The TBL has been criticized as it allows organizations to cherry-pick elements from any of the three aspects without consistency (Milne and Gray 2013), with the indicators sometimes treated as a set of disaggregated criteria (Pope et al. 2017) and the three categories not always compatible with one another (Milne and Gray 2013). The criticism Institutional Sustainability Assessment, Table 1 Analytical perspectives to SA indicators (studies listed alphabetically) Approaches to sustainability assessment Accounts Narrative Alghamdi et al. (2017) Top-down Bottom-up Disterheft et al. (2012) Ramos and Technocratic/ Participatory/ citizenPires expertoriented (2013) oriented Indicatorbased I 976 levelled against the TBL gains new ground with the release of the 2017 GRI Sustainability Reporting standards, which are divided into three separate modules following the TBL categorization. As the update clarifies, the idea is that organizations can select and use only those indicators they consider relevant from any of the three categories (GRI 2017). While the TBL still dominates ISA in the corporate world, in the HE sector, the dominant approach to ISA is a whole institution one, in line with Action Area 2 of the UNESCO Global Action Programme which calls for whole institution approaches to sustainability (UNESCO 2017). Whole institution in this context means covering the five areas of teaching, research, operations, governance, and engagement/outreach (Fischer et al. 2015; Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). The following section explores studies that have compared sustainability assessments specifically designed for higher education institutions (HEIs). It also identifies which of the studies have used the GRI as a framework for comparison and whether the university sustainability assessments explored reflect the threefold categorization of environment, society, and economy in their sets of indicators. Comparisons of Different ISAs Sustainability assessments specific to higher education institutions (HEIs) have been analyzed by a relatively small amount of studies (Ceulemans et al. 2015; Karatzoglou 2013; Ramos and Pires 2013). Of these, eight are presented in Table 2 highlighting the comparison framework adopted by each. Two of the studies adopt a “strengths and weaknesses” comparison framework (Gómez et al. 2015; Shriberg 2004) with the main disadvantage of this approach being that very little is known about the type or number of indicators used by each assessment. The study of Bullock and Wilder (2016) uses the GRI as a comparison framework adjusted for HE through the addition of an ESD supplement. Looking at the university sustainability assessments explored by the eight studies, it appears that the financial aspect is not eminently present with only Institutional Sustainability Assessment Institutional Sustainability Assessment, Table 2 Studies that compare HE ISA standards (listed alphabetically) Study Alghamdi et al. (2017) Bullock and Wilder (2016) Fischer et al. (2015) Gómez et al. (2015) Kosta and Waheed (2017) Number of ISA tools compared 12 9 12 8 19 Kamal and Asmuss (2013) 4 Shriberg (2004) Yarime and Tanaka (2012) 10 16 Comparison framework Emergent framework created from aggregating all tools’ indicators GRI – HE Education Research Operations (Community) engagement Strengths – weaknesses Education Governance Operations Engagement Education Research Governance Operations Engagement Strengths – weaknesses Education Research Governance Operations Outreach a fraction of the assessments including indicators measuring financial sustainability. Thus, mapping sustainability assessments against the GRI may not be particularly suitable from a materiality point of view, as the GRI is based on the triple bottom line and asks HEIs to report their environmental, social and financial performance. The remaining five studies compare sustainability assessment tools against the fivefold conceptualization for sustainability in HE, which consists of education (or teaching), research, operations, governance, and engagement (or outreach). Fischer et al. (2015) omit the governance section claiming that it is reflected in the other four categories, while the LiFE framework used by Kosta and Waheed Institutional Sustainability Assessment (2017) incorporates research in the category of education. Instead of deductively mapping indicators against a preset framework, Alghamdi et al. (2017) innovate adopting an inductive approach which allows categories to emerge from the aggregated indicators of all tools. The comparison frameworks used by the eight studies hope to illustrate the difference between corporate ISA which is based on the TBL model and higher education ISA which is based on the fivefold whole institution model, in line with the UNESCO guidelines (2017). It might be of interest to observe the consensus reached by the majority of the studies on the Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS) as one of the most comprehensive and complete assessments for higher education institutions (Alghamdi et al. 2017; Bullock and Wilder 2016; Kosta and Waheed 2017; Kamal and Asmuss 2013; Yarime and Tanaka 2012). STARS has been specifically designed for HE by the American Association of Sustainability in Higher Education through a collaborative multistakeholder approach (STARS 2016). Reasons cited for the selection of STARS are the systematic and comprehensive coverage of sustainability performance across the institution, the ease and clarity of score calculations and the inclusion of innovation indicators, which cover sustainability activity not foreseen by the tool’s indicators. Issues with ISA Quality Issues with the quality of ISAs have been identified by Bullock and Wielder (2016) who conducted a comparative analysis of normalized ratings given to each university by nine different sustainability assessments. Certain universities receive high ratings in one assessment but low in others. Thus, concern is expressed over the validity of these evaluations, given the dissonance in the results. Since comparison data are unavailable or difficult to obtain, the authors suggest using proxies for ISA quality like construct validity based on the comprehensiveness and relevance of indicators. As most of these assessments rely on self-reported information, process validity is 977 also highlighted as a proxy for quality evidenced by well documented and transparent data collection methods. Table 3 presents issues with ISA quality as identified by the eight studies followed by recommendations for improvement for improvement. Institutional Sustainability Assessment, Table 3 Issues identified with ISA quality and suggestions for improvement (studies listed alphabetically) Study Alghamdi et al. (2017) Bullock and Wilder (2016) Fischer et al. (2015) Gómez et al. (2015) Kosta and Waheed (2017) Kamal and Asmuss (2013) Shriberg (2004) Yarime and Tanaka (2012) Problems with ISA quality Conflicting perspectives on evaluating ISAs Lack of transparent methodology for gathering and reporting SA data Dominance of operational and ecoefficiency aspects, marginalization of educational aspects Selection of indicators reflects subjective value judgements on what is worth measuring Underrepresentation of sustainability research by the majority of HE ISAs Comparison of SAs is difficult as each has been designed with a specific goal in mind, assessing different aspects of sustainability Debate on whether a global ISA standard would be beneficial to HEIs Educational aspects underrepresented in HE sustainability assessments Suggested improvements on ISA quality ISAs should be calculable and comparable The methodology of ISAs should be reproducible and well-justified Scholars should collaboratively set standards for the evaluation of HE ISAs Rationale should be provided behind the weighing applied to each indicator HEIs should select ISAs that move beyond the operational aspects The definition of sustainability should be clarified before a ISA is selected A global ISA should be sensitive to different cultural and regional contexts A methodology should be established to assess sustainability research and curriculum I 978 The Future of ISA While multiple universities use assessment and reporting standards like the GRI or STARS, these were developed long before the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted. Thus, sustainability assessments designed for the HEIs of the future might need to incorporate the structure of the SDGs in their indicator sets. This process has already started at a national level with countries mapping their performance against the Sustainable Development Goals. Another interrelated development that is projected to shape the future of ISA is big data. Big data refers to voluminous amount of structured or semi-structured data that has the potential to be mined for information. Accessing such readily available information may address the current difficulty of obtaining data on sustainability metrics. On a sectoral level, an example of how big data can transform ISA comes from the UK People and Planet University League initiative. A big part of this HE sustainability assessment draws on data from HESA, the Higher Education Statistics Agency. HESA curates data for all UK higher education providers including environmental information, like water consumption, carbon emissions, or the existence of an ISA certification like ISO 14001 or EMAS (HESA 2017). This way the originally manual collection of sustainability assessment data is levelled up and this is predicted to accelerate and transform ISA. Conclusion The plurality and diversity of HE sustainability assessments is accompanied by a need for practitioners to critically evaluate the sustainability definitions they buy into when adopting a specific ISA tool. The sustainability assessment standards of today will shape sustainability in higher education in the future, as apart from performance improving they are also agenda-setting mechanisms, which define what a sustainable university should be like (Fischer et al. 2015). A contested issue emerging from the use of multiple, diverse ISAs is whether a global HE Institutional Sustainability Assessment sustainability assessment system would be useful (Shriberg 2004), especially given the profound influence of global university rankings on university strategies (Stolz et al. 2010). Scholars hesitate to make recommendations on which ISAs would be best fit for the HE sector. By doing so, they miss the opportunity to determine which ISAs will eventually dominate the sustainability assessment landscape in HE (Maragakis and van den Dobbelsteen 2015). This may allow popular yet potentially ineffective methods to dominate university sustainability assessment of evaluating sustainability at universities. After exploring various approaches to ISAs, this entry concludes that universities might benefit from using ISAs designed specifically for the sector and its unique material aspects. References Alghamdi N, den Heijer A, de Jonge H (2017) Assessment tools’ indicators for sustainability in universities: an analytical overview. Int J Sustain High Educ 18(1):84–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0071 Beveridge D, McKenzie M, Vaughter P, Wright T (2015) Sustainability in Canadian post-secondary institutions. The inter-relationships among sustainability initiatives and geographic and educational characteristics. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(5):611–638. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0048 Bullock G, Wilder N (2016) The comprehensiveness of competing higher education sustainability assessments. Int J Sustain High Educ 17(3):282–304. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2014-0078 Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Van Liedekerke L (2015) Sustainability reporting in higher education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J Clean Prod 106:127–143. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.052 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Ramos MR, Azeiteiro U (2012) Environmental management systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education institutions: top-down versus participatory approaches. J Clean Prod 31:80–90. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.034 Fischer D, Jenssen S, Tappeser V (2015) Getting an empirical hold of the sustainable university: a comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks across 12 contemporary sustainability assessment tools. Assess Eval High Educ 41(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938. 2015.1043234 Gómez FU, Saez-Navarrete C, Rencoret Lioi S (2015) Adaptable model for assessing sustainability in higher Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development education. J Clean Prod 107:475–485. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047 GRI (2017) The GRI sustainability reporting standards: the future of reporting. GRI, Amsterdam. https://www. Accessed youtube.com/watch?v=AGqE4OO0_7g. 8 Jan 2018 HESA (2017) Environmental information by higher education provider 2015–16. HESA, New York. https://www. hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis. Accessed 6–8 Jan 2018 Kamal ASM, Asmuss M (2013) Benchmarking tools for assessing and tracking sustainability in higher educational institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(4):449–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-20110052 Karatzoglou B (2013) An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 49:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.043 Kosta K, Waheed H (2017) Mapping sustainability assessment and reporting in the UK tertiary education: a guidebook on sustainability assessment and reporting systems. EAUC, Cheltenham Maragakis A, van den Dobbelsteen A (2015) Sustainability in higher education: analysis and selection of assessment systems. J Sustain Develop 8(3):1–9. https://doi. org/10.5539/jsd.v8n3p1 Milne M, Gray R (2013) W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J Bus Ethics 118:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8 Pope J, Bond A, Huge J, Morrison-Saunders A (2017) Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:205–2015. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002 QAA (2014) Education for sustainable development; guidance for UK higher education providers. QAA, Gloucester. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Doc uments/Education-sustainable-developmentGuidance-June-14.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2018 Rammel C, Velazquez L, Mader C (2016) Sustainability assessment in higher education institutions: what and how? In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, London, pp 273–286 Ramos T, Pires SM (2013) Sustainability assessment: the role of indicators. In: Caeiro S, Filho WL, Jabbour C, Azeiteiro UM (eds) Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions; mapping trends and good practices around the world. Springer, London, pp 81–99 Shriberg M (2004) Assessing sustainability criteria, tools and implications. In: Corcoran PB, Wals A (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability; problematics, promise and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 71–86 STARS (2016) Sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system STARS: version 2.1 technical manual. Administrative update two. AASHE, Philadelphia. http://www.aashe.org/files/documents/STARS/2.0/stars_ 979 2.1_technical_manual_-_administrative_update_two.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 Stolz I, Hendel DD, Horn AS (2010) Ranking of rankings: benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe. High Educ 60(5):507–528. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9312-z UNESCO (2017) Global action programme: priority action areas. UNESCO, Paris. https://en.unesco.org/gap/ priority-action-areas. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 Yarime M, Tanaka Y (2012) The issues and methodologies in sustainability assessment tools for higher education institutions: a review of recent trends and future challenges. J Educ Sustain Dev 6(1):63–77. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/097340821100600113 Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development Tai Ming Wut School of Professional Education and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Synonyms Nonphysical assets and sustainability Definition According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), “sustainable development” means “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). The definition makes an important assumption that humans are the subjects. In other words, the needs of the present human generation are met without compromising the future human generations’ needs. In short, sustainable development integrates the economic, social, and environmental objectives of society, in order to make human being better off without taking off the resources the people need in the future. I 980 The definition in the previous paragraph has two dimensions: the idea of making life better (development) and sustainable (maintain). Bell and Morse (2003) said sustainable development is all about an improvement in the human condition. Introduction According to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), sustainable development “has important political, institutional and capacity implications. At the national and local level, it requires cross-sectoral and participatory institutions and integrating mechanisms which can engage governments, civil society and the private sector in developing shared visions, planning and decision making” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001, 23). Sustainable development strategies require formal approaches, and a key objective is to improve convergence among existing strategies, avoid duplication and confusion, and make efficient use of country capacity and resources (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001). In terms of economic, social, and environmental objectives of society, Martin and Schouten (2012) discuss three dimensions of sustainability: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. Environmental sustainability is defined as ongoing preservation of ecosystem and their functions. For example, ecosystems provide oxygen, clean water, enrichment of soils, and decomposition of waste. It maintains a stable resource base over time. Economic sustainability is defined as the ongoing ability of an economic system to provide for all human needs. Economic activities have impacts on both society and natural environment. It represents an economy that supports a desired level of economic production indefinitely. Social sustainability is defined as the ongoing ability of communities to provide for the well-being of its members. People need access to goods and services in order to fulfill their basic needs including health and education, labor force Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development participation, gender equality, and political participation (Martin and Schouten 2012). Here the term sustainability is often used synonymously with sustainable development. Natural resources such as coal and petroleum are finite and nonrenewable; they become lesser as they are consumed. Other natural resources including forest and soils are subjected to use and cannot be renewed to the previous level. Therefore, using Earth’s resources more than it can replace, one is now borrowing from future generations (Martin and Schouten 2012). Nonrenewable resources must be used only when a physical compensation is possible, either in the form of renewable resources or nonrenewable resources. Intangible Assets Ceballos et al. (2011) point out that in business context, “intangible” means the immaterial part of resources such as skills and knowledge including intellectual capital, know-how, core competencies, and so on. It is contrast to the material part of resources such as machinery and physical things. From the perspective of finance, the importance of intangible assets is the legal acceptance of the value added by the immaterial part of the business including trademark, know-how, quality of service or product, safety, social and moral values, and branding. Usually in balance sheet, goodwill and reputation are examples of intangible assets of the corporation (Ceballos et al. 2011). The International Valuation Standards Board provides a more precise definition of intangible assets: “Assets that manifest themselves by their economic properties, they do not have physical substances, they grant rights and privileges to their owner and usually generate income for their owner. Intangible assets can be categorized as arising from: Rights. Relationship, Grouped Intangibles or Intellectual Property” (International Valuation Standards Council 2006, Section 3.15). According to the previous version (2004), International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38, an intangible asset was defined as “an identifiable nonmonetary asset without physical substance held Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative services” (The International Accounting Standards Board (IASC) 2004). This definition has been revised in the new version (2014) International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38 that the requirement for the asset “to be held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative services” was waived. There are three characteristics of intangible assets: generate future economic benefits, lack physical substance, and are identifiable. According to Cohen (2005), identifiable intangible assets are determined by concept of exchangeability. Does the asset have legal or contractual status? Customer relationship could be argued as an example of intangible assets so long as it is protected by a contract. Trademarks and patents are clear cut examples as well. For those customer relationships without relevant contract, exchange transactions would be the evidence showing the company can somehow control the future benefits. Specific management and talent could generate the future economic benefits to meet the definition of intangible assets provided that it is protected by legal rights (Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants 2018). For example, a football player signed a 3-year fixed contract with a football team for a certain amount of money. The player has to play under the team for the period. It is a bit wider definition of intangible assets in economic sense. There is a useful time period for intangible assets. The contractual time between customer and the corporation is an example. Some intangible assets may not have specific useful time period, and thus the useful life could be indefinite. Under this situation, an impairment test is needed in order to check the usefulness of an intangible asset. Classification Hands (2003) points out that there are two types of intangible assets. One is allowed to be recognized on the balance sheet. They are purchased franchises, patents, trademarks, copyrights, leaseholds, and goodwill. Another type is a bit wider in scope 981 which might not be recognized on the balance sheet. There are three categories: research and development, advertising, and personal intangible assets. People put money on research and development and expect to earn a future income. Advertising has been found to be an asset in the sense of having a positive impact on future revenue. General and administrative expense is chosen as a proxy for personal intangibles. It is because general and administrative expense contains expenditures on brand beyond advertising including customer acquisition and retention (Hands 2003). Moberly (2014) proposes that intangibles assets are mixtures of procedures, policies, practices, relationships, and culture of an organization. They are the intellectual, structural, and relationship capital of a company and create value for the corporation fighting with its competitors (Moberly 2014). Getting a patent or copyright is a way to protect the corporate interest on intangible assets. In fact, company reputation could be seriously affected by a rumor online. If it happens, corporate sustainability will be in danger. Kaplan and Norton (2004) link up corporate strategy with intangible assets. They define human capital, information capital, and organizational capital are three main types of intangible assets. Human capital is regarded as the availability of skills, talent, and know-how to perform activities required by the strategy. Informational capital includes the availability of information systems and knowledge applications and infrastructure required to support strategy. Organization capital is the widest scope in nature. It contains organization culture, leadership, alignment, and teamwork. Durst (2011) has similar opinion. Human capital is the first category of intangible assets. It includes employees’ competence, abilities, and skills. The second category is structural capital. It refers to the things that support the corporate activities such as software, patents, and corporate culture. The last category is relational capital which includes those relationships link from stakeholders to the company (Durst 2011). How to manage relationships with customers, suppliers, regulators, and media is the scope of relationship management. “Intellectual capital” is the term trying to capture human capital, structural capital, and I 982 relational capital. Intellectual capital is defined as “the sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge” (Stewart 1999, xi). The definition is very close to intangible assets: “all nonmonetary and nonphysical resources that are fully or partly controlled by the organization and that contribute to the organization’s value creation” (Roos et al. 2005, 19). The definition is based on the resource-based view of the corporation (Bratianu 2011). Theoretical Background and History The worry of lack of Earth resources could be traced back to Malthus (1766–1834) and William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882) in view of increased population and energy shortages. There was a “limit to growth” argument proposed by Herman Daly in the twentieth century. In order to avoid ecosystem collapse, there should be a limit on economic growth (Daly 1977). It presents a conflict between economic development and environmental protection. The theoretical foundation for sustainable development was formed from 1972 to 1992 through several international conferences: Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972; World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) conference in 1983 chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland; and the 1992 Rio Summit that proposed institutionalization of sustainable development. Rio Summit proposed the establishment of new institutions. The Commission on Sustainable Development is one of them; its main role is to monitor progress on the agreements reached at Rio. According to Bell and Morse (2003), a pressure-state-response model is suggested. For example, there is pesticide application in watershed (human activities), thus resulting reduction in river biodiversity (Environmental condition). Given the river biodiversity provides recreation environment for fishing and boating (benefits), one would encourage a reduction in pesticide use (societal strategies). It is called a cyclical pressure-stateresponse model (Bell and Morse 2003). Intangibles start off as “research and development item” in 1960s; one later suggestion on top Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development of innovation-related intangibles are human capital and organizational intangibles such as management scheme and capacities (National Research Council 2009). Later on scholars include relational intangibles as a key intangible asset. It was explained by social contract theory. Regarding the relational intangibles, social contract theory was proposed by Rousseau (1762/1973) and existed for several centuries. The theory starts from the relationship among individuals and state. The theory had been applied on the organizational context (Keeley 1988). The key concept of theory lies on the public acceptance of a company’s behavior on the community (Blowfield and Murray 2014). Stakeholder theory is a basis for the company to earn a license to operate in a community, that is to say, the business require the support from members in the community in order to sustain its business (Blowfield and Murray 2014). Social capital is recognized as important assets for the corporation. According to the resource-based view of strategy, the competitive advantage and superior performance of an organization are explained by the distinctiveness of its capabilities (Johnson et al. 2011). Human capital and organizational or structural capital are the examples of strategic capability. For example, how employees gain and use experience, their skills, knowledge, and innovation is corporate human capital. Schein (1992) points out that values, beliefs, behaviors, and taken-for-granted assumptions are the core of an organization’s culture. It is not easily copied by the competitors and forms the uniqueness of the corporation. Measurement on Intangible Assets Intangible assets are difficult to measure since they cannot be seen and measured directly. Thus, identification and measurement for intangible assets are important. There are several approaches on the measurement of intangible assets. The first method is market value approach. The value of intangibles is based on the difference between the stock price and balance sheet value of physical assets. It is easy to apply but based on two ideal assumptions: Intangible Assets and Sustainable Development to mispricing in capital market and historical value in balance sheet representing the current value. The second method is the accounting valuation approach. What is the cost of acquiring that intangible asset? But this is not an accurate number as assets’ value changes over time. Book cost or historical cost is only a reference value. Replacement cost is a proxy for the intangible asset (Cohen 2005; Gu and Lev 2011). The third method is the valuation of individual components of intangible assets such as brands and patents and so on. However, it might not capture an overall value of intangible assets in the company (Gu and Lev 2011). One could use income approach to calculate the value of individual components of intangibles assets by using the equation: value of intangible asset is equal to the return divided by the rate of return (Mard et al. 2011). Of course, discounted value formula has to be used in order to calculate the present value of cash flow. However, the determination of discount rate is a bit hard to decide. Kaplan and Norton (2004) have different view on measurement. They agreed that intangible assets are not measured by its cost or by independent appraisals. The concept of strategic readiness is introduced to describe the status of intangible assets to support the organization’s strategy. The higher the state of readiness, the faster intangible assets contribute to generate cash. Strategic readiness converts intangible assets into tangible value when increased levels of revenue and profit are recorded (Kaplan and Norton 2004). Conclusion If a resource is used, it is replaced by growing other amounts of the resources or equivalent; this is the idea of sustainability. In a modern society, intangible assets are one of the important resources for corporation. The investment of on intangible assets, especially on those unrecognized portion, would be incorporated as a whole on the “goodwill” of the company in longer term. It contributes to the sustainable development force for the corporation. 983 Investing more on research and development would let the company have better products or services. At the same time, the company enjoys firstmover advantage and high adapting power on changing environment. One the other hand, some companies choose to invest less on research and development in order to save cost and avoid risk in short term. They are eager to enjoy second-mover advantage. However, they might suffer the risk in long term by being pulled out from the existing market. Investment on human capital motivates employees internally and attracts talents from the outside. With good employees and low turnover rate, companies have better performance. The company might earn the award such as “best employer” or “best workplace.” They contribute intellectual capital on the corporation. According to the National Research Council (2009), high turnover rate in today’s world discourage investment on human capital. Less investment in developed countries is common since almost all the workers are highly educated. Also, the company does not own human capital directly. Human capital becomes an individual property, and heavily investing on human capital might suffer higher cost (National Research Council 2009). Regarding structural capital, it would be easier for the corporation to maintain even some of the workers in and out throughout the years. More investment on structural capital usually favored by most of the shareholders as they think the money is for the whole and easy for them to rationalize would contribute as corporate goodwill eventually. For an organization to be sustainable, it must be socially responsible. Under the rules of corporate governance and social responsibility self-regulation, one might unpack the concept of social responsibility and sustainability. Borghesi and Vercelli (2008) point out the organization creates lasting values for all its stakeholders. As a return, organization reputation can be established as it is rated by stakeholders. From the accounting perspective, “goodwill” might not be realized until the company is acquired by the other party. In fact, the company can have better image or reputation in the middle of the road. In conclusion, there is a strong linkage between intangible assets and sustainable development. I 984 Cross-References ▶ Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development References Bell S, Morse S (2003) Measuring sustainability. Earthscan, London Blowfield M, Murry A (2014) Corporate responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford Borghest S, Vercelli A (2008) Global sustainability. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Bratianu C (2011) A new perspective of the intellectual capital dynamics in organizations. In: Vallejo B, Rodriguez A, Arregui G (eds) Identifying, measuring and valuing knowledge-based intangible assets. Business Science Reference, New York, pp 1–21 Ceballos D, Quesada A, Ramirez D (2011) Financial risks and intangibles. In: Vallejo B, Rodriguez A, Arregui G (eds) Identifying, measuring and valuing knowledgebased intangible assets. Business Science Reference, New York, pp 294–308 Cohen J (2005) Intangible assets. Wiley, Hoboken Daly HE (1977) Steady-state economics. Freeman, San Francisco Durst S (2011) Intangible assets and company succession. In: Vallejo B, Rodriguez A, Arregui G (eds) Identifying, measuring and valuing knowledge-based intangible assets. Business Science Reference, New York, pp 64–85 Gu F, Lev B (2011) Intangible assets: measurement, drivers, and usefulness. In: Schiuma G (ed) Managing knowledge assets and business value creation in organizations: measures and dynamics. IGI Global, Hershey Hands J (2003) The increasing returns-to-scale of intangibles. In: Hand J, Lev B (eds) Intangibles assets. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 303–334 Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (2018) Intangible assets. Hong Kong Accounting Standard, Hong Kong. p 38 International Valuation Standards Council (2006) Valuation of intangible assets. Guidance Note No. 4, section 3.15 Johnson G, Whittington R, Scholes K (2011) Exploring strategy, 11th edn. Pearson, Harlow Kaplan R, Norton D (2004) Strategy maps. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Keeley M (1988) A social contract theory of organizations. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame Mard M, Hitchner J, Hyden S (2011) Valuation for financial reporting, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York Martin D, Schouten J (2012) Sustainable marketing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Moberly M (2014) Safeguarding intangible assets. Elsevier, Amsterdam National Research Council (2009) Intangible assets. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC Integrated Sustainability Assessment Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001) Strategies for sustainable development: guidance for development co-operation. OECD Publishing, Paris Roos G, Pike S, Fernstrom L (2005) Managing intellectual capital in practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam Rousseau J (1762/1973) The social contract and other discourses (trans: Cole H). Dutton & Co., New York Schein E (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Stewart T (1999) Intellectual capital. The new wealth of organization. Nicholas Brealey, London The International Accounting Standards Board (IASC) (2004) International Accounting Standard 38 Intangible Assets The International Accounting Standards Board (IASC) (2014) International Accounting Standard 38 Intangible Assets World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford Integrated Sustainability Assessment ▶ Higher Education’s Sustainability Assessment Procedures Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education Michael Ekow Manuel1 and Alina Prylipko2 1 World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden 2 Blackpool and The Fylde College, Fleetwood, Lancashire, UK Definition Principles of sustainable development may be defined as the concepts or propositions that inform the beliefs, choices, strategies and actions of organizations and individuals and that lead to optimum sustainable development outcomes. Introduction Education is a key instrument of social change. Legal instruments, often heavily relied on in many Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education jurisdictions, have to be complemented with other shapers of social behavior such as market forces and primarily education (Schuck 2000). Optimum education can lead to learners’ proactive engagement with social issues and both address emerging challenges and mitigate the negative consequences of previous actions and decisions (Manuel 2017). In light of the ongoing discourse about how higher education (HE) can influence a move toward a sustainable future, this chapter explores the extant literature on the concepts of sustainability, sustainable development (SD), education for sustainable development (ESD), and the principles and value systems perceived to underpin them. It further explores the literature on how higher education institutions (HEI) have sought to integrate sustainability principles in their work and curricula, the challenges they face in doing so, and approaches taken to respond to these challenges. Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education The Nature and Societal Role of HE The role and focus of HE are not static. However, one abiding focus has been the cultivating of intellect. As Newman (1907) notes, HE “contemplates neither moral impression nor mechanical production; it professes to exercise the mind neither in art nor in duty; its function is intellectual culture”. Newman recognized the arguments of others who were “purveyors of the theory of the utility of education” but disagreed with them. The view of scholars like Newman, however, did not gain much traction and was deemed to have been rejected by society at large (Scott 1993); today’s pragmatic utility of HE evidences this. The utilitarian approach has been argued to have ensured HE’s continued survival and societal relevance based on its ability to adapt to different socioeconomic orders and to scientific and cultural change (Scott 1993; Houston et al. 2008). HE continues to express variety and adaptability. However, elements of the debate from the early 1900s remain, not least in the domain 985 of SD. While the role of HE in SD has been widely acknowledged (Adomßent et al. 2014; Amaral et al. 2015; Rieckmann and Barth 2016; Cebrián et al. 2015; Disterheft et al. 2015), views of specific roles, values, and potential in achieving sustainability vary (Shephard 2008). Wals and Jickling (2002) contrast “utilitarian views” with “emancipatory views” of HE for SD. The emancipatory view focuses on developing students’ ability to “critique, construct and act with a high degree of autonomy and self-determination” and “to cope with uncertainty, poorly defined situations and conflicting or at least diverging norms, values, interests and reality constructions” (Wals and Jickling 2002). On the contrary, the utilitarian view sees education, particularly HE, as “one means or instrument that governments can use to create a sustainable world as they (and the interest groups influencing governments) define it.” The problem with this latter view is that “to educate for sustainability is not necessarily educational when sustainability is fixed, pre-and expert determined (i.e. academics) and to be reproduced by novices (i.e. students)” (Wals and Jickling 2002). The distinction between the two views and the arguments for and against each are reminiscent of earlier discourses (Newman 1907). HE is seen as a social mechanism for developing values of a society and advancing science toward social needs (Godemann et al. 2014; Beynaghi et al. 2016) rather than being limited to being a demand derived from the needs of market economies. Stephens and Graham (2010) also emphasize that apart from the development of the cognitive domain of education, HE plays an important role in nurturing values, attitudes, and behaviors required for transition toward better societies (Rieckmann 2012; Shephard 2008). Definitions and Values Relating to Sustainability, SD, and ESD “Sustainability” has been described as ambiguous and vague (Fergus and Rowney 2005). Sustainability, in essence, is bereft of mechanisms for mediating conflicting interests between stakeholders with incompatible perceptions/values of what constitutes sustainable practices and SD I 986 Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education (Wals and Jickling 2002) and is further complicated by its interchangeable use in scientific, political, and symbolic contexts. Similarly, achieving a global consensus on what SD means is not without challenges. Despite its extensive historical roots (Du Pisani 2006), the lack of consensus regarding the definition of SD as a construct has been reported extensively (Lélé 1991; Chichilnisky 1997; Fergus and Rowney 2005; Kates et al. 2005; Jabareen 2008; Voigt 2009; Leal Filho 2011). Nonetheless, the debate on the definition and meaning of SD is not seen as meaningless (Dresner 2008). Interestingly, the very thing that makes the term difficult to define and its perceived weakness – the uncertainty arising from the extrapolation of the term to various areas of social life – is also seen by others to be a strength (Lélé 1991), because it allows for the engagement of a very large group of stakeholders, which engagement is vital for SD, howsoever defined. As Wals and Jickling (2002) argue, the vagueness, ambiguity, and ambivalence inherent in the primary word sustainability “has an enormous canvassing and heuristic capacity if it is systematically used as a starting point or operational device to exchange views and ideas.” Such open, critical engagement is the core paradigm of HE, a context in which critical thinking thrives (or should thrive). To mobilize stakeholders using SD as a framework for dialogue requires the development of mechanisms for resolving conflicting stakeholders’ interests; mechanisms that clarify the understanding of SD; the interrelation of its primary dimensions, i.e., economic, social, environmental (Godemann et al. 2014), and institutional (Aleixo et al. 2018); and the different priorities given to them by stakeholders. It is noteworthy, however, that the effectiveness of SD as a framework for stakeholder dialogue is occasionally compromised by deliberate substitution of its meaning and principles to accommodate certain corporate/political agendas. As argued by Kopnina (2011), for example, corporate entities might endeavor to subordinate the environmental and social dimensions of SD to their financial (economic) interests. The different value systems that underpin “education for sustainable development” (ESD) raise the same issues as they do for sustainability and SD. HE’s relationship with sustainability and its development has been captured in at least three areas: (a) education for sustainability, focusing on environmental sustainability; (b) sustainability of education, focusing on the implementation of sustainable forms of education practice; and (c) education for sustainable development , focusing on better living conditions and stewardship of the earth for present and the future (Jahan et al. 2018 citing Bourn and Shiel; Dawe et al.; Sterling; Davies and West-Burnham and Shoel and Howes). Vare and Scott (2007) identify a difference between ESD 1 which they describe as “the promotion of informed, skilled behaviours and ways of thinking, useful in the short-term where the need is clearly identified and agreed” and ESD 2, described “as building capacity to think critically about what experts say and to test ideas, exploring the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in sustainable living.” They state, however, that these two are complementary and, comparing it to the ancient Chinese concept of “Yin and Yang,” opine that this holistic approach to ESD provides a more appropriate heuristic. Sterling (2016) views the distinction between an “instrumental or goal-oriented view of education and ESD on the one hand, and an intrinsic or learnercentred view of education and ESD on the other” as “an unhelpful dichotomy that needs to be healed as both views bring essential insight to the vital debate on the purpose of education.” He suggests that the two together “hold the promise and potential of a shift in educational thinking, policy and practice which engenders deep and transformative learning on the part of the individual and community.” However, this ideal complementary heuristic of ESD is not always at the fore of HE. As Jickling and Wals (2012) note, contemporary education, including HE, is modelled on the interests/nature of dominant socioeconomic paradigms with an overall utilitarian/instrumental objective. As a result, HE is perceived as a derived demand from the primary demand of market forces (Sterling 2016; Godemann et al. 2014). This Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education gives impetus to a situation where HE becomes susceptible to maintaining the unsustainable practices generated by the socioeconomic status quo. Jickling and Wals (2012) are concerned that ESD, thereby, becomes an instrument of indoctrination. Education could then actually contribute to the sustainability crisis rather than help solve current challenges (Tilbury 2011). As Wals (2011) debatably stresses, “using education as a tool to influence human behaviour in a particular direction [. . .] contradicts the essence of education.” UNESCO’s holistic view of ESD is that it empowers and equips current and future generations to have values and attitudes and ways of thinking and working that enables “a more sustainable and just society for all” and uses “a balanced and integrated approach to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development” to meet their needs (Leicht et al. 2018). Barriers to Integrating Principles of SD into HE Despite the vagueness, ambiguity, and challenges associated with sustainability, SD, and ESD, the international community is slowly progressing toward SD as a coalescing of the understandings of the paradigm and the ability to take actions maturely (Kapitulčinová et al. 2018; Tilbury 2015; Wals 2014). In academia, institutions have also advanced considerably in this direction (Leal Filho 2011) but with some difficulty. A number of barriers account for the difficulty in integrating principles of SD in HE. One such barrier is the focus on different dimensions of SD by different stakeholders (Lozano 2011; Aleixo et al. 2018). Aleixo et al. (2018) note that a “holistic approach has not been taken because actions have been compartmentalized and applied in only one or two dimensions.” For example, while some HE institutions focus on the economic and environmental dimensions (Disterheft et al. 2013), others focus on the social dimension (Aleixo et al. 2018). The absence of a shared understanding of SD and ESD, their dimensions, conceptual elements, and interrelations remains a critical barrier to the implementation of the paradigm shift which is argued to be necessary for integrating sustainable 987 principles into HE (Mader et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2012; Tilbury 2015). The complexity and full scope of SD complicate the understanding and application of its principles; sustainability remains misunderstood and largely underestimated (Amador et al. 2015; Leal Filho 2011; Lozano 2010; Lozano et al. 2013) due to a traditional bias for science reductionism (Huckle 2004; Wals and Jickling 2002). A full appreciation of SD’s value, which could then lead to the changes in attitude and behavior, is lacking. One of the most widely acknowledged barriers in integrating sustainability into HE is the lack of leadership and support from top management (Mader et al. 2013; Velazquez et al. 2005; Wright and Horst 2013). Such a leadership deficit manifests itself in the absence of clear strategic goals and good planning with achievable and meaningful targets (Leal Filho 2015; Leal Filho et al. 2018). The underlying reason for deficient leadership might be the lack of true commitment, the lack of awareness about sustainability (Disterheft et al. 2013; Lozano et al. 2013; Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015), or the absence of staff specialized in SD in university decision-making bodies (Leal Filho 2015). On the operational level, a deficit of institutional support/interest might translate into no/weak communication, poor monitoring, and a lack of incentives for staff and students (Mader et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2012; Wright and Horst 2013). The role of stakeholders – including faculty, staff, and students – as active agents of change toward SD should not be underestimated (Mader et al. 2013). However, apathy on the part of one set of stakeholders, e.g., management, faculty, or students, can contribute to a decline of interest in sustainability issues among other sets. Even though certain sustainable initiatives may be successful without top management’s support (Disterheft et al. 2015), for this to happen, there is the need for comprehensive and overarching strategies for transforming the educational paradigm toward SD. Implementing sustainability is further complicated by limitations in available resources in terms of staffing, training opportunities, time (Ávila et al. 2017; Disterheft et al. 2015; Thomas et al. I 988 Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education 2012; Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015), and finances (Tilbury 2015). A lack of willingness to invest in the resources required (Leal Filho 2015) and difficulties in quantifying the related costs (Leal Filho 2011) exacerbate this. Other barriers include resistance to change (Disterheft et al. 2013; Djordjevic and Cotton 2011), lack of empowerment/involvement (Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015), lack of effective organizational communication (Djordjevic and Cotton 2011), and even fear of extra work (Disterheft et al. 2013). Another challenge is that sustainability remains an area of scientific interest for only a few staff and largely fails “to reach the core of staff, students and stakeholders or indeed influence the culture of the institutions” (Tilbury 2011). Verhulst and Lambrechts (2015) and Leal Filho (2015) also identify barriers related to the structure of HE, such as overloaded content in curricula (Disterheft et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2012), rigid disciplinary structures (Disterheft et al. 2013; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Moore 2005; Tilbury 2015; Velazquez et al. 2005), and the failure to reward transdisciplinary research (Mader et al. 2013). Ávila et al. (2017) and Lozano (2011) mention the lack of mature reporting and accountability mechanisms as another significant barrier. These barriers are all, arguably, interrelated and relate to discourses on organizational culture, change management, organizational learning, and innovation diffusion (Verhulst and Lambrechts 2015; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010; Mader et al. 2013; Amaral et al. 2015; Ávila et al. 2017; Cebrián et al. 2015). Fundamentally, however, Disterheft et al. (2015) conclude that “universities have not yet understood the full scope of sustainability challenges” and, as a result, the absence of the needed paradigm shift, and in many cases even the awareness that such a shift is needed, remains the main barrier to the integration of SD in HE. Integrating SD into HE: Overcoming the Barriers One approach to integrating the principles of SD into HE has been for HEI to sign declarations, charters, and initiatives with a view to implementing the principles in these instruments in curricula and management practices. However, the good intentions of signatories are not always reflected in good implementation practices (Wright 2002; Lozano et al. 2015). Ideally, such commitments should be followed by implementation, verification of outcomes, and reporting mechanisms (Amaral et al. 2015). Integrating principles of sustainable education in HE also requires a reorientation of the focus of universities. SD is often referred to as a new paradigm, which requires revision of social and scientific beliefs and practices, including the nature and role of HE (Cebrián et al. 2015). Importantly, SD not only requires such a revision but actually offers a conceptual framework for such modification (Stewart 2010). Accordingly, within the SD paradigm, the role and nature of universities must be reconsidered, reoriented, or transformed toward sustainability (Cebrián et al. 2013; Moore 2005; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Steiner and Posch 2006; Tilbury 2011, 2015) and include changes in curriculum, pedagogical approach, structure, administration, and operations. Not only does education need to be transformative as a societal change agent, it also needs itself to be transformed (Ramos et al. 2015; Sterling 2016; Stephens et al. 2008; Svanström et al. 2008). Such significant organizational transformations require exceptionally strong leadership (Cebrián et al. 2013; Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010) and correctly aligned institutional strategies, vision, mission, and ethos, with genuine commitment (Thomas et al. 2012). Although contemporary research mainly highlights the benefits of a top-down approach with only few authors identifying the related risks (Djordjevic and Cotton 2011), a complementary bottom-up approach is just as important. The efforts of change agents who work in a bottomup approach to engage other stakeholders in sustainable thinking and practice (Kapitulčinová et al. 2018) are important. They will, however, only yield sustainable results when combined with a matured top-down emphasis on the value of sustainability and an organizational structure and culture that inculcates the values of sustainability in all the educational elements, i.e., Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education decision-making, governance, campus management, research and curriculum development, delivery, assessment and evaluation, staff development, and student engagement (Barth and Rieckmann 2012; Huckle 2014; Leal Filho 2015). In addition, and due to the nature and complexity of sustainability, a transdisciplinary approach has the potential to prompt synergies with other areas of HE governance by creating dialogue and even consensus among institutional stakeholders. Due consideration should be given to the planning and development of adequate practical approaches (including teaching strategies) for integrating sustainability into HE (Leal Filho 2011; Leal Filho et al. 2018) taking into account contemporary institutional experiences, specific jurisdictional sustainability challenges, and the aforementioned barriers. Teaching and learning strategies should be dynamic, providing opportunities for regular reflection (Moore 2005) as well as enabling stakeholder involvement in both content development and learning outcomes (Wals and Jickling 2002). Identifying recommendations for integrating SD into HE is a simple exercise compared to actually implementing these recommendations (Moore 2005). Implementation is key; as Mader et al. (2013) stress, “good ideas with no ideas on how to implement them are wasted ideas.” However, there are few objective success indicators to verify implementation or monitor progress. Sustainability reports, assessment of documentation and/or processes, and surveys of stakeholder opinions are the primary tools for collecting information. Actual objective measures of sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors are limited. The determination and measurement of objective success indicators in affective and behavioral change remain under-researched. 989 contemporary HE models which tend to be based on the interests of the dominant socioeconomic paradigm appear unable to accommodate the principles of SD without considerable transformation. The discussion in this chapter demonstrates that a paradigm shift is needed for a move toward comprehensive SD. In summary, to implement SD, HE leaders should, as recommended by Lozano et al. (2015): 1. Acknowledge that the HEI system is comprised of several interrelated elements. 2. Commit to SD by integrating SD into the HEI’s policies and strategies. 3. Show the HEI’s commitment by signing a declaration and charter of initiative. 4. Establish short-, medium-, and long-term plans for the institutionalization of SD. 5. Ensure that SD is implemented throughout the system. This rather lucid and noteworthy quote from Sterling’s (2004) is a good conclusion to this chapter: . . . Sustainability does not simply require an “addon” to existing structures and curricula, but implies a change of fundamental epistemology in our culture and hence also in our thinking and practice . . . Sustainability is not just another issue to be added to an overcrowded curriculum, but a gateway to a different view of curriculum, of pedagogy, of organisational change, of policy and particularly of ethos . . . The response of higher education should not be predicated only on the ‘integration of sustainability’ into higher education, because this invites a limited, adaptive, response . . . We need to see the relationship the other way around – that is, the necessary transformation of higher education towards the integrative and more whole state implied by a systemic view of sustainability in education and society, however difficult this may be to realise. References Conclusion HE has always been at “the forefront of creating as well as deconstructing paradigms” (Tilbury 2011) through scientific/thought advancement and knowledge transfer (Waas et al. 2010). However, Adomßent M, Fischer D, Godemann J, Herzig C, Otte I, Rieckmann M, Timm J (2014) Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development – management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. J Clean Prod 62:1–7 I 990 Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education Aleixo AM, Azeiteiro UM, Leal S (2018) The implementation of sustainability practices in Portuguese higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 19:146–178 Amador F, Martinho AP, Bacelar-Nicolau P, Caeiro S, Oliveira CP (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: evaluating coherence between theory and praxis. Assess Eval High Educ 40(6):867–882 Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB (2015) Quest for a sustainable university: a review. Int J Sustain High Educ 16(2):155–172 Ávila LV, Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Macgregor CJ, Molthan-Hill P, Özuyar PG, Moreira RM (2017) Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. J Clean Prod 164:1268–1278 Barth M, Rieckmann M (2012) Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective. J Clean Prod 26:28–36 Beynaghi A, Trencher G, Moztarzadeh F, Mozafari M, Maknoon R, Leal Filho W (2016) Future sustainability scenarios for universities: moving beyond the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. J Clean Prod 112(4):3464–3478 Cebrián G, Grace M, Humphris D (2013) Organisational learning towards sustainability in higher education. Sustain Acc Manag Policy J 4(3):285–306. https://doi. org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2012-0043 Cebrián G, Grace M, Humphris D (2015) Academic staff engagement in education for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 106:79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.12.010 Chichilnisky G (1997) What is sustainable development? Land Econ 73(4):467–491 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W (2013) Sustainability science and education for sustainable development in universities: a way for transition. In: Caeiro S, Leal Filho W, Jabbour C, Azeiteiro UM (eds) Sustainability assessment tools in higher education institutions: mapping trends and good practices around the world. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, pp 3–27 Disterheft A, Caeiro S, Azeiteiro UM, Leal Filho W (2015) Sustainable universities – a study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. J Clean Prod 106:11–21 Djordjevic A, Cotton DRE (2011) Communicating the sustainability message in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(4):381–394 Dresner S (2008) The principles of sustainability, 2nd edn. Earthscan (Routledge), London Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3(2):83–96 Fergus AHT, Rowney JIA (2005) Sustainable development: lost meaning and opportunity? J Bus Ethics 60(1):17–27 Ferrer-Balas D, Lozano R, Huisingh D, Buckland H, Ysern P, Zilahy G (2010) Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. J Clean Prod 18(7):607–610 Godemann J, Bebbington J, Herzig C, Moon J (2014) Higher education and sustainable development: exploring possibilities for organisational change. Account Audit Account J 27(2):218–233 Houston D, Robertson T, Prebble T (2008) Exploring quality in a university department: perspectives and meanings. Qual High Educ 14(3):209–223 Huckle J (2004) Critical realism: a philosophical framework for higher education for sustainability. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 33–46 Huckle J (2014) Education for sustainable citizenship: an emerging focus for education for sustainability. In: Huckle J, Sterling S (eds) Education for sustainability. Earthscan (Routledge), London, pp 228–243 Jabareen Y (2008) A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environ Dev Sustain 10(2):179–192 Jahan M, Arif-Uz-Zaman M, Tofail Hossain ANM, Akhter S (2018) Open and distance learning for sustainable development in Bangladesh. In: Pandey UC, Indrakanti V (eds) Optimizing open and distance learning in higher education institutions. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 40–70 Jickling B, Wals AEJ (2012) Debating education for sustainable development 20 years after Rio: a conversation between Bob Jickling and Arjen Wals. J Educ Sustain Dev 6(1):49–57 Kapitulčinová D, AtKisson A, Perdue J, Will M (2018) Towards integrated sustainability in higher education – mapping the use of the Accelerator toolset in all dimensions of university practice. J Clean Prod 172:4367–4382 Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47(3):8–21 Kopnina H (2011) Revisiting education for sustainable development (ESD): examining anthropocentric bias through the transition of environmental education to ESD. Sustain Dev 22:73–83 Lambrechts W, Mulà I, Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Gaeremynck V (2013) The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: analysis of bachelor programs in management. J Clean Prod 48:65–73 Leal Filho W (2011) Applied sustainable development: a way forward in promoting sustainable development in higher education institutions. In: Leal Filho W (ed) World trends in education for sustainable development. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt, pp 11–29 Leal Filho W (2015) Education for sustainable development in higher education: reviewing needs. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Transformative approaches to sustainable development at universities. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, pp 3–12 Leal Filho W, Pallant E, Enete A, Richter B, Brandli LL (2018) Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the Integrating Principles of Sustainable Development into Higher Education difficulties and potentials. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 25(8):713–721 Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (2018) Introduction. In: Leicht A, Heiss J, Byun WJ (eds) Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 7–16 Lélé SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19(6):607–621 Lozano R (2010) Diffusion of sustainable development in universities’ curricula: an empirical example from Cardiff University. J Clean Prod 18(7):637–644 Lozano R (2011) The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int J Sustain High Educ 12(1):67–78 Lozano R, Lukman R, Lozano FJ, Huisingh D, Lambrechts W (2013) Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J Clean Prod 48:10–19 Lozano R, Ceulemans K, Alonso-Almeida M, Huisingh D, Lozano FJ, Waas T, Lambrechts W, Lukman R, Hugé J (2015) A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. J Clean Prod 108(Part A):1–18 Mader C, Scott G, Abdul Razak D (2013) Effective change management, governance and policy for sustainability transformation in higher education. Sustain Acc Manag Policy J 4(3):264–284 Manuel ME (2017) Vocational and academic approaches to maritime education and training (MET): trends, challenges and opportunities. WMU J Marit Aff 16(3):473–483 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):326–339 Newman JH (1907) The idea of a university defined and illustrated: (A) In nine discourses delivered to the Catholics of Dublin; (B) In occasional lectures and essays addressed to the members of the Catholic university. Longmans, Green, and Co., London Ramos TB, Caeiro S, van Hoof B, Lozano R, Huisingh D, Ceulemans K (2015) Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: environmental management for sustainable universities. J Clean Prod 106:3–10 Rieckmann M (2012) Future-oriented higher education: which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 44(2):127–135 Rieckmann M, Barth M (2016) State of the art in research on higher education for sustainable development. In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, London, pp 100–113 Schuck PH (2000) The limits of law. Westview, Boulder Scott P (1993) The idea of the university in the 21st century: a British perspective. Br J Educ Stud 41(1):4–25 Shephard K (2008) Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(1):87–98 991 Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14(9–11):877–890 Stephens JC, Graham AC (2010) Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: exploring the transition management framework. J Clean Prod 18(7):611–618 Stephens JC, Hernandez ME, Román M, Graham AC, Scholz RW (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):317–338 Sterling S (2004) Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Corcoran PB, Wals AEJ (eds) Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-30648515-x_5 Sterling S (2016) A commentary on education and sustainable development goals. J Educ Sustain Dev 10(2):208–213 Stewart M (2010) Transforming higher education: a practical plan for integrating sustainability education into the student experience. J Sustain Educ 1(1):1–13 Svanström M, Lozano-García FJ, Rowe D (2008) Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 9(3):339–351 Thomas I, Hegarty K, Holdsworth S (2012) The education for sustainability jig-saw puzzle: implementation in universities. Creat Educ 3(6):840–846 Tilbury D (2011) Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of commitment and progress. In: GUNi (ed) Higher education in the world, vol 4. Global University Network for Innovation (GUNi), Barcelona, pp 18–28 Tilbury D (2015) Education for sustainability: a snakes and ladders game? Foro de Educación 13(19):7–10 Vare P, Scott W (2007) Learning for change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. J Educ Sustain Dev 1(2):191–198 Velazquez L, Munguia N, Sanchez M (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability in higher education institutions. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):383–391 Verhulst E, Lambrechts W (2015) Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education: lessons learned from a change management perspective. J Clean Prod 106:189–204 Voigt C (2009) Sustainable development as a principle of international law: resolving conflicts between climate measures and WTO law. Legal aspects of sustainable development. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Waas T, Verbruggen A, Wright T (2010) University research for sustainable development: definition and characteristics explored. J Clean Prod 18(7):629–636 Wals AEJ (2011) Learning our way to sustainability. J Educ Sustain Dev 5(2):177–186 Wals AEJ (2014) Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J Clean Prod 62:8–15 I 992 Wals AEJ, Jickling B (2002) “Sustainability” in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):221–232 Wright TSA (2002) Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 3(3):203–220 Wright T, Horst N (2013) Exploring the ambiguity: what faculty leaders really think of sustainability in higher education. Int J Sustain High Educ 14(2):209–227 Integrative ▶ Multi-disciplinarity Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development Integrative (World Bank Group 2016). These INDCs collectively “contribute” towards reaching the global goal of less than 2  C warming compared to the preindustrial baseline (Levin et al. 2015). Simply put, the INDCs are the method by which countries communicate internationally on their climate policies and address emissions reduction and adaptation strategies, thereby creating “a constructive feedback loop” on the global scale (WRI n.d.). The concept behind INDCs is a way to commit into writing the mitigation and adaptation strategies that each nation must take to sustainably develop in the face of climate change (World Bank Group 2016). INDCs which are ambitious, transparent, and equitable present an opportunity for individual nations to stand out and demonstrate leadership and political commitment (WRI n.d.; Levin et al. 2015). They aim to spark investment, new technologies, and innovation to create a shift towards sustainable development and a low-carbon future (Levin et al. 2015). Emma Thornton Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA Introduction Definition The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are the foundation of the Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.). They represent the voluntary national post-2020 climate action commitments that Parties intended to take and communicate to the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Secretariat under the 2015 Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.; Levin et al. 2015; World Bank Group 2016; Clemencon 2016). Each country developed its own commitment to combatting climate change, according to its own unique circumstances, making each INDC “nationally determined” (Levin et al. 2015). The pledges are voluntary and demonstrate a wide variety of methodologies and baselines (Clemencon 2016). When the INDCs were devised in 2015, their legal status was yet to be solidified, which made them “intended” (Levin et al. 2015). They become binding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) when a Party ratifies the Paris Agreement The Paris Climate Agreement was adopted by 196 Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2015 during the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) (Rogelj et al. 2016; UNFCCC 2019). This monumental global Agreement strives to limit global warming to 2  C or less above preindustrial levels, with a further ambition to keep warming below 1.5  C, in an effort to mitigate the threats caused by climate change; create common but differentiated mitigation commitments between countries so as to safeguard equity; and ensure transparent monitoring and reporting of emissions (Clemencon 2016; Levin et al. 2015; WRI n.d.). In order to achieve these goals, Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Paris Agreement calls upon Member Parties to create and communicate voluntary emissions reductions targets detailed by Member Parties to COP21, called the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (Clemencon 2016; Levin et al. 2015; UNFCCC 2019). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development How the INDCs Were Created? The INDCs were to be drafted for the 2015 COP21 in Paris, after which they were adopted (Levin et al. 2015). The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was a breakthrough in the climate negotiations after years of deadlock, as it represented a shift in the way nations viewed their approach to solving the climate change crisis (Clemencon 2016). Previously, under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for which negotiations began in 1992 in Rio, both developing and developed countries were required to limit their emissions equally, though emissions reductions targets were binding for developed countries only (Chasek et al. 2017). When the INDCs were designed, each Party was entitled to take its own approach to creating its unique INDC in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) (WRI n.d.). This resulted in documents which differ greatly from country to country (Clemencon 2016). In developing their INDCs, Parties had the option of taking one of two approaches: (1) outlining specific mitigation strategies and (2) specifying a desired outcome of national action (Levin et al. 2015). The Regional Technical Dialogues on INDCs, hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UNFCCC in 2014–2015, recommended that the Parties use data and technical analysis, including current and projected emissions, to inform their INDCs (Levin et al. 2015). This is distinct from the legally binding Kyoto Protocol because it is the first time that each country created a voluntary, nationally determined obligation, or commitment to combat climate change with an emphasis on consensus-building. In the Paris Agreement, there is no real division between developed and developing nations (Chasek et al. 2017). Transitioning INDCs to NDCs The INDCs are “intended” because they were created in anticipation of the Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.). These commitments turn into NDCs when a country formally ratifies and joins the 993 Paris Agreement (WRI n.d.; Meinshausen n.d.). The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016, which is 30 days after the date that 55 Parties (constituting 55% of the global greenhouse gas emissions) submitted their ratifications. Parties are invited to communicate their first NDC prior to ratification (UNFCCC 2019), and countries are expected to submit to the UNFCCC Secretariat an updated NDC every 5 years (WRI n.d.). Each new submission, all of which are public in the NDC registry on the UNFCCC Secretariat’s website, must represent a progression upwards from that Party’s last commitment (UNFCCC 2019). At COP23 and 24 in 2017–2018 the Global Stocktake (GST), with negotiations known as the Talanoa Dialogue, was initiated. Every 5 years starting in 2023, the GST will encourage countries to prepare new NDCs and increase their ambitions and long-term targets (UNFCCC 2019). The implementation of the GST is one of the major achievements of COP21 (Kinley 2017). Select Components Many sectors are touched upon in the mitigation, adaptation, and financing aspects of the INDCs, including energy, agriculture, transport, environment, urban, water, and disaster risk management (World Bank Group 2016; UNFCCC 2019). The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) published briefing papers on sectoral implementation of the NDCs, including recommendations. In its overview, GIZ notes that in order to best implement NDCs, action takes place primarily at a sectoral level. The most commonly covered sectors are energy, agriculture, and mitigation. Mitigation is an obvious inclusion since its very definition in this context is reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a major focus of the Paris Agreement and an essential way to tackle the root cause of climate change. The energy sector retains great importance, considering over half of GHG emissions come from this sector. Agriculture is another major source of GHG emissions, but more information is needed on how to make and enforce I 994 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development low-carbon strategies (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) 2017). The strategies outlined in the NDCs are either conditional or unconditional. Conditional NDCs, which are common in developing countries, are contingent on external funding for implementation (Helland et al. 2018). These distinctions represent the CBDRs of different countries outlined under the Paris Agreement, as developing countries are usually those which have not contributed to climate change but tend to suffer disproportionately from its harm (Zyl et al. 2018). Sustainable Development According to the UNFCCC, emissions reductions should be done in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication (UNFCCC 2019). Indeed, 2015 marked both the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the completion of the Paris Agreement on climate change (Ari 2017). Sustainable development is defined by the monumental Brundtland Report as development which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland et al. 1987). This concept is better characterized as ecologically sound development than as sustained growth or change (Lele 1991), since the limits to global development are enshrined in the limits of ecological and energy resources (Brundtland et al. 1987). International cooperation is necessary to successfully ensure sustainable development (Brundtland et al. 1987). In light of this, nations around the world came together in 2015 to develop the Sustainable Development Goals. While explicit connections between the SDGs and the Paris Agreement are not strong, the two international agreements remain interconnected nonetheless (Ari 2017). Each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is connected to ten or more climate activities in the original INDCs. The SDGs with the greatest presence (according to how many INDC climate activities correspond to the SDG) in the original INDCs are (7) Affordable and Clean Energy, (15) Life on Land, (2) No Hunger, and (11) Sustainable Cities and Communities, in that order. SDG 13 (Climate Action) is inherently present in all NDCs, and 66% of climate action is related to adaptation measures (compared to 9% mitigation and 22% combination mitigation and adaptation). In terms of SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 31% of INDC climate action commitments in this space are quantifiable and therefore measurable (German Development Institute n.d.). Adaptation and Mitigation The (I)NDCs are the way that countries communicate internally and globally on their climate policies through adaptation and mitigation targets (WRI n.d.). Climate change mitigation refers to combatting the issue through GHG emissions reductions, and broad policy categories include switching to renewables, increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy demand, and sequestering atmospheric carbon (IPCC 2007). A sustainable energy future would require all countries to lower their emissions, requiring a dramatic shift in the way we see energy: fossil fuels to renewable sources, along with carbon capture and storage (CSS) (World Bank 2009). Other methods of reducing GHG emissions in different sectors include policies which promote active transport, including walking and bicycling; sustainable agriculture policies, including those that decrease meat consumption; and reforestation and forest growth land-use policies (Dellasala and Goldstein 2018). One such conditional mitigation method is reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), by which developing countries are compensated for sustainable management of forests and reduction of forestrelated carbon emissions (Larson et al. 2013). Climate change adaptation refers to an “adjustment in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts” (IPCC 2007). While 189 countries included mitigation targets in their initial or subsequent (I)NDCs, only 140 included adaptation targets (World Bank Group 2016). Much of adaptation is reactive, and adaptations may amplify the impacts of climate change (or example, air conditioning). Any adaptation has the potential to impose unintended consequences on natural and social systems (Adger Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development et al. 2005; Nelson 2011; Godfray et al. 2010). Therefore, successful adaptation measures are effective, efficient, and equitable, taking into account sustainable development, especially for developing countries (Adger et al. 2005). Common but Differentiated Responsibilities The 1997 Kyoto Protocol asked each country to share an equal part of carbon emissions reduction. Unfortunately, this strategy led to a disproportionate burden on developing countries (Clemencon 2016), especially since developed countries are responsible for the majority of atmospheric carbon emissions related to energy, while developing countries are hardest hit by climate change (World Bank 2009). Learning from this, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) was determined so that Parties from developed countries must provide financial resources for Parties from developing countries (Zhang and Pan 2016). The shared responsibility of mitigation is determined based on development level, including social, economic, and technical capabilities (Ari 2017). Since each country faces unique challenges, each INDC was designed such that every Party could determine its own fair contributions (Levin et al. 2015). The Paris Agreement was a shift to a universal treaty, so that all countries, not just the developed ones, made commitments (Chasek et al. 2017). Climate Finance The issue of finance is widely debated. Nonetheless, coming out of COP21 Parties agreed to focus on the reporting and assessment of financial support from developed countries to developing countries (Kinley 2017). Out of 160 INDCs, 122 include information on financing. Finance is linked to mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, and capacity-building (Zhang and Pan 2016). The total self-reported cost of the INDCs is $5,119 billion USD by 50 countries, while the International Finance Corporation Climate Investment Opportunity Report finds that there are $23 trillion in emerging markets investment potential by 2030 (World Bank Group 2016). Business support is a necessary part of moving to a low-carbon economy: the world needs not 995 only the financial resources in the private sector but also that field’s technical and organizational skills (Geels et al. 2017). Market approaches to tacking climate change mitigation were codified in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, thereby creating a pathway of emissions reductions for industries and businesses (Kinley 2017). Some believe that market mechanisms such as a carbon cap-and-trade program or carbon tax are essential in the transition to lower emissions without risking social and economic disruptions (World Bank 2009). The global abatement costs of meeting the unconditional commitments outlined in the original INDCs are estimated to be $135 billion by 2030. In order for many developing countries to meet their primary and successive (I)NDC goals, conditional financing is necessary. Implementation of these conditional commitments could add another $40 to 55 billion (Hof et al. 2017). Under CBDR, developing nations are expected to achieve their “fair share” of the mitigation effort in their own contexts, which can require pursuing renewable energy options which lead to net savings. After this point, further reductions necessitate, and are therefore conditional upon, international financing (Zyl et al. 2018). Technology The challenges we must overcome in the face of climate change have inspired “unprecedented” innovations and collaborations in technology (Jiang et al. 2017). In light of this, technology is a major component of many of the NDCs. Following the technology transfer commitments mandated by the UNFCCC in 1992 (Zhou 2019), the Paris Agreement proposed a climate change technology development and transfer mechanism for which policy and financial support were advocated (Jiang et al. 2017). As the world’s population grows in number and affluence, leaders must find a way to feed even those of the lowest economic status in an environmentally and socially sustainable way (Godfray et al. 2010; Jiang et al. 2017). Technology might be the way to support sustainable growth. According to some, technology is the link between humans and nature. Many believe that I 996 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development advancements in technology are what we need to focus on to ensure sustainable development (Anado et al. 2016). Technology and innovation need to be made accessible to people in developing countries, and technology development should pay attention to environmental factors (Brundtland et al. 1987). However, others caution that this approach is too simplistic. In Limits to Growth, the authors argue that the most dangerous reaction to the global climate model is technological optimism, since it is a band-aid on the root of the problem: the illusion of a possibility of unlimited growth in a finite system (Meadows and Club of Rome 1972). In any event, global development and sharing of technology based on cooperation is essential in combatting climate change (Jiang et al. 2017). Implications of the INDCs Energy, Emissions, and GDP Growth Climate science research, particularly that of the carbon cycle, demonstrates that the total carbon we can allow to enter the atmosphere is finite (Matthews and Caldeira 2008), and that over two-thirds of allowable atmospheric carbon levels before reaching the 2  C threshold have already been emitted (UNFCCC Secretariat 2016). Indeed, in order to regain geologic stability, we must eventually reach net zero emissions (Matthews and Caldeira 2008). Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a clear estimate on how INDCs and their subsequent policies will affect warming, since many commitments lack the details necessary to create an analysis (Rogelj et al. 2016). Analyses conducted in 2016 predict that without action, the world will reach 4  C warming by 2100, and even if the INDC commitments are met, the world will still experience warming close to or exceeding 3  C by 2100 (Rogelj et al. 2016; Clemencon 2016). Unfortunately, the first INDC commitments are not strong enough to reach even our 2030 goals, as global GHG emissions show no sign of peaking (UN Environment n.d.). There are competing goals in energy policy: economic growth, energy access for the poor, energy security, and environmental protection. The overarching objective is to produce affordable, reliable energy which increases economic growth for all people without compromising the environment (World Bank 2009). In order to reach global goals, Parties should increase the commitments in their future NDCs and follow-up with strong national policies. Non-state and subnational actors should also focus on their own emissions reductions (UN Environment n.d.). This is especially important given the IPCC Report on 1.5 , which demonstrates the need for a rapid, increased effort to limit warming to below 1.5  C to best ensure that the world wins the fights against climate change and poverty in the context of sustainable development (IPCC 2018). Future Effects As of April 2016, 161 INDCs were received by the UNFCCC Secretariat, covering 189 Parties and 99% of global emissions, according to a synthesis report on the aggregate effects of INDCs which was originally prepared by the Secretariat in November 2015 and updated in May 2016 (UNFCCC Secretariat 2016). While the Paris Agreement and the INDCs represent an important step towards global emissions reductions, there are some aspects which could be improved upon. For example, the Paris Agreement fails to make legally binding emission targets, create specific financial support mechanisms, determine liability for loss and damage, or address connected international trade policies (Clemencon 2016). New fiscal policies and innovation spurred from the INDCs can create new opportunities, but this cannot happen without impetus (UN Environment n.d.). Final Remarks In 2018, the IPCC heightened the significance of meeting national emissions targets when it released its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C focused on “the impacts of global warming of 1.5 C above preindustrial levels and related global GHG emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty” (IPCC 2018). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and Sustainable Development While the INDCs are a step along the path to a more sustainable global future, the Paris Agreement and therefore the NDCs are nonbinding and nonenforceable. Indeed, after its implementation, more than one country has threatened to exit the agreement. However, even if governments in the international community fail to act, other actors work to combat climate change and hold their countries accountable. For example, young people have inspired media-attracting grassroots activism. In Sweden, 15-year-old Greta Thunberg began taking school strikes on Fridays in protest of climate inaction, which has sparked similar protests globally. In the USA, a group of young students legally challenged the US government’s unsafe policies, which the students claim violate their constitutional rights (Juliana v. The United States) (Taylor 2018). The inspiring action of this young generation brings hope that countries will take strong action on the commitments they made in their initial INDCs and beyond. References Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Chang 15:77–86 Anado LD, Chan G, Harle AG, M K, Moon S, Murthy SL, Clark WC (2016) Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. PNAS 113(35):9682–9690. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1525004113 Ari İ (2017) The interconnection between sustainable development goals and the cliamte change negotiations: the Paris Agreement case. Special Issue on Climate Change and Energy 27–45 Brundtland B, Khalid M, Agnelli S, Al-Athel S, Chidzero B, Fadika L et al (1987) Towards sustainable development. In: Report of the world comission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, New York Chasek PS, Downie DL, Brown JW (2017) Climate change. In: Global environmental politics, 7th edn. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 162–186 Clemencon R (2016) The two sides of the Paris climate agreement: dismal failure or historic breakthrough? J Environ Dev 25(1):3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1070496516631362 Dellasala DA, Goldstein MI (eds) (2018) Encyclopedia of the anthropocene. Elsevier, Amsterdam Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (2017) Briefing series: Sectoral implementation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Bonn 997 Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357(6357):1242–1244 German Development Institute (n.d.) NDC-SDG connections. Retrieved from Klimalog. https://klimalog.diegdi.de/ndc-sdg/ Godfray HC, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, . . . Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(812):812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Helland L, Hovi J, Sælen H (2018) Climate leadership by conditional commitments. Oxf Econ Pap 70(2):417–442 Hof AF, Elzen MG, dmiraal A, Roelfsema M, Gernaat DEHJ, Vuuren DP (2017) Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2  C and 1.5  C. Environ Sci Pol 71:30–40 IPCC (2007) Working group II: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Retrieved from IPCC. https://www.ipcc. ch/working-group/wg2/?idp=643 IPCC (2018) Special report: global warming of 1.5 C. IPCC, Geneva Jiang J, Wang W, Wang C, Liu Y (2017) Combating climate change calls for a global technological cooperation system built on the concept of ecological civilization. China J Popul Resour Environ 15(1):21–31 Kinley R (2017) Climate change after Paris: from turning point to transformation. Clim Pol 17(1):9–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1191009 Larson AM, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Duchelle A, Babon A, Dokken T, . . . Huynh T-B (2013) Land tenure and REDD+: the good, the bad and the ugly. Glob Environ Chang 23:678–689 Lele SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19(6):607–621. Elsevier Levin K, Rich D, Bonduki Y, Comstock M, Tirpak D, McGray H, . . . Waskow D (2015) Designing and preparing intended nationally determined contributions. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Creative Commons Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032388 Meadows DH, Club of Rome (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York Meinshausen M (n.d.) NDC & INDC factsheets. Retrieved from The University of Melourne Climate and Energy College. http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/ndc-indc-factsheets Nelson DR (2011) Adaptation and resilience: responding to a changing climate. WIREs Clim Change 2:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.91 Rogelj J, Elzen MD, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, . . . Meinshausen M (2016) Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2  C. Nature 534:631–639 Taylor L (2018) Too young to vote, children strike, protest and sue for climate action. Reuters, London UN Environment (n.d.) The emissions gap report 2018. Retrieved February 2019. https://www.unenvironment. org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2018 I 998 UNFCCC (2019) Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Retrieved from UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/ process/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determinedcontributions/ndc-registry UNFCCC Secretariat (2016) Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update. FCCC, Marrakech World Bank (2009) Energizing development without compromising the climate. In: World development report 2010. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 189–229 World Bank Group (2016) Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). Retrieved from The World Bank. http://spappssecext.worldbank.org/sites/indc/ Pages/INDCHome.aspx WRI (n.d.) INDCs. Retrieved from World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/indcs Zhang W, Pan X (2016) Study on the demand of climate finance for developing countries based on submitted INDC. ScienceDirect 7(2):99–104 Zhou C (2019) Can intellectual property rights within climate technology transfer work for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement? Int Environ Agreements: Polit Law Econ 19(1):107–122 Zyl HV, Lewis Y, Kinghorn J, Reeler J (2018) The cost of achieving South Africa’s ‘fair share’ of global climate change mitigation. Clim Pol 18(10):1327–1339 Inter- and Transdisciplinary Competences ▶ Soft Skills and Sustainable Development Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development Ann Crabbé Faculty of Social Sciences, Research Group Environment and Society, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Synonyms Multi-disciplinarity Introduction Interdisciplinarity is an umbrella term that is used to designate the collaboration between disciplines. Inter- and Transdisciplinary Competences The term discipline is adapted from the Latin word disciplina, meaning “a branch of instruction or education; a department of learning or knowledge” (Aram 2004). While the term discipline has been used since the early Middle Ages to signify a way of ordering knowledge for teaching and learning, the idea and practice of knowledge exchange between disciplines are used since the mid-1920s. However, the rise of interdisciplinarity on the science policy agenda only started at the end of the twentieth century, fitting into a wider context of cultural changes that took place in the western world in the late 1960s (Wernli et al. 2016). In 1970, a conference of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) identified interdisciplinary research as a means to respond to both changing societal and scientific challenges (Apostel et al. 1972). Hereafter, we describe the what, why, and how of interdisciplinarity, (where possible) in relation to sustainability. In section “Defining Interdisciplinarity” on the “what,” it is explained: (a) that interdisciplinarity can be a one scholar enterprise or can be “team science,” (b) that there are several degrees of interdisciplinarity, and (c) that interdisciplinarity is one term alongside many others with a prefix preceeding disciplinarity. In section “Interdisciplinarity as a Commitment to Social Change and as a Contribution to Basic Academic Research” on the “why,” we elaborate on the idea that interdisciplinarity is often associated with creating social change (for sustainability) but that it is also valuable for pure academic basic research. Section “Conditions for Successful Interdisciplinary Research” on the “how” discusses the necessary conditions for successful interdisciplinary research. Section “Opportunities and Obstacles” makes an overview of the added value of interdisciplinary working but also highlights obstacles for interdisciplinarity. Defining Interdisciplinarity Interaction Between One or Two Different Disciplines In September 1970, the OECD organized a seminar on interdisciplinarity in Nice (France). The Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development final report (Apostel et al. 1972) discussed the experiences and problems of university programs and surveyed institutions worldwide on the concept of interdisciplinarity. The definition of interdisciplinary teaching and research adopted in the final report is, until today, widely cited. It refers to interaction as well as mutual integration between disciplines. It points to the presence of a team of discipline-based academics and emphasizes applications to real-world problems (Franks et al. 2007). Interdisciplinary—an adjective describing the interaction among two or more different disciplines. This interaction may range from simple communication of ideas to the mutual integration of organizing concepts, methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology, data, and organization of research and education in a fairly large field. An interdisciplinary group consists of persons trained in different fields of knowledge (disciplines) with different concepts, methods, and data and terms organized into a common effort on a common problem with continuous intercommunication among the participants from different disciplines. (Apostel et al. 1972). Ranging from a Single Scholar to “Team Science” In terms of research practice, interdisciplinary research can be seen as a mode of research by individuals or by a team. At the individual level, some researchers are interested in a topic that traditionally “belongs” to another discipline and create space for interdisciplinary interactions. Others successfully develop proficiency in more than one discipline during their career with some of them having a dual disciplinary background. However, most interdisciplinary research is currently based on the collaboration of researchers from different backgrounds on specific projects. Most universities have seen the emergence in many fields of a new generation of researchers who are trained to work across disciplines (Wernli et al. 2016). The importance of the team and the challenges associated with collaborative science have given rise to the notion of “team science,” which seeks to identify and understand the dynamics of teams in producing collaborative research (Fiore 2008; Stokols et al. 2008). 999 Depth of Integration of the Disciplines An often-asked question is whether interdisciplinary research generates new, so-called integral knowledge or whether it is a case of (re)combining or (re)translating insights from disciplinary knowledge. In other words, is interdisciplinary research a matter of integration, interaction, or both? Different answers to this question are possible, as is apparent from research on interdisciplinary cooperation. Lattuca (2003) from the University of Calgary conducted interviews in 2003 with some 40 researchers in four different American institutions. The typology of different forms of interdisciplinarity which she applied further in her study is generally in line with the classification into five types made by the Dutch consultancy Ackers and De Vries (2004). They discerned between five types of interdisciplinary cooperation. In this typology an indication is given of how researchers from different disciplines work together (see Box 1). Box 1 Five Types of Interdisciplinary Cooperation Type 1 – Mutual exchange of knowledge In type 1 integration, the different researches are independent of one another. The progress of one project will not be determined by the progress of another. They share a common research domain, but they each approach the idea from a different perspective. Regular communication between the researchers generates understanding for the other person’s research perspective and the exchange of insights from the autonomous research projects. Type 2 – Reciprocal influence Type 2 integration, in contrast to type 1, is typified by mutual dependence between the research projects. For example, project 2 is dependent on the outcomes of project 1 for its preconditions. The research projects need one another and influence one another in terms of content. Ideally, there (continued ) I 1000 Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development Box 1 Five Types of Interdisciplinary Cooperation (continued) Box 1 Five Types of Interdisciplinary Cooperation (continued) is exchange inherent in the interaction, so that the projects do have real influence on one another. Type 3 – Integration of objectives The concept of integrating objectives indicates that, in type 3 integration, the different research projects will be combined at the end into one entity, which results in a separate model fed by the different projects. The interaction between the projects has a common goal: to fit into the joint result. In this method, the research projects do not originate from one model, but they jointly contribute to the final phase. Type 4 – Integration of basis The core of type 4 integration develops in the preliminary phase of the projects. Different disciplines relating to a subject are considered in relation to one another and are combined into a comprehensive research model. Research projects are initiated and founded on the shared basis, whereby the model indicates where the necessity lies for further development in the relevant fields. The results of these more penetrative projects are used as a repeat loop for improving and interpreting the basic model. The research question in this instance is multilayered. There is a main question, which is formed in the basic model, and each more in-depth research has its own question which is derived from this. In a multidisciplinary program, the basic model is often a complex model. The scientific models of the subprojects may well be “hard science” or in their turn complex science. Type 5 – Directed integration In type 5 integration, as well as internal integration (within the research program), there is also external integration, whereby the scientific framework is combined with the frameworks of the other stakeholders (e.g., from policy, society, and industry), which you could also associate with “transdisciplinarity,” a term explained below. The research program is determined in interaction with the other stakeholders and is given a general interpretation, after which each stakeholder develops the issue in his/her own way. This leads to parallel tracks, whereby the scientist seeks further deepening of the issue and the policy-maker, for example, prepares the policy documents. Ideally there is interaction between the different parallel tracks during the course of the process, and the scientific result is integrated in the other tracks. Source: adapted from de Boer et al. 2006: 12–14 The Many Prefixes of Disciplinarity When it comes to the collaboration between scholars of different disciplines, a variety of terms and expressions can be found in literature. The most relevant concepts to understand growing modes of collaboration between academic disciplines are disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity (Darbellay 2015; Nissani 1995; Piaget 1972; Rosenfield 1992). Throughout this terminological variation, disciplinarity is modulated on a case-by-case basis by prefixes: from disciplinarity to multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity. Hereafter, we explain the differences between the four: • Disciplinarity is characterized by a low degree of openness, interaction, and integration between scholars of different disciplines. This is in contrast to multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity, as they are characterized by a progressive decompartmentalization of knowledge. • Multidisciplinarity refers to a sequential analysis of a problem by disciplinary experts, with few interactions between them. Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development • Interdisciplinarity is the result of growing interactions and efforts to integrate disciplinary insights, ideally with an added value both for the disciplinary science and society. • Finally, transdisciplinarity refers to research in which not only different scientific disciplines are involved but also a wide range of stakeholders in society (citizens, community organizations, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, etc.) (Klein 2008). In this way, nonacademic forms of knowledge are also included. Interdisciplinarity as a Commitment to Social Change and as a Contribution to Basic Academic Research Interdisciplinary research is often problemfocused applied research. Indeed, a lot of themes of interdisciplinary collaboration are an example of a commitment to social change (Aram 2004; Filemyr 1999). Many interdisciplinary fields, including women’s studies, environmental studies, peace studies, African-American studies, labor studies, cultural studies, etc., have emerged out of social, political, and economic struggles of groups historically excluded or marginalized by the dominant discourse. They represent critical challenges to the status quo and have the potential to utilize a powerful integrative approach to knowledge as a tool for social engagement in order to better address social concerns. Think also of interdisciplinary fields with a wide integrative scope, such as environmental sciences or global health, that have urged the combination of insights from natural sciences and social sciences to analyze and understand complex socioecological systems (Wernli et al. 2016). Sustainability inevitably requires an interdisciplinary approach. Going back to the Club of Rome’s influential Limits to Growth study (Meadows et al. 1972), an integrative view was strongly advocated. The authors indicated that there was a set of closely interconnected problems, political, economic, social, cultural, psychological, technological, and environmental, that characterized our times and which cannot be 1001 dealt with separately because of their systemic nature. Similarly, the Brundtland Report of 1987, which introduced the notion of sustainable development on the international stage, saw interconnectivity as a starting principle (WCED 1987). The Brundtland report’s definition of sustainable development linked profit, planet, and people; it also connected sustainability in the North with sustainability in the South, as it also matched today’s generations with future ones. As sustainability issues have risen further up the national and international agendas, the systemic links between (say) energy consumption, climate change, loss of biodiversity, and poverty became more evident, as became the need for multiple perspectives and integrative approaches. A team of British researchers (Nowotny et al. 2001) have examined the broad social setting in which science and society interact. They argue that public issues and social concerns on the one hand and scientific work on the other hand are increasingly interdependent. In fact, they see evidence that the near-hegemonic role of science in the past is weakened by a range of social, cultural, economic, and political issues. These authors call for “rich contextualised, socially-robust and epistemologically eclectic” knowledge without abandoning “the basic conditions which have underpinned the production of reliable knowledge” (Aram 2004), which indeed pleads for interdisciplinary cooperation. Even though there is a slight tendency to associate interdisciplinary research mainly with problem-focused applied research, interdisciplinarity is also relevant for academically oriented basic research. While problem-focused applied research aims to address questions of societal relevance, academically oriented basic research is to generate knowledge for its own sake. These two modes should not be conceived as antagonistic activities but as a continuum of research activities, given the role of universities to produce new knowledge, helping to translate the knowledge produced into societal applications and contributing to solve societal problems (Wernli et al. 2016). If scientists doing “basic research” initiate interdisciplinary collaboration with colleagues from another discipline, this might lead to new I 1002 fields. Examples in sciences are biochemistry, neuroscience, and bioinformatics. From interdisciplinary collaboration between nanotechnologies (N), biotechnologies (B), information technologies (I), and cognitive science (C), synergies – known by the acronym NBIC – can arise. In the humanities and social sciences, fields such as cultural studies, located at the interface of sociology, anthropology, philosophy, art, and literature, illustrate the need for transversal approaches to study cultural phenomena. Area studies covering political, cultural, or geographical regions are also inherently interdisciplinary. Think of, for example, centers for Middle East Studies (Wernli et al. 2016). Conditions for Successful Interdisciplinary Research Three elements need to get sufficient attention during the course of an interdisciplinary project, as they are necessary conditions to come to successful knowledge integration. Hereafter, these three conditions are discussed: (a) the joint problem definition and definition of research questions, (b) finding a common language, and (c) good management of interdisciplinary research projects. Joint Problem Definition and Definition of Research Questions In order to promote mutual understanding and fruitful cooperation, scientists have to build bridges to one another’s knowledge. This starts as early as the stages of problem definition, the formulation of the research question, and the pinning research objectives. The start of good cooperation lies in sharing the perception that there is a problem. Coming to terms on the actual definition of the problem is the first step. The second step is the joint formulation of the research questions. Participants have to come up with common questions and to research what these questions can contribute to the total project of interdisciplinary collaboration. In the third step, it is important not to have x different objectives which relate to separate disciplines but a cohesive set of objectives Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development from which emerges that the interdisciplinary research teams want common products. It is important in an interdisciplinary project that sufficient time is taken to come to common definitions, questions, and objectives. If necessary, more time has to be devoted to this. If one allows oneself some (extra) time for this, it most probably leads to better integration and acceptance of the different disciplines. Finding common ground often turns out to be a continuous process. During the course of the interdisciplinary collaboration, it may happen that new dialogues are needed on the problem definition, the research questions, and the objectives. Taking the time to (again) come to terms is beneficial, as – from the dialogue – people can learn to understand one another’s concepts, reference frameworks, methods, and limitations better. It is important to underline that striving for the greatest common denominator should not be the purpose, but rather maintaining the potency of one’s own knowledge. Finding a Common Language Not everybody is convinced that scientists working in interdisciplinary partnerships can come to fully understanding the key concepts of the different participating disciplines. They state that it is hard to avoid talking at cross-purposes. Others react to these types of statements by underlining the need for a “common language.” On how to find such a common language, not everyone is in agreement (de Boer et al. 2006). According to some, the collaboration between scientists in interdisciplinary partnerships is a question of teaching one another. Particularly in the initial phase of building a common research strategy, an opportunity could be made to acquire mutual understanding of one another’s discipline. For example, in writing the research proposal, researchers could take the time to discuss and learn from each other the most important definitions of concepts. According to others, it is important to have “bridge builders” in interdisciplinary projects, whereby he/she can be a “translator” of specialist jargon (de Boer et al. 2006). There are sometimes concepts which sound identical but where the Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development meaning differs with different disciplines. For example, both the hydrologist and the psychologist know the term water consumption, but for the hydrologist, the term means evaporation and for the psychologist water usage by households. But even when investing in learning activities and supporting bridge builders, some are skeptical and state that a real understanding is not possible: scientists pick up a certain amount of knowledge while researching concepts and methods of other disciplines, but it is still difficult to assess to what extent they really understand one another. In that respect, previous experience with interdisciplinarity can be important in terms of understanding one another’s language. Conscious efforts to develop a common conceptual framework can take many different forms. The development of a glossary of terms could be useful, but it can also be that the use of particular central concepts can help to achieve integration of knowledge. For example, the concept of vulnerability works as a kind of link between different disciplines. Further, there is – particularly in the environmental science – a common vocabulary where the origin is sometimes unclear. Something similar applies for terminology from the ecological and evolutionary discipline such as resilience, selection, etc. These words are increasingly being used within social sciences. Developing a common vocabulary can be important in order to reduce communication barriers which are typical of interdisciplinary research. As the importance of creating and nurturing an environment that allows researchers to communicate across disciplines cannot be overemphasized, establishing “rules” like avoiding disciplinary jargon and cultivating mutual respect is key to build trust (Wernli et al. 2016). Good Management of Interdisciplinary Research Projects Well designing interdisciplinarity in scientific terms and well arranging in organizational terms are of equal importance: Organizational aspects create the conditions, methodological aspects are necessary to shape the research, epistemological aspects relate to the content or the meaning of the knowledge and personal 1003 competencies are the lubricant or the ‘enabling factor’ of interdisciplinary research. (de Boer et al. 2006. Hereafter, we go into organizational conditions for effective interdisciplinary research, including the role and competences of the researchers who direct interdisciplinary projects and the role and competence of the individual researchers belonging to different disciplines. Good leadership is essential to the success of interdisciplinary projects. The following indicators for good leadership are derived from the elements discussed in de Boer et al. (2006). • Leaders should have charisma, because they have to get the researchers to cooperate well. • Leaders should be free-thinking. If it turns out that the interdisciplinary research program is too ambitious, they have to be prepared to make the necessary interim adjustments. Dogmatic or inflexible leaders can cause a project to fail. • Leaders should be both organizational leaders and intellectual leaders. Interdisciplinary team leaders should on the one hand ensure cognitive integration (being able to look beyond the borders of disciplines) and on the other hand see that the project runs well in organizational terms. • Leaders should understand that an interdisciplinary project is a learning process, in which communication is very important. In addition to communication, reflectiveness is crucial: the ability to consider what has taken place in a particular situation or between people. Further, leaders should pay attention to elements such as ambiance, attitude, culture, and team-feeling to facilitate the learning process. The success of interdisciplinary projects also depends to a big extent to the quality of the researchers, who should be able to implement the integration of knowledge from different disciplines themselves or at least are able to keep an overview and to estimate what different chunks of knowledge are needed to achieve the required end result (de Boer et al. 2006). I 1004 Good interdisciplinary scientists should in principle have a sound monodisciplinary depth which they are able to put into practice with interdisciplinary issues. Conversely a broad training and then specializing often cause problems. Individuals trained in monodisciplinarity are in a particular way skilled in analysis, while broadly trained people can often remain very superficial in their analyses. However, not only knowledge matters. Also interpersonal skills and motivation are vital competencies (Wernli et al. 2016). In addition to a willingness to contribute to the project, relevant qualities are scientific curiosity, openness to pluralism and other disciplines, tolerance for ambiguity, and a mind that comprehends nuances and contexts (Darbellay et al. 2014). The confluence of these qualities among team members shapes the potential for scientific creativity and innovation. Others also underline the importance of good communication skills and an open and flexible mind. Interdisciplinary researchers have to be sufficiently self-assured to admit that they do not always know everything. Respect for the other discipline is inherent in this, but in practice it is sometimes difficult to achieve. Everyone at times has particular prejudices against others. The only way of avoiding this is to work together (de Boer et al. 2006). Opportunities and Obstacles Hereafter, we discuss the added value of interdisciplinary research and identify some important obstacles for achieving interdisciplinary research. Added Value of Interdisciplinarity According to de Boer (de Boer et al. 2006), interdisciplinary research has added value in at least four different respects: societal impact, scientific innovation, spin-off research, and personal development. Societal impact. Interdisciplinarity is particularly appropriate when resolutions are sought for complex societal problems. In these instances, considerable policy relevance is often attributed to interdisciplinary research. It might even be Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development said that there is sometimes more social interest in interdisciplinary research than in monodisciplinary research (de Boer et al. 2006). Cooperation between different disciplines is particularly required for such issues as climate research, as the causes, consequences, and responses to climate change need to be researched by several disciplines, ideally in interdisciplinary cooperation. Scientific innovation. Although it is by no means a firm rule, interdisciplinary cooperation can lead to new concepts, new models, and new methods. Taking into account that the aim of interdisciplinary research is to integrate disciplinary insights, successful interdisciplinary research ideally feeds the disciplines with new concepts, methods, and perspectives. Some even state that communication between disciplines is a fundamental driver of progress in the creation of disciplinary knowledge. Interdisciplinarity is a way of questioning the potential, limits, and margin of progression of the disciplines. The confrontation of ideas between disciplines might trigger progression within the individual disciplines. Sometimes, changes are such that they impact the organization of knowledge. A paradigm shift, a transformation of a discipline, and the emergence of a new discipline, especially in basic research, are possible outcomes, as happened with the emergence of neurosciences in the second half of the twentieth century (Wernli et al. 2016). While scientific innovation is often presented as an aim of interdisciplinary research, it is also questionable whether innovation is always necessary. The scientific added value of interdisciplinary cooperation may lie elsewhere. For example, the combination of perspectives from natural and social sciences is very valuable, but it can be seen more as a compilation of insights and not really as an innovation. Sometimes the innovation of interdisciplinary projects also lies not in the creation of something new but in making smart combinations of knowledge. The ideal situation is when one discipline literally complements the other, if one discipline can “offer” the explanatory variable needed by another discipline. For example, physical geography specialists explain “runoff” using Interdisciplinarity and Sustainable Development vegetation cover, and biologists explain vegetation based on the characteristics of the soil. When feedback mechanisms are considered, you have to be able to combine these fields of expertise in order to make progress. In such an instance, there is a scientific interest, and not just a societal interest, to arrive at new combinations of knowledge. Spin-off research. De Boer et al. (2006) state that some researchers have the experience of interdisciplinary projects that lead to new (interdisciplinary) projects; one project will precipitate another. For some researchers, interdisciplinary projects may primarily present a route toward new research financing. Researchers who have had experience of interdisciplinary cooperation more often go on to other interdisciplinary projects, whereas previously they had to revert to relying on monodisciplinary research funding. There is a further type of spin-off: The more experience researchers gain in interdisciplinary work, the better the quality of such work becomes. Researchers build up experience which can be reapplied (de Boer et al. 2006). Personal development. At the individual level, interdisciplinary research is often felt as a strong experience. This experience can be frustrating when collaboration does not really take off or misunderstanding persists, but it generally allows individuals to progress in their quest for new knowledge and to develop their research skills (Wernli et al. 2016). “In this type of research, it is primarily the personal competences of the researcher which are enhanced. You are challenged to use your social and communicative skills” is stated in de Boer et al. (2006). Obstacles for Interdisciplinary Working Interdisciplinary research is often hindered by the lack of “structures” that provide a facilitative and supportive institutional environment for interdisciplinarity (Wernli et al. 2016). While progress has been achieved, the current academic system remains primarily made for discipline-based research and education, hindering the establishment of interdisciplinarity as a sustainable mode of knowledge production (Wernli et al. 2016). 1005 Disciplines tend to have an inward social dynamic that constrains the choice of questions that can be asked and restricts enquiry to preferred theories and dominant explanatory schemes. A consequence is that knowledge that does not fit into established disciplines tends to be neglected (Wernli et al. 2016). Because of the lack of academic prestige associated with interdisciplinary research, researchers committed to work in interdisciplinary projects are confronted with a lack of (university) funding and sometimes have lower career opportunities. This can be explained by the fact that universities, as autonomous organizations, have the power to create their own rules and criteria to value “good academic work.” Funding mechanisms and promotion criteria tend to be conservative and mainly reward research proposals and candidates that fit the profile of disciplinary excellence. An often-heard obstacle for interdisciplinary research is the difficulty to publish. This makes interdisciplinary research riskier for researchers than disciplinary research. However, current evidence shows encouraging results regarding the pattern of citations of interdisciplinary research (Wernli et al. 2016). While very narrow or broad interdisciplinarity may reduce citation impact (Yegros-Yegros et al. 2015), work by others on large numbers of papers found that atypical combinations of knowledge and “long-distance” interdisciplinarity are more likely to lead to high impact in terms of bibliometrics (Larivière et al. 2015; Uzzi et al. 2013). As Uzzi et al. notes, “the balance between extending science with atypical combinations of knowledge while maintaining the advantages of conventional domain-level thinking is critical to the link between innovativeness and impact” (Uzzi et al. 2013). References Ackers A, De Vries N (2004) Evaluatie NWO/Novem stimuleringsprogramma energieonderzoek. Bosch en Duin Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (1972) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. OECD, Paris Aram JD (2004) Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Hum Relat 57:379–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704043 893 I 1006 Darbellay F (2015) Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity: undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style. Futures 65:163–174 Darbellay F, Moody Z, Sedooka A, Steffen G (2014) Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creat Res J 26:1–10 de Boer Y, de Gier A, Verschuur M, de Wit B (2006) Building bridges. Researchers on their experiences with interdisciplinary research in the Netherlands. RMNO, The Hague Filemyr A (1999) Interdisciplinarity as commitment to social change. Netw: Issues Ideas 16:8–13 Fiore S (2008) Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res 39:251–277 Franks D, Dale P, Hindmarsh R, Fellows C, Buckridge M, Cybinski P (2007) Interdisciplinary foundations: reflecting on interdisciplinarity and three decades of teaching and research at Griffith University, Australia. Stud High Educ 32:167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075070701267228 Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Am J Prev Med 35:S116–S123 Larivière V, Haustein S, Börner K (2015) Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLoS One 10:e0122565 Lattuca LR (2003) Creating interdisciplinarity: Grounded definitions from college and university faculty. History of Intellectual Culture 3:1–20 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) Limits to growth. Universe Books, New York Nissani M (1995) Fruits, salads, and smoothies: a working definition of interdisciplinarity. J Educ Thought 29:121–128 Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Oxford Piaget J (1972) L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires. In: L’interdisciplinarité Problèmes d’enseignement et de Recherche Dans Les Université. OECD, Paris Rosenfield PL (1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med 35:1343–1357 Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008) The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 35:S96–S115 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342: 468–472 WCED (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford Wernli D, Darbellay F, Maes K (2016) Interdisciplinarity and the 21st century research-intensive university. LERU position paper Yegros-Yegros A, Rafols I, D’Este P (2015) Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS One 10:e0135095 Intergenerational and Sustainable Development Intergenerational and Sustainable Development Vincent T. Law School of Professional and Executive Development, College of Professional and Continuing Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Definition The concept of intergenerational development is the process of associating different generations which are interrelated. The notion of sustainable development has been defined in various ways (Toman et al. 1995). It was commonly defined as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” by the Brundtland Report Our Common Future (WCED 1987). Introduction Generations of human beings persist and conflicts exist between generations. The notion of sustainable development has been capturing academic and business attention since the Brundtland Report Our Common Future which defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). However, sustainable development is a contested concept without an authoritative definition. Nevertheless, the notion of sustainable development embodies practicality and can be conceptualized as the triple bottom line (TBL) – economy, environment, and society. In societal perspectives, the concept of sustainable development can be applied to promote both intragenerational justice and intergenerational justice. Relating intergenerational development with sustainable development may help sustain the society to persist over generations. Intergenerational and Sustainable Development Intergenerational Development The notion of intergenerational development has been developing and attracts growing research interests. While the notion is related to different generations and their interrelationship, it is also related to justice and sustainability. Generation and Generativity The concept of intergenerational development builds on generations, and generations are not isolated from one another. Generation can be defined in terms of age or line of thinking. Based on birth years, Westerman and Yamamura (2007) defined a generation as a group which shares the same birth years and significant life events. Instead of age, Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) defined generation based on worldviews in which a generation is a group with similar worldviews grounded in defining social or historical events. Values, attitudes, and preferences may vary with generations and thus result in intergenerational misunderstanding (Shaw and Fairhurst 2008). Conflicts between generations have been foreseen. Friedman envisages the clash of generations in his famous quote: “When the Cold War ended, we thought we were going to have a clash of civilizations. Turns out we’re having a clash of generations” (Friedman 2011). Aging may lead to more conflicts between generations over issues such as financial resources and employment. Hence it is necessary to establish and guide the next generation (Erikson 1963). The notion of generation can be expressed at either family level or community level (Villar and Serrat 2014). Generativity is associated with variables such as life satisfaction (Villar et al. 2013), personality traits, and emotional stability (de St. Aubin and McAdams 1995), and it can be classified into biological, parental, technical, and cultural generativity (Kotre 1984). Justice and Equity Baumgärtner et al. (2012) view justice as a mixed normative idea about the quality of relationships among members of society. Rawls (1971) affirms that justice would arise between contracting 1007 parties under moderate scarcity and limited generosity. People must imagine themselves as members of an ongoing society enduring over time (Freeman 2007). From the standpoint of impartiality, members of a community may mutually claim on one another for fairness (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). Justice can be commonly classified into two categories: intragenerational justice is the justice between currently living persons, and intergenerational justice is that between members of present and future generations (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). The world is unequal where there is disparity in equity between generations. Based on an equity perspective, human development depends on the expression of generational, intergenerational, and interspecies justice (Borim-de-Souza et al. 2015). While equity within the current generation includes equality between men and women (Coulson et al. 2015), UN Women (2013) realizes that women bear a disproportionate burden of the impact of social and environmental inequalities. Intragenerational Equity Intragenerational justice refers to the justice between currently living persons (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). Some (e.g., Dobson 1999; Jacobs 1999) view intragenerational equity as concerning with issues such as the elimination of poverty. While Lessmann and Rauschmayer (2014) adopt a capacity approach to achieve intragenerational justice, Frazier (1997) views such achievement can be done by immediate adjustments in power and wealth by the current generation. Intergenerational Equity Intergenerational justice is the justice between members of present and future generations (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). The interaction of cultural demand and inner desire propels a conscious concern for the next generation (Villar and Serrat 2014). While some (e.g., Watene 2014) doubt whether the current generation ought to think in terms of the capabilities for future generations, Harding (2006) regards the present generation is obliged to maintain and enhance the health, diversity, and productivity for the benefit of future generations. The current generation I 1008 has various impacts on the future generations (Scholtes 2010), such as affecting the lives of future generations and future social, political, economic, and environmental circumstances (Watene 2014). The current generation faces tough decisions since resources are limited but whether today’s decisions bring good outcomes is uncertain (Watene 2014). Intergenerational equity is affected by various factors. First, the built environment influences intergenerational interaction (Melville 2014). Second, healthy adults become more concerned with intergenerational relationships (McAdams 2013). Third, the social and economic structures of the current generation may affect the future generations. Anand and Sen (2000) view nourishment and better education of the current generation as a beneficial investment for future generations. However, as people age, the achievable returns by incremental investments in human capitals are lower (Heckman 2006). Hence one way to achieve intergenerational equity is to invest in early children development (ECD) (Sachs 2015). ECD measures include providing children of poor families with adequate health care, nutrition, and enriched environment (Sachs 2015). Sachs (2015) advocates strong investment in ECD would pave the success of children to become productive citizens in the future. Fourth, intergenerational equity is affected by social disparity. Based on a study of 13 highincome countries which included the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, Corak (2013) found that the higher the Gini coefficient, the higher the inequality, and thus lower social mobility. Intergenerational Development Intergenerational development is the process of relating different generations. Development is the process of expanding real freedoms that people enjoy (Sen 1999). Development thought must incorporate environmental concerns so as to achieve long-term success in improving human well-being (Carr et al. 2007). Intergenerational development is promoted by generativity and intergenerativity. Generativity may enhance a sense of attachment to Intergenerational and Sustainable Development communities so as to leave a valued legacy for succeeding generations (Wiles and Jayasinha 2013). The concept of intergenerativity is multidimensional, and it is related to various domains in living (George et al. 2011). It involves the interaction between people of different ages while changing their competences, attitudes, and behavioral repertoires (Villar and Serrat 2014). Intergenerativity gives opportunity for development (Villar and Serrat 2014), as well as sustaining and connecting persons of past, present, and future generations (George et al. 2011). Human being would be committed to generative action if they place hope in the advancement and betterment of human life in succeeding generations (McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992). Indeed, adults play pivotal roles in promoting intergenerational development. Zucker et al. (2002) find the transition from young adulthood to middle adulthood generative interests and behaviors which persist in older age. Healthy adults begin to contribute back to the society by promoting the development of future generations (Villar and Serrat 2014). Generative adults are life examples and models for their children. They are also valuable resources to guide development and foster generative concerns in succeeding generations (Villar and Serrat 2014). McAdams (2001) shows how adults come to behave generatively. In particular, middle-aged adults also play a role in reinforcing social institutions, enriching social networks, and ensuring continuity across generations (Villar 2012). Midlife adults provide support to younger generations as parents, mentors, teachers, leaders, or volunteers (McAdams 2001). Parents and grandparents play an important role in intergenerational development. Highly generative parents are more satisfied and more committed to parenting (Abrantes and Matos 2010). Generativity in grandparents perceived child care tasks as a contribution to their families and specifically as an expression of good parenting (Villar et al. 2012). Furthermore, Villar and Serrat (2014) see the possibility to enhance intergenerational, generative activities from both individual and social community perspectives. First, individually, Intergenerational and Sustainable Development training or educational programs that facilitate people to participate in intergenerational interactions can be provided. Second, at the community level, structures can be built to facilitate citizen participation and social contributions. The success of changing human behaviors depends on how the society organizes learning, integrates knowledge, and promotes collective wisdom through generations (George et al. 2011). It can be optimistically envisaged that unprecedented results can be achieved if intergenerational relationships and collaborations are established (VanderVen and Schneider-Munoz 2012). Intergenerational Programs Research on intergenerational programs has gained momentum recently (Jarrott 2011). Programs that involve intergenerational contacts and engagement may encourage generative thoughts and feelings (Pratt 2013). In Europe, a program called “Big Foot: Crossing Generations, Crossing Mountains” was launched to reduce marginalization of vulnerable groups and bridge generational gap of those living in rural, mountainous areas (Big Foot Project 2018). Intergenerational shared sites (IGSS) were developed in many countries to serve the needs of multiple generations (Melville 2014). Sustainable Development The notions of sustainability and sustainable development have been defined, interpreted, and analyzed in various ways (Toman et al. 1995). It is necessary to understand these two notions and delineate their roles in intergenerational development. Sustainability Sustainability is a contested concept (Lélé 1991; Harding 2006; Hahn et al. 2010) which cannot be defined in specific terms without controversy (Wu and Wu 2012). Khan and Gray (2013) see sustainability as a floating concept, perhaps an empty signifier. It is also difficult to operationalize sustainability (Hahn et al. 2010). 1009 Sustainability can also be viewed in various perspectives. For example, Coulson et al. (2015) view the notion as involving the interaction of financial, natural, human, and social capitals. Borim-de-Souza et al. (2015) view sustainability as the capacity to maintain diverse social systems functioning which aim at promoting sustainable development. Nogaard (1988) views sustainability as combining natural resources, social expectations, and economic concerns via a human-logic approach. Sustainability is related to the interaction between economic development, social development, environmental quality, as well as equity (Hoepner et al. 2016). There is an intimate link between wealth, measured by an adjusted measure of net (genuine) saving, and sustainability (Pearce and Atkinson 1993; Pezzey 2004). Sustainability Development Sustainable Development Is a Contested Concept Sustainable development is an overarching concept under which an array of research takes place (Bebbington and Larrinaga 2014). However, sustainable development is a vague (Pesqueux 2009) and contested concept (Harding 2006; Hahn et al. 2010). There is hardly a clear or basic definition of either “sustainable” or “development.” While it is necessary to address what is being sustained (Hamilton and Naikal 2014) or developed, why does it need to be sustained should also be examined (Frazier 1997). Jacobs (1999) argues that the complex and normative nature of sustainable development leads to political struggle. This is in line with BoehmerChristiansen (2002) that the “meaning” of sustainable development is political. The notion of sustainability also lends itself to a nearly unlimited range of action principles: sustainable tourism, sustainable consumption, etc. (Allemand 2006). It is also difficult to define what sustainable development means in an organizational context (Gray and Milne 2004). Definitions of Sustainable Development The famous Brundtland Report Our Common Future defined sustainable development as I 1010 “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). This WCED definition is probably the most widely stated expression of sustainable development (Tregidga et al. 2013). In 2002, the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) viewed the integration of the three components of sustainable development, i.e., economic development, social development, and environmental protection, as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars (WSSD 2002). Both the WCED and WSSD definitions arouse diversified discussion on the context and impacts of sustainable development. However, Sen (2014) argues that the Brundtland’s way of understanding the problem is incomplete; in particular, the Brundtland’s consideration on “needs” and their “fulfilment” are imprecise. Emerging references view sustainable development in relation to future generations and concerns about equity issues (Milne et al. 2009). For example, Frazier (1997) views sustainable development as an enabling tool for the poor to be developed into human capital for enterprises. Crabtree (2014) views sustainable development as the process of expanding the real freedoms that people value in accordance with uncontested principles. Sachs (2015) defined sustainable development as the way to understand the world as a complex interaction of economic, social, environmental, and political systems. Pesqueux (2009) sees a development feature (social and economic) and a strictly environmental feature within sustainable development. Broadly speaking, sustainable development is multifaceted and touches the country, industry, and consumer levels (Pesqueux 2009). Intergenerational and Sustainable Development The notion of sustainable development is also closely related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Simionescu 2015). CSR refers to voluntary codes or declarations of sustainable development and includes the TBL of economic development, environmental quality, and social justice (Haalboom 2012). The emergence of CSR is partly contributed by increasing societal awareness and acceptance of sustainability as contemporary discourse related to long-term development (Ruwhiu and Carter 2016). Sustainable development goals (SDGs) are developed to serve as new global goals that guide the world’s future economic diplomacy (Sachs 2015), but they can only be largely met with clear and enforceable policies (Williams and Dair 2007). Approaches to Sustainability Development Within the organizational discourse, sustainable development will be effected through continuous improvement (Tregidga et al. 2013). Approaches to sustainability can be viewed along a spectrum of sociopolitical change, ranging from maintaining the status quo to transformation (Hopwood et al. 2005). van den Bergh (2014) promote the measurement of sustainable development via different indicators such as (1) ecological versus physical indicators, (2) stock (capital) versus flow indicators, (3) source versus effect indicators, (4) monetary versus other indicators, and (5) sustainability (environmental pressure) versus progress indicators (green/sustainable welfare). Sustainable indicators provide information on the state, dynamics, and underlying drivers of human-environmental systems (Wu and Wu 2012). However, various barriers such as cost, risk, time, and culture prevent sustainable development from being fully realized in practice (Brennan and Cotgrave 2014). Roles of Sustainability Development Sustainable development captures numerous issues that are faced by the contemporary societies (Loucks et al. 2010). Sustainable development embodies practicality (Bell and Morse 2008) and balance (Tregidga et al. 2013). It requires organizations to consider and conceptualize the TBL together (Tregidga et al. 2013). Intergenerational Development and Sustainable Development The notions of sustainability and sustainable development are related to intergenerational development. Sustainability can be viewed as the potential of societies to meet the needs of the present without Intergenerational and Sustainable Development compromising the ability of the next generations to meet their needs (Hoepner et al. 2016). Sustainability is suggested to request intergenerational equity (Baur and Lagoarde-Segot 2016). Sustainable development must consider intergenerational justice (Sen 2014). As sustainable development has a global purview (Dryzek 2005), Gladwin et al. (1995) see the role of sustainable development in promoting human development with an inclusive, equitable, and prudent approach. Pesqueux (2009) views sustainable development as a notion that links together the social objectives of economic development, solidarity between present generations, as well as environmental conditionality of future generations. It is difficult to simultaneously address the two areas of sustainable development: the “development” area includes need satisfaction and intragenerational equity; the “sustainable” area includes ecological efficiency, ecological resilience, and intergenerational equity (Pesqueux 2009). Sustainable development can prompt the capabilities of present people without compromising capabilities of future generations (Sen 2014). Being sustainable can be construed as assuring intergenerational equity in access to resources (Frazier 1997). It is needed to sustain the freedom of future generations to live the way they like and to what they have reason to value (Sen 2014). To conclude, the ethical dimension of sustainable development is based on both intergenerational accountability (over time) and intragenerational accountability (through space) (Pesqueux 2009). Ecological sustainability is simultaneously concerned with the current and future generations of mankind (Borim-de-Souza et al. 2015). Tertiary institutions need to ensure that there is a generation of skilled young people trained in public policy and sustainable development (Sachs 2015). The overall societal goal of sustainability addresses both intragenerational justice and intergenerational justice; hence it is good to utilize scarce resources efficiently to attain intra- and intergenerational justice (Baumgärtner et al. 2012). Overall speaking, a sustainable society can persist over generations and far-seeing (Ingman et al. 1999). 1011 References Abrantes D, Matos PM (2010) Parenting adolescents: relationship between generativity, parental satisfaction and attachment to parents. Psicologia Educacao Cultura 14(1):145–164 Allemand S (2006) Pre’face. In: Matagne P (ed) Les effets du de’veloppement durable. L’Harmattan, Paris Anand S, Sen A (2000) Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev 28(12):2029–2049 Baumgärtner S, Glotzbach S, Hoberg N, Quaas MF, Stumpf KH (2012) Economic analysis of trade-offs between justices. Intergener Justice Rev 1:4–9 Baur D, Lagoarde-Segot T (2016) The contradiction between the time value of money and sustainability. In: Finance and economy for society: integrating sustainability, pp 75–92. https://www.emeraldinsight. com/doi/book/10.1108/s2043-9059201711. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Bebbington J, Larrinaga C (2014) Accounting and sustainable development: an exploration. Acc Organ Soc 39(6):395–413 Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable? 2nd edn. Earthscan, London Big Foot Project (2018) http://www.bigfoot-project. eu/about-the-big-foot-project.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Boehmer-Christiansen S (2002) The geo-politics of sustainable development: bureaucracies and politicians in search of the holy grail. Geoforum 33:351–365 Borim-de-Souza R, Balbinot Z, Travis EF, Munck L, Takahashi ARW (2015) Sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory: proposing styles of reasoning for an unknown metropole. Cross Cult Manag 22(2):201–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM02-2013-0027 Brennan MC, Cotgrave AJ (2014) Sustainable development: a qualitative inquiry into the current state of the UK construction industry. Struct Surv 32(4):315–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-02-2014-0010 Carr ER, Wingard PM, Yorty SC, Thompson MC, Jensen NK, Roberson J (2007) Applying DPSIR to sustainable development. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 14:543–555 Corak M (2013) Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. J Econ Perspect 27(3):79–102 Coulson AB, Adams CA, Nugent MN, Haynes K (2015) Exploring metaphors of capitals and the framing of multiple capitals: challenges and opportunities for <IR>. Sustaina Account Manag Policy J 6(3):290–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-052015-0032 Crabtree A (2014) Sustainable development: does the capability approach have anything to offer? Outlining a legitimate freedom approach. In: Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 39–56 I 1012 Crumpacker M, Crumpacker JD (2007) Succession planning and generational stereotypes: should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Pers Manag 36(4):349–369 de St. Aubin E, McAdams DP (1995) The relations of generative concern and generative action to personality traits, satisfaction/happiness with life, and ego development. J Adult Dev 2(2):99–112 Dobson A (1999) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York Dryzek J (2005) Environmentally benign growth: sustainable development. In: Dryzek JS (ed) The politics of the earth, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 145–161 Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society. Norton, New York Frazier JG (1997) Sustainable development: modern elixir or sack dress? Environ Conserv 24(2):182–193 Freeman S (2007) Rawls. Routledge, London Friedman T (2011, July 16) The clash of generations. Sunday Opinion. New York Times, p 5 George D, Whitehouse C, Whitehouse P (2011) A model of intergenerativity: how the intergenerational school is bringing the generations together to foster collective wisdom and community health. J Intergener Relationsh 9(4):389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15350770.2011.619922 Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause TS (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):874–907 Gray R, Milne M (2004) Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: mirages, methods and myths. In: Henriques A (ed) Triple bottom line: does it all add up?: assessing the sustainability of business and CSR. Earthscan Publications, London Haalboom B (2012) The intersection of corporate social responsibility guidelines and indigenous rights: examining neoliberal governance of a proposed mining project in Suriname. Geoforum 43(5):969–979 Hahn T, Figge F, Pinkse J, Preuss L (2010) Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake and eat it. Bus Strateg Environ 19(4):217–229 Hamilton K, Naikal E (2014) Comprehensive wealth accounting and sustainable development. In: Atkinson G, Dietz S, Neumayer E, Agarwala M (eds) Handbook of sustainable development, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 25–40 Harding R (2006) Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and challenges. Desalination 187(1–3):229–239 Heckman JJ (2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 31(5782):1900–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1128898 Hoepner A, Oikonomou I, Scholtens B, Schrödor M (2016) The effects of corporate and country sustainability characteristics on the cost of debt: an international investigation. J Bus Financ Acc Intergenerational and Sustainable Development 43(1–2):158–190, January/February 2016, 0306-686X. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12183 Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13(1):38–52 Ingman S, Benjamin T, Lusky R (1999) The environment: the quintessential intergenerational challenge. Generations 22(4):68–71 Jacobs M (1999) Sustainable development as a contested concept. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 21–45 Jarrott SE (2011) Where have we been and where are we going? Content analysis of evaluation research of intergenerational programs. J Intergener Relationsh 9(1):37–52 Khan T, Gray R (2013) Accounting, identity, autopoiesis + sustainability: a comment, development and expansion on Lawrence, Botes, Collins and Roper. Meditari Account Res 24(1):36–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MEDAR-06-2015-0032 Kotre J (1984) Outliving the self: how we live on in future generations. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Lélé SM (1991) Sustainable Development: A Critical Review. World Dev 19(6):607–621 Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (2014) Re-conceptualizing sustainable development on the basis of the capacity approach: a model and its difficulties. In Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability (pp. 94–113). Oxon: Routledge Loucks SE, Martens ML, Cho CH (2010) Engaging smalland medium-sized businesses in sustainability. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 1(2):178–200 McAdams DP (2001) Generativity in midlife. In: Lachman ME (ed) Handbook of midlife development. Wiley, New York, pp 395–443 McAdams DP (2013) The positive psychology of adult generativity: caring for the next generation and constructing a redemptive life. In: Sinnott JD (ed) Positive psychology: advances in understanding adult motivation. Springer, New York, pp 191–205 McAdams DP, de St. Aubin E (1992) A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. J Pers Soc Psychol 62(6):1003–1015 Melville J (2014) A critical reflection on the development of intergenerational shared sites: an essential and effective trend in the field? J Intergener Relationsh 12(3):295–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15350770.2014.930315 Milne MJ, Tregidga H, Walton S (2009) Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Account Audit Account J 22(8):1211–1257. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570 910999292 Nogaard RB (1988) Sustainable development: a coevolutionary view. Futures 20(6):606–620 Pearce DW, Atkinson G (1993) Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of weak sustainability’. Ecol Econ 8(2):103–108 Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development 1013 Pesqueux Y (2009) Sustainable development: a vague and ambiguous “theory”. Soc Bus Rev 4(3):231–245 Pezzey J (2004) One-sided sustainability tests with amenities, and changes in technology, trade and population’. J Environ Econ Manag 48(1):613–631 Pratt MW (2013) Erikson’s seventh stage: fostering adults’ generativity through intergenerational programs. J Intergener Relationsh 11(1):97–100 Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford Ruwhiu D, Carter L (2016) Negotiating “meaningful participation” for Indigenous peoples in the context of mining. Corp Gov 16(4):641–654. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/CG-10-2015-0138 Sachs JD (2015) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press, New York Scholtes F (2010) Whose sustainability? Environmental domination and Sen’s capability approach. Oxf Dev Stud 38(3):289–307 Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford Sen A (2014) The ends and means of sustainability. In: Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 5–19 Shaw S, Fairhurst D (2008) Engaging a new generation of graduates. Educ Train 50(2):366–378. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/00400910810889057 Simionescu LN (2015) The relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development (SD). Intern Audit Risk Manage 10(2):179–190 Toman MA, Pezzey J, Krautkraemer J (1995) Neoclassical economic growth theory and sustainability. In: Bromley DW (ed) Handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell, Oxford Tregidga H, Kearins K, Milne M (2013) The politics of knowing “organizational sustainable development”. Organ Environ 26(1):102–129. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1086026612474957 UN Women (2013) A transformative stand-alone goal on achieving gender equality, women’s rights and women’s empowerment: imperatives and key components. UN Women, New York van den Bergh JCJM (2014) Sustainable development in ecological economics. In: Atkinson G, Dietz S, Neumayer E, Agarwala M (eds) Handbook of sustainable development, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 41–54 VanderVen K, Schneider-Munoz AJ (2012) As the world ages: Attaining a harmonious future world through intergenerational connections. J Intergener Relationsh 10(2):115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15350770.2012.673972 Villar F (2012) Successful ageing and development: the contribution of generativity in older age. Ageing Soc 32(7):1087–1105 Villar F, Serrat R (2014) A field in search of concepts: the relevance of generativity to understanding intergenerational relationships. J Intergener Relationsh 12(4):381–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2014. 96035 Villar F, Celdrán M, Triadó C (2012) Grandmothers offering regular auxiliary care for their grandchildren: an expression of generativity in later life? J Women Aging 24(4):292–312 Villar F, López O, Celdrán M (2013) La generatividad en la vejez y su relación con el bienestar: Quién más contribuye es quien más se beneficia? [Generativity in older age and its relationship with well-being: Who contributes most is who benefits most?] Anales de Psicología 29(3):897–906 Watene K (2014) Nussbaum’s capability approach and future generations. In: Lessmann O, Rauschmayer F (eds) The capability approach and sustainability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 20–38 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. http://www. Accessed un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. 14 Mar 2019 Westerman JW, Yamamura JH (2007) Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects on employee outcomes. Career Dev Int 12(2):150–161 Wiles JL, Jayasinha R (2013) Care for place: the contributions older people make to their communities. J Aging Stud 27(2):93–101 Williams K, Dair C (2007) What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustain Dev 15(3):135–147 World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) Plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable development. http://www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_ PlanImpl.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2019 Wu JG, Wu T (2012) Sustainability indicators and indices: an overview. In: Madu CN, Kuei C-h (eds) Handbook of sustainability management. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 65–86 Zucker AN, Ostrove JM, Stewart AJ (2002) Collegeeducated women’s personality development in adulthood: perceptions and age differences. Psychol Aging 17(2):236–244 Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development Zita Tamašauskien_e Department of Economics, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania Regional Development Institute, Siauliai University, Siauliai, Lithuania Synonyms Correct externalities; Eliminate externalities; Neutralize externalities; Overcome externalities I 1014 Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development Definition Internalization of Externalities: A Condition for Moving Towards Sustainable Development Internalization of externalities refers to all measures (public or private) which guarantee that unpaid benefits or costs are taken into account in the composition of prices of goods and services (Ding et al. 2014). There are different measures for internalizing externalities: corrective taxes, emission standards, tradable permits, property rights to use resources, government subsidies, etc. Internalizing positive and negative externalities helps to achieve allocative efficiency, but not necessarily sustainability which aims also at more justice in the domain of human–nature relationships. Introduction Internalization of externalities and sustainable development are closely related since sustainable development may be ensured by internalizing the complete costs of externalities and long-term stability of the environment. One essential step towards achieving sustainable development is internalization of externalities. The objective of this entry is to review the literature on internalization of externalities and its effect on sustainable development. First of all, the entry explains the concept of internalization of externalities and its interfaces with sustainable development. Later, the entry focuses on private market solutions of internalizing externalities (Coase Theorem) and problems which are met trying to apply market solutions for internalizing them. Attention is given to public sector’s remedies for internalizing externalities. The government may employ two types of instruments to internalize costs of externalities into price of goods and services: price policy, using taxes or subsidies, or quantity regulation, when it forces firms to produce the socially efficient quantity. Research of literature shows that internalizing externalities is a condition for sustainable development, yet, there is no consensus if their internalization in the traditional way can lead to sustainable development. Many socio-ecological problems result from negative externalities of pollution, climate change, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. Thus, in order to reduce those problems, to correct market failures and achieve optimal allocation of resources, which is important for sustainable development, these externalities should be internalized and taken into account in the economic system. Internalizing the externalities means shifting the external costs of a negative externality, such as pollution or traffic congestion, from outside to inside (external to internal). The purpose of internalizing an externality is to reduce the burden of a negative externality by getting business or people who are producing the externalities to pay for the negative effects and give the right signal for production in favor of environmentally friendlier goods. The rationale of internalization, is to make economic agents aware of the external costs they induce upon society and to encourage them to alter their behavior towards socially optimal production and consumption as well as to correct market failures caused by externalities. Externalities are internalized when a producer of an externality bears the full external cost or enjoys the full external benefit and the price paid for a commodity or service reflects the external costs/benefit of the externality. Firms in some industries may benefit due to negative externalities if they do not internalize the costs of these externalities in the prices of goods and services. When there is negative externality, the marginal external cost, such as downstream effects of the pollution of water by chemical pesticides, must be added to marginal private cost for internalization. When there is positive externality, the marginal external benefit must be added to marginal private benefit to internalize the externality. Internalization of externalities encourages buyers and sellers in the market to change their rational choices, produce or purchase quantities that are closer to the social optimum, and correct economic efficiency deviations which are caused by externalities. When these externalities are internalized, market prices change until they reflect full marginal social cost or benefit of a commodity. Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development 1015 Internalization of external costs is an important tool for decision-makers in order to achieve more sustainable development of society and maximize well-being. Sustainable development is understood as a harmonious process of development, where ecological, social, and economic aspects are taken into account and long-term stability of environment is ensured. Sustainable development policy differs from traditional environmental policy because it seeks not only to internalize negative externalities but also to conserve nonrenewable resources for future generations. Internalization of externalities requires: to recognize them; to identify the “perpetrator” and the “victim” of externality; to evaluate costs and benefits of externality by each agent; and to assign costs and benefits of internalizing externality. Externalities arising from market failures should be internalized if gains in social welfare from correcting the externality outweigh the costs of doing so. Externalities are internalized when either private negotiations or government action lead the price to the agent to fully reflect the external costs or benefits of that agent’s actions. There are different methods which may be used by government for internalizing the costs of externalities into the prices of goods and services: establishing property rights to use resources, corrective (pollution) taxes, subsidies, and tradable permits. Internalizing negative externalities (complete costs of pollution) and ensuring longterm stability of environment help to ensure sustainable development. This action is used as a strategy to rebalance the social and environmental dimension with the purely economic one. “B.” If property rights over air to which “A” emitted smoke were well defined, externality would not have arisen as “A” would have known consequences of his/her action. According to Coase (1960), neither the polluter nor the sufferer (victim) of the pollution is solely responsible for the costs of pollution and, therefore, they should be shared. Coase took the position that externalities can be internalized through a process of bargaining between the polluter and the victim. From his point of view, if the property rights are fully assigned and bargaining is costless, then regulatory body should not have to be involved, private bargaining can lead to economic efficiency in a market with an externality. Coase’s Theorem suggests a very particular and minimal role for the government in dealing with internalization of externalities: establishing property rights to use resources, when transaction costs of bargaining are zero. Property rights establish the legal owner of resources and specify the ways in which the renewable and nonrenewable resources may be used. The state takes a decision on property rights, but it is difficult to define and enforce these rights to the natural environment because nature is constantly on the move. Transaction costs are the costs of “doing business,” relating to time, communication, etc. Negotiations between the party creating the externality and the party affected by the externality help to find the lowest cost solution to correcting (internalizing) the externality and can bring about the socially optimal market quantity of output, which is important for sustainable development. In Coase’s view, the fundamental limitation to implementing privatesector solutions to externalities is poorly established property rights. If property rights are well defined, divisible and defendable, and negotiation costs are low, simply by assigning property right we can overcome or internalize externalities. Coase’s Theorem has an important second part: the efficient solutions to an internalization of externality do not depend on which party is initially assigned the property rights, as long as someone is assigned those rights. Though Coase’s Theorem suggests that the market can potentially solve externalities if Private Market Solutions to Internalize Negative Externalities According to Ronald Coase’s insight, most externality problems are due to an inadequate specification of property rights and, consequently, an absence of markets in which trade can be used to internalize external costs or benefits. He explained the idea of externalities as a situation in which “A” burns coal resulting in emission of carbondioxide. This causes respiratory problems to I 1016 Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development property rights are clearly assigned and negotiation is feasible, its assumptions do not apply well in real-world situations. Some of the main obstacles to private market solutions are problems in defining property rights. In some cases, this is clearly impossible for individuals to internalize externalities, because of the assignment problem, when externalities affect many individuals. For example, airlines cannot realistically negotiate with individual homeowners for the rights to fly over their houses, even though these overflights do create externalities. It is also difficult to assign property rights for global warming. In reality, transaction costs are too high to make efficient deals for externalities through private actions due to a large number of the interested parties involved what causes the high costs in communication, when creating legally binding agreements, and time-consuming bargaining. Coasian solutions are likely to be more effective for small, localized externalities rather than for larger, more global externalities which involve a large number of people and firms. The Coasian approach ignores fundamental problem that it is hard to negotiate when there are large numbers of individuals on one or both sides of the negotiation. It will not help with large-scale, global externalities, where only the “government” can successfully aggregate the interests of all agents suffering from externality. There may also be difficulties in obtaining information on the relative source and size of the externalities and damages, and there may be asymmetric information where each individual does not know how much the other individual really values the marginal damage or marginal benefit. That is why it is also doubtful that the market may be able to internalize even some small-scale, localized externalities. Therefore, the Coase Theorem’s applicability caused an enormous amount of controversy and discussion mainly due to the fact that transaction costs in many situations are rarely low and information is asymmetric. In addition, the extortion problem was also central to the critiques of the Coase’s Theorem in the literature (Medema 2015). In practice, the applicability of Coase’s Theorem and private market solutions is unlikely to solve internalization of many technical and pecuniary externalities that cause market failures. Government Instruments for Internalizing Externalities Problems of such externalities as pollution, climate change, and environmental resource depletion are not adequately constrained or properly controlled by individual jurisdictions. Government policy should seek to internalize environmental costs and minimize externalities. Government has a various economic instruments for internalization of externalities and ensuring long-term stability of the environment, in other words, ensuring sustainable development. These instruments are: taxes and charges, tradable permits, and the use of public subsidies. State intervention is either through price policy using corrective tax or subsidy, equal to marginal damage or benefit per unit, or through regulation of quantity when “command and control” policy is used and government forces firms to produce the socially efficient quantity of output. Internalizing Externalities Through Price Policy In principle, a government should use tax or subsidy policies to internalize environmental externalities. Arthur Pigou, a well-recognized early twentieth-century British economist from Cambridge University, introduced the idea that taxation and subsidization could be used for controlling and internalizing externalities. Proposals today for a carbon tax are based on the Pigouvian Tax, first proposed in 1920 in Pigou’s work “The Economics of Welfare” Taxes intended to bring about an efficient level of output in the presence of externalities are called Pigouvian taxes. Pigouvian taxes discourage activities that impose external cost to an unrelated third agent. It means that by imposing this type of tax, government will reduce the market outcome of the externality to an amount that is considered efficient. The tax, called a Pigouvian tax, is considered to be equal to the value of the negative Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development 1017 externalities; in other words, tax rate is equal to the marginal damage costs. Carbon tax is a prime example of Pigouvian taxes, that have been implemented in a number of European countries, e.g., Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Owen 2006), trying to internalize negative externalities. Other taxes are related to pollutants causing acid rains, e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The landfill tax aims to encourage producers to produce less waste and recover more value from the waste, for example, through recycling or composting, and to use the environmentally friendly methods of waste disposal. The congestion charge is designed to cut traffic congestion. Pigouvian or corrective tax is designed to adjust the marginal private cost of a commodity or service in such a way as to internalize the externality. To achieve this objective, the tax must be equal to the difference between the marginal private cost and the marginal social cost, i.e., the marginal external costs per unit of output. Actually, this tax is exactly like a charge for emitting waste. For example, the cost of the negative externality, such as dumping raw sewage into a lake, would be included in assessment of the costs of the production. A tax on raw sewage would be imposed so that private marginal costs would include the external costs and equal to social marginal benefits (i.e., the full costs of producing the last unit of output would be equal to the benefit from that unit of product). Imposition of Pigouvian tax forces businesses to pay for external costs, i.e., the negative externalities of pollution and climate change. This increases the price of goods and decreases the quantity purchased. Polluting goods become less attractive because their prices increase. Hereby, allocative efficiency, which is necessary condition for sustainable development, increases. Introducing a tax increases the private cost of production and should reduce demand and output for the goods that create negative externality. Some economists and environmentalists argue that the revenue from the pollution taxes should be allocated to projects that protect or enhance environment. For example, the money raised from a congestion charge on vehicles entering busy urban roads might be allocated towards improving mass transport services. Nguyena et al. (2016) show that “apart from the externality caused by emissions, the increase in manufactured good production has been at the cost of unsustainable use of resources like land, water, fossil fuels, and minerals, the externality of which needs to be ‘corrected’ through taxes as well.” That is why it is important to improve monetization methods that may be used to measure negative externalities and unsustainable use of resources. It is also important to assess externalities at all stages of a production chain. Nguyena et al. (2016) illustrate how environmental externalities are valued and internalized through three European monetization models: EPS 2000, Ecotax, and Stepwise 2006. In theory, using Pigouvian taxes to correct market failures is simple; it helps to internalize negative externalities (e.g., pollution) and to eliminate the burden of the society caused by the externalities. Tax must be such that private cost will exactly equate with the social cost. However, in practice, using Pigouvian tax, trying to internalize externalities, is not without problems. The key problem often ignored by advocates of Pigouvian taxes is what might be called the “measurement problem” or the “knowledge problem.” It is recognized as the biggest drawback. Arthur Pigou himself accepted that measurement of Pigouvian tax has a deficiency. He claimed “It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of [the gaps between private and public costs] could interfere with individual choice” (Pigou 1954). In most instances, it is extremely hard to measure the external costs with any degree of accuracy, very difficult to use this tax when trying to calculate what level of tax would counterbalance the negative externalities and assign the right level of taxation. For example, if gas taxes should be raised purely to offset the social costs of gas use, how high those social costs must be? Another example is the external costs of pesticide use. These costs are the health risks and foregone production opportunities of downstream users of the polluted I 1018 Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development water. But it is very difficult and virtually impossible to measure either kind of these costs. Without substantiated evaluation of external costs, which are part of social costs, it is difficult for the government to select and apply an appropriate tax rate to pesticide use. Nguyena et al. (2016) compare two approaches for internalization of externalities in the price of products considering a life cycle perspective. The first approach is introducing a corrective tax, the second one is to apply reduced value added tax rates on green goods based on their relatively low environmental impacts compared to conventional ones. The results when comparing the three monetization methods show that the choice of used method can influence the monetary value of the externalities and marginal social costs of product. Their results also show that internalizing externalities by means of either a corrective tax or a reduced value added tax eliminates the price disadvantage of green products making them a preferable choice over cheap conventional ones. According to Nguyena et al. (2016), over the past 10 years, several studies have tried to estimate the social costs of alternative product systems. For instance, Goedecke et al. (2007) developed a model to calculate the societal life cycle costs, the consumer life cycle costs, and the tax for different vehicle technologies, the purpose of which was to help guide decisions towards optimality, which seeks to maximize social benefits taking into account other considerations such as costs and technological availability. It should be emphasized that when government set a Pigouvian tax on pollution to internalize the cost of pollution to the business – part of those external costs may be passed on to the consumers. The share of the cost of internalization that producers and consumers bear depends on the elasticity of demand for the product. If the demand for the product is inelastic, producers may pass on the tax to the consumers and, as a result, the tax may only have a small effect in reducing a demanded quantity. Another argument against the tax is that if pollution taxes are increased in one country, firms and companies may shift their business to other countries with lower taxes. In such a case, global pollution will not decrease and new problems may be created (e.g., reduced investments, increased unemployment). An alternative to taxing activities that create negative externalities is to subsidize activities and promote firms and industries that are supposed to yield positive externalities. Pigou also proposed a Pigouvian subsidy for positive generated externalities. Corrective subsidy is payment made by government to either buyers or sellers so that the price paid by consumers is reduced. Subsidy should be equal to the exact difference between the private marginal benefit and social marginal benefit. Subsidy reduces the costs of production for suppliers, encourages a higher output, and helps to increase consumption of goods or services with positive externality. Government may subsidize state health care, public transport, or investment in new technology for schools and colleges to help spread knowledge and understanding, rebate offers for solar panels, give grants towards more efficient technologies. The primary weakness of taxation and subsidization remedies is informational – the government is typically in a poor position to understand the production technology of a firm, or how valuable the potential knowledge spillovers of research might be (Tumlinson 2018). When the government reduces negative externalities (and boosts positive externalities), the question arises which level or extent of externalities is optimal. Reducing pollution accruing from the production of market goods to zero would in many cases mean that the production of these goods would also be reduced to zero, which probably would be not optimal for society (Ahlheim 2018). In contrast to Pigou’s desire for accurately accounting the true and actual cost of externalities, Kraft and Furlong (2015) argue that the desire for accuracy creates a hindrance for those wishing to impose accurate costs on externalities and creates an unresolvable dilemma. Hawken (2010, p. 82) proposes, “Trying to measure negative costs is preferable to ignoring them altogether, that it is better to be approximately right than completely wrong.” Daly (2009) in the “Encyclopaedia of Earth” proposes taxing polluting activities, resource extraction, and resource Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development 1019 depletion, all without connecting the precise cost of these activities to the tax. Another recent paper by Beeks and Lambert (2018) proposes imprecise externality factor system to address and internalize all of our externalities, inclusively, albeit not with the precision economists are used to striving for. For this purpose, they identify several externality categories covering our negative and positive externalities. If firm that wishes to emit more pollution than allowed by its existing permits, it can purchase permits from other firms or the government and pay more money for more pollution. The trading system has some advantages. Trading of pollution rights provides firms with flexibility to reduce emissions and promote technological innovations, and allows firms to meet the requirements of Environmental Protection Agency at lower costs. Issuing a fixed number of tradable permits, regulatory authorities can strictly control emissions of wastes into the atmosphere or water. There are also other kinds of policies that help to internalize externalities. The government can simply use legal emission standards that do have explicit limits on output or/and emission of pollutant quantity. Using emission standards, government may set and enforce by law any politically desired emission level of pollution. In this sense, they are more efficient than taxes. In some cases, such command regulation may be easier to implement and monitor. But using emission standards is economically inefficient, because goals to reduce pollution and internalize externalities are not reached with a minimum social costs. Internalizing Externalities Through Regulation of Quantity of Negative Externalities The government can internalize externalities by regulating quantities using legal emission standards or/and tradable permits. Such tradable permits are licenses to emit a certain amount of particular wastes per year. Tradable permits are used in the United States to regulate SO2 emissions, in the European Union to regulate SO2 emissions, and in several countries to regulate fisheries. The firm must own or purchase tradable permit if it wants to emit wastes (pollutants) into the atmosphere or water. The aim of tradable permits is to provide market incentives for firms to reduce pollution and decrease the external costs associated with it. When governments internalize externalities by issuing the fixed amount of tradable permits, the supply of these permits is absolutely inelastic and prices of these permits will depend on demand, which reflects the social marginal benefit of emitting wastes. Government may sell permits to firms in the initial auction or it may distribute them for free; each firm receives tradable permits based on the existing level of emissions. When government sells permits to firms in an initial auction, the price of permits reflects its scarcity, and if market is sufficiently competitive, the price of permits also equals firms’ marginal costs. In this case, tradable permits are equivalent to the tax. By selling these permits to firms, the government can increase revenue. But if the government gives permits to firms for free, this is like the tax plus large transfer to initial polluting firms. In this case, usually not all negative externalities are internalized. Firms purchasing tradable permits are free to sell them to other firms if they emit less pollution. Can Internalization of Externalities Ensure (Lead to) Sustainable Development? In order to achieve sustainability, it is important not only to decrease and internalize negative externalities of environmental degradation but also to conserve resources for future generations. Negative externalities affect the well-being of current and future generations. Sustainable development may be ensured if externalities are internalized in such a way that environmental rights are maintained for current and future generations and people everywhere in the world. The well-being and sustainability of not only present but also of future generations is important for responsible government. Although there is consensus among scientists that internalization of externalities is a necessary condition for sustainable development, there is disagreement about the necessity for internalization of all I 1020 Internalizing Externalities and Sustainable Development existing externalities (especially the externality of intergenerational allocation of nonrenewable resources) if we want to ensure sustainable development. Van den Bergh (2010) concludes that sustainability is reconcilable with a positive level of externalities, defined by the assimilation capacity of the environment and the technological status. Bithas (2011) asserts that internalization of externalities in the traditional way cannot lead to sustainability. He argues sustainability can be ensured only if externalities are internalized in a very specific form that results in the preservation of environmental rights of future generations. Bithas (2011) shows that negative environmental externalities are global and dynamic that is why the internalization of externalities is inevitably incomplete because of a time span and spatial range effects inherent in individual variations. Therefore, in the real world, the internalization of externalities does not cause unsustainability to vanish. He argues that the internalization of externalities cannot be the sufficient condition for sustainable development, since existing methods used for assessing environmental externalities cannot adequately reflect the interests of future generations. These interests of future generations cannot be reflected in the estimation of current external environmental costs. The interests of future generations can be assured through the preservation of environmental rights. Bithas (2011) points out that traditional economic instruments, such as command and control, should be reconsidered and revaluated as “the right instrument for the problem.” He asserts that marketbased instruments should be reassessed in the light of the demand for sustainability and the preservation of environmental rights of future generations. Internalizing externalities (in the common understanding of both “externality” and “internalization”) achieves allocative efficiency, corrects market failure but not necessarily distributive justice which is also important for sustainable development. Therefore, it can be concluded that internalizing externalities, even in a form that results in the preservation of environmental rights for future generations, does not guarantee sustainable development. Cross-References ▶ Economic Equity and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development ▶ Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development ▶ Global Warming and Sustainable Development ▶ Social Welfare and Sustainability ▶ Wellbeing and Sustainability References Ahlheim M (2018) Environmental economics, the bioeconomy and the role of government. In: Lewandowski I (ed) Bioeconomy. Springer, Cham Beeks JC, Lambert T (2018) Addressing externalities: an externality factor tax-subsidy proposal. Eur J Sustain Dev Res 2(2):1–19 Bithas K (2011) Sustainability and externalities: is the internalization of externalities a sufficient condition for sustainability? Ecol Econ 70(10):1703–1706 Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44 Daly (2009) From a failed growth economy to a steady state economy. The encyclopedia of Earth. http://www. eoearth.org/ Ding H, He M, Deng C (2014) Life cycle approach to assessing environmental friendly product project with internalizing environmental externality. J Clean Prod 66:128–138 Goedecke M, Therdthianwong S, Gheewala SH (2007) Life cycle cost analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels in Thailand. Energy Policy 35(6):3236–3246 Hawken P (2010) The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability, 3rd edn. Harper Collins Business, New York Kraft ME, Furlong SR (2015) Assessing policy alternatives, Ch. 6. In: Public policy: politics, analysis, and alternatives, 5th edn. Sage/CQ Press, Thousand Oaks Medema SG (2015) A magnificent business prospect . . . the Coase theorem, the extortion problem, and the creation of Coase theorem worlds. J Inst Econ 11:353–378 Nguyena TLT, Laratte B, Guillaumeb B, Huab A (2016) Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models. Resour Conserv Recycl 109:13–23 Owen A (2006) Renewable energy: externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy 34(5):632–642 Pigou AC (1954) Some aspects of the welfare state. Diogenes 2(7):1–11 Tumlinson J (2018) Externality. In: Augier M, Teece DJ (eds) The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Palgrave Macmillan, London van den Bergh J (2010) Externality or sustainability economics? Ecol Econ 69:2047–2052 International Networks and Sustainable Development International Collaboration ▶ International Development Networks and Sustainable International Networks and Sustainable Development Issa Ibrahim Berchin, Ana Valquiria Jonck and José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Synonyms Global network; International collaboration; International partnership; Transnational collaboration; Transnational network Introduction Worldwide environmental, economic, and social changes are putting pressure on natural resources and jeopardizing the ability of adaptation and social development, particularly of poor and developing countries (Curran-Cournane et al. 2014; Headey and Jayne 2014; Gulati et al. 2013). Therefore, international networks and cooperation emerge as key strategies in promoting sustainable development, through technological transfers, financial aid, and capacitation, while also providing exchange of data, information, communication, and knowledge about the specific needs and challenges of communities, enabling joint actions to solve them (Pattberg and Widerberg 2016; Berchin et al. 2018; Haselip et al. 2017; Huang and Quibria 2015). Since 1972, the United Nations has urged for the establishment of an international network among communities, organizations, research centers, universities, states, and United Nations’ 1021 agencies to promote worldwide sustainable development. This claim is stated in the main conferences and documents of the United Nations, such as the Stockholm Declaration (United Nations 1972), the Brundtland Report (United Nations 1987), the Agenda 21 from Eco 92 (United Nations 1992), the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations 2000), the Rio +10 (United Nations 2002), the Rio +20 (United Nations 2012), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015b). According to all the sustainability challenges identified by the international community, and recently translated into the SDGs, global partnerships are required to establish a comprehensive network for foreign aid toward an inclusive, equitable, and fair sustainable development (Huang and Quibria 2015). At some level, all SDGs urge for international networks, partnerships, and cooperation for development. Particularly Goal 17 aims to “strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (United Nations 2015a). The main targets and indicators of SDG 17 are organized in five categories, namely, finance, to increase global cooperation toward raising finance and investments from multiple sources, especially to support the least developed countries, helping to reduce financial debts; technology, to support a broader access to science, technology, and innovation, enhancing knowledge sharing, capacity building, and the use of information and communication technologies; capacity building, to support the implementation of all 17 SDGs; trade, to promote a fair international trade system, with clear rules; and, lastly, systemic issues, to “enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries” and to “encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships” as well as assist with data research, monitoring, and accountability (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform 2017). I 1022 Conceptualizing International Networks for Sustainable Development In 2003 the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) defined international partnerships as “voluntary, multistakeholder initiatives aimed at implementing sustainable development” (UNCSD 2017). The increasing interconnection between the local and global spheres is supported and influenced by the development and improvement of information and communication technologies, causing both negative and positive consequences, particularly in cities, requiring stronger networks between peers to share knowledge, information, experiences of best practices, and solutions to their problems (Keiner and Kim 2007). These networks for collaboration and communication emerge when the agents have common goals or face a common challenge, contributing to facilitate the achievement of their objectives, therefore creating value in an innovative environment (CamarinhaMatos 2009; Betsill and Bulkeley 2004). Accordingly, the concept of “collaborative network” refers to the required collaboration and communication among many agents (multiple stakeholders and/or multidisciplinary approaches) with different methods, capacities, experiences, and backgrounds, to solve the sustainability challenges, in which the joint capacities of the network’s agents exceed the individual capacities of the individuals (Camarinha-Matos 2009; Keiner and Kim 2007; Haselip et al. 2017). Thus, considering the increase of information and communication technologies, the world is increasingly interconnected, characterizing a social transition toward a network society, which aligned with digital networking technologies, helps overcome boundaries and geographical limits, enabling more flexible, adaptive, and decentralized operations (Castells 2005). In the context of international networks, and focusing on sustainability, Betsill and Bulkeley (2004) propose two other terms: global environmental governance and transnational networks. Global environmental governance is defined as where agreements are made between states in the international scenario, transferring the engaged terms to the International Networks and Sustainable Development national stance. Transnational networks act simultaneously between multiple areas; this type of network is extremely important for the accordance of norms and interests between multiple agents of society in various scales (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004). International networks are mainly structured by the agents that integrate the network and the linkages between them. Therefore, the activities that connect the actors is the networking practice, which aim at sharing knowledge, information, and experiences of best practices and/or at producing new information and solutions to a challenge (Keiner and Kim 2007). Despite the existence of networks managed in a decentralized way (MejíaDugand et al. 2016), in order to be more operational and efficient, networks must establish a communication system and have a central administration through a leader or manager to keep the ties between partners and organize the network’s agenda (Keiner and Kim 2007; Haselip et al. 2017). Partnerships Areas International or transnational networks integrate several agents to mobilize information, knowledge, and values aiming to achieve a common goal. In this regard, Betsill and Bulkeley (2004) analyze international networks between state and non-state agents to promote a global environmental governance, considering transnational networks as extremely important for the accordance of norms and interests between different agents of society in multiple scales. Therefore, publicprivate partnerships provide collective goods to society (Beisheim 2012; Haselip et al. 2017). These partnerships emerge in several areas, such as knowledge networks, standard-setting partnerships, service partnerships, public policy networks, and commodity networks (Beisheim 2012; Haselip et al. 2017; Oosterveer 2015; Caniglia et al. 2017; Berchin et al. 2018), which will be deepened below. Knowledge networks or learning platforms work to transfer knowledge, to elaborate proposals to better implement solutions for development, and to allow business to share information between them and with other stakeholders (Beisheim 2012). International Networks and Sustainable Development Standard-setting partnerships develop codes of conduct mainly in areas that are not yet under regulations or goals. That is extremely important among activities with low sustainability status. Standard-setting partnerships occur where actors make commitments to attend sustainability goals (such as to reduce emissions and responsible resource use) and combat unhealthy practices. These types of partnerships also work with verification and certification systems (Beisheim 2012). As for service partnerships, they are focused on financing multiple types of projects. Financing can act in many phases of projects, from research to development and implementation. The funds related to this category of partnership can come from public and/or private sectors (Beisheim 2012). Public policy networks are a type of normative transnational network which in some cases helps members to influence policymaking and regulations (Haselip et al. 2017). Commodity networks act in regulatory contexts between local and national governments, institutions, and private sector agents in order to develop governance arrangements through network analysis (Oosterveer 2015). Accordingly, there are many areas where partnerships and networks may occur, with different goals, settings, and organization. These also include communities of practice; informal social organizations composed by multiple stakeholders, which are oriented toward problem-solving goals, creating collective learning networks (Dentoni and Bitzer 2015; Li et al. 2009); and the university networks. University Networks As its nomenclature suggests, university networks are partnerships, collaborative projects, and initiatives between higher education institutions. They mostly happen in the research level between two or more universities (Caniglia et al. 2017). But as will be seen further in this section, there are many other forms universities can collaborate together and produce benefits for society. University networks can be characterized as spin-offs, the establishment of technology transfer mechanisms. The Silicon Valley was created in a 1023 university spin-off – network – experience, today being one of the world’s largest creation and innovation pole (Nicolaou and Birley 2003; Soetanto and Van Geenhuizen 2015). Another important role of university networks is to create a bridge between businesses and universities. Through this type of interorganizational network, many benefits can emerge, the companies can come up with the capital to finance research done by universities, and the final product is an improvement for the business, but overall for society, as the creation of jobs (Chen et al. 2017; Lam 2007). This network is also very profitable in campuses’ initiatives. A campus initiative from one university can be applied in a partner university, providing innovation through collaboration. That drifts a little from research partnerships and reaches all students, enlarging the effects of the partnership and the students’ perceptions over academia (McKeown et al. 2008; Dagiliūt_e et al. 2018). This type of academic partnership can be a double roadway though, at the same time that stimulates knowledge sharing, it can also stimulate “minds” diaspora, meaning researchers and academics may want to leave their countries or regions in order to go to a partner university elsewhere, which has better conditions and/or more opportunities than the one they are in. Although people may change university and leave their regions, knowledge will eventually come back to all the institutions due to their commitment to that network (Larner 2015). Finally, university networks can help immensely to cope with one of the world’s biggest problem: climate change. Several universities have gathered to work with risk management and reduction, as well as promoting awareness to their communities (Abedin and Shaw 2015). Ongoing Models of International Networks Currently, the United Nations and its agencies comprise the main forum for international dialogue, agreement, and cooperation, creating an I 1024 environment that enables countries and civil society to expose their positions toward multiple themes, such as sustainable development (Mert 2009). The creation of international networks for sustainable development is necessary to influence national and international decision-making, policies’ development, and practices toward a sustainable future (Creech and Willard 2001; Haselip et al. 2017). These networks also establish multisector/multi-stakeholder and transdisciplinary working groups for research, education, development, dialogue, data and technology sharing, and international funding for sustainable innovations and initiatives, engaging governmental agents, civil society (including nongovernmental organizations), for-profit organizations, and universities (Haselip et al. 2017; Keiner and Kim 2007). A model network to be followed would be the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), a global initiative of the United Nations, which aims to promote collective learning for sustainable development. Its main agents are the United Nations agencies as well as civil society stakeholders, such as universities (SDSN 2017). Another innovative example of existing international networks for sustainable development would be international conferences on sustainable development in higher education institutions, which are a way of promoting engagement and knowledge sharing in a bottom-up approach (Berchin et al. 2018). In this particular case, the establishment and maintenance of an international network for sustainable development in academia enable the exchange of data, methods, technologies, experiences, good practices, and research results, facilitating the process toward sustainable development (Berchin et al. 2018; Keeler et al. 2016). International networks also leverage universities to promote the local and global sustainable development by implementing sustainability practices in their campuses and engaging stakeholders, also using the network to develop and adopt solutions to the challenges of sustainability (Keeler et al. 2016). Another example is the international networks of cities. Considering that most of the world’s population will be living in cities in the coming years, the International Networks and Sustainable Development current challenges faced by cities around the world, such as lack of water, energy, and food resources, poor air quality, urban sprawl, bad waste management, increasing slums, and population intensification, will be intensified, requiring greater efforts to increase awareness, knowledge, human skills, and resource development and efficiency (Keiner and Kim 2007; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016). Therefore, one of the main solutions implemented by cities was establishing an international network to share knowledge and experiences, and find new solutions to their challenges, also sharing technologies and innovations to sustainable development (Keiner and Kim 2007; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016). Due to the many developmental challenges imposed by global economic, social, and environmental changes, communication for sustainable development is not enough, requiring active international network and engagement to reach sustainable development. Therefore, through organizations and governments, people become partners to develop new ideas and solutions (Creech and Willard 2001). Strong global partnerships enable an international collective action, improving the process toward sustainable development (Huang and Quibria 2015; Haselip et al. 2017; Caniglia et al. 2017). Some possibilities for creating an international network for sustainable development would be the establishment of a common definition for sustainability in order to avoid confusion, improve comprehension, and settle a standard to make sustainable development initiatives easier to be designed and implemented (Broman and Robèrt 2017). Therefore, among the benefits of international networks are global proactivity among partner stakeholders; access to new methods, materials, products, and services from other partners; multi-stakeholder engagement; access to experiences and best practices from peers facing similar challenges; multidisciplinary collaboration; and support for environmental education toward sustainable development, addressing an international effort to solve sustainability and climate change challenges (Broman and Robèrt 2017; Haselip et al. 2017; Ena et al. 2016). An international network for sustainable development would facilitate problem-solving skills and practices, especially those concerning International Networks and Sustainable Development sustainable governance (Mert 2009). These networks can also be an innovative and efficient method to implement projects, especially considering a multi-stakeholders’ approach, contributing to find holistic solutions to a challenge, enabling the exchange of experiences and knowledge, facilitating the raise of funding, and integrating local problems in a global network to find solutions (Beisheim 2012; Mejía-Dugand et al. 2016; Oosterveer 2015). Challenges and Opportunities of International Networks Even though the world has been experiencing increasing initiatives for international cooperation, it is important to remember that nations and communities still present many levels of development with different needs and challenges. This could be a barrier for the establishment of international networks for sustainable development. For example, there are still countries and leaders that refuse to acknowledge that climate change exists, also demonstrating skepticism toward sustainability (Creech and Willard 2001). More criticism is exposed by Beisheim (2012): this type of initiative is struck off as one which idealizes actors as non-selfish agents who do not praise their interests above those of the community; it overlooks the causes of the problems focusing only on the symptoms (short-term solutions); reports written in a vague language; doubts concerning legitimacy of the partnerships; lack of transparency; responsibilities that are not equally shared; fake partnerships which are actually trade agreements between agents; non-binding initiative; and potential to destabilize weak governments. Other challenge for the implementation of international networks for sustainable development is policy challenges, considering divergent normative contexts in different countries; intercultural challenges, due to different languages, cultures, and values; the lack of value system models; limited funding; excessive regulation and bureaucracy; low interest of partners; and communication problems (Caniglia et al. 2017; Camarinha-Matos 1025 2009; Ena et al. 2016; Keiner and Kim 2007). Thus, other factors compromising international collaborations and networks are the internal challenges of partners, such as resistance to change, lack of commitment, unclear goals of the partner, lack of accountability and insufficient capabilities of the partners, and lack of priority and enthusiasm (Caniglia et al. 2017). Therefore, global partnerships should be orchestrated in an inclusive and comprehensive way, which can be accomplished through clear communication between partners, multidisciplinary approaches, and different perspectives, in order to reinforce commitments of the international community and enhance its applicability nationally (Biermann et al. 2017; Camarinha-Matos 2009; Caniglia et al. 2017). Accordingly, among the strategies to facilitate international networks and collaborations are the development of pilot projects, effective communication between partners, and organizational flexibility (Caniglia et al. 2017). International networks represent a transition from a traditional system of individual agents to an innovative one. Regarding global environmental issues, international cooperation is increasingly important, since this network can influence the actions of states toward the sustainability challenges, due to the collective nature of environmental problems and the limited action of state agents. Through these global networks, it is possible to disseminate knowledge in an innovative and inclusive way, contributing to a sustainable future (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004; Pattberg and Widerberg 2016; Caniglia et al. 2017). Therefore, international networks benefit from information and communication technologies, reducing barriers among multiple stakeholders, sectors, and scales, contributing to a holistic and inclusive sustainable development, raising local knowledge, and sharing it internationally. References Abedin MA, Shaw R (2015) The role of university networks in disaster risk reduction: perspective from coastal Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 13:381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.001 I 1026 Beisheim M (2012) Partnerships for sustainable development: why and how Rio+ 20 must improve the framework for multi-stakeholder partnerships. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, German Institute for International and Security Affairs. https://www.swp-berlin.org/ fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2012_ RP03_bsh.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017 Berchin II, Sima M, de Lima MA, Biesel S, dos Santos LP, Ferreira RV, Guerra JBSOA, Ceci F (2018) The importance of international conferences on sustainable development as higher education institutions’ strategies to promote sustainability: a case study in Brazil. J Clean Prod 171:756–772. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.042 Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: the cities for climate protection program. Int Stud Q 48(2):471–493. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00310.x Biermann F, Kanie N, Kim RE (2017) Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 Broman GI, Robèrt KH (2017) A framework for strategic sustainable development. J Clean Prod 140:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121 Camarinha-Matos LM (2009) Collaborative networks contribution to sustainable development. IFAC Proc 42(25):92–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-159619_1 Caniglia G, Luederitz C, Groß M, Muhr M, John B, Keeler LW, von Wehrden H, Laubichler M, Wiek A, Lang D (2017) Transnational collaboration for sustainability in higher education: lessons from a systematic review. J Clean Prod 168:764–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.07.256 Castells M (2005) The network society: from knowledge to policy. In: Castells M, Cardoso G (eds) The network society from knowledge to policy. Center for transatlantic relations, Hopkins https://www.umass.edu/ digitalcenter/research/pdfs/JF_NetworkSociety.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2017 Chen K, Zhang Y, Zhu G, Mu R (2017) Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities? Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2017.10.005 Creech H, Willard T (2001) Strategic intentions: managing knowledge networks for sustainable development. https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2001/networks_strategic_ intentions.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017 Curran-Cournane F, Vaughan M, Memon A, Fredrickson C (2014) Trade-offs between high class land and development: recent and future pressures on Auckland’s valuable soil resources. Land Use Policy 39:146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.020 Dagiliūt_e R, Liobikien_e G, Minelgait_e A (2018) Sustainability at universities: students’ perceptions from green and non-green universities. J Clean Prod 181:473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.213 International Networks and Sustainable Development Dentoni D, Bitzer V (2015) The role(s) of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multistakeholder initiatives. J Clean Prod 106:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.050 Ena OV, Chulok AA, Shashnov SA (2016) Networking for sustainable foresight: a Russian study. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 119:268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.techfore.2016.05.014 Gulati M, Jacobs I, Jooste A, Naidoo D, Fakir S (2013) The water–energy–food security Nexus: challenges and opportunities for food security in South Africa. Aquatic Procedia 1:150–164. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.013 Haselip JA, Larsen TH, Ackom EK, Mackenzie GA, Christensen JM (2017) Reflections on experience with the global network on energy for sustainable development as a south–south global knowledge network. Energy Sustain Dev 36:37–43. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.esd.2016.11.002 Headey DD, Jayne TS (2014) Adaptation to land constraints: is Africa different? Food Policy 48:18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.005 Huang Y, Quibria MG (2015) The global partnership for sustainable development. Nat Res Forum 39:157–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12068 Keeler LW, Wiek A, Lang DJ, Yokohari M, van Breda J, Olsson L et al (2016) Utilizing international networks for accelerating research and learning in transformational sustainability science. Sustain Sci 11(5): 749–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0364-6 Keiner M, Kim A (2007) Transnational city networks for sustainability. Eur Plan Stud 15(10):1369–1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701550843 Lam A (2007) Knowledge networks and careers: academic scientists in industry–university links. J Manag Stud 44(6):993–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486. 2007.00696.x Larner W (2015) Globalising knowledge networks: universities, diaspora strategies, and academic intermediaries. Geoforum 59:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoforum.2014.10.006 Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte P, Graham ID (2009) Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implement Sci 4(11):1–8. https://doi. org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11 McKeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H, Parulkar G, Peterson L, Rexford J, Shenker S, Turner J (2008) OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 38(2):69–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1355734.1355746 Mejía-Dugand S, Kanda W, Hjelm O (2016) Analyzing international city networks for sustainability: a study of five major Swedish cities. J Clean Prod 134(Part A):61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2015.09.093 Mert A (2009) Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: shifts in discourses of environment and democracy. Forest Policy Econ 11(5):326–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.003 Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development Nicolaou N, Birley S (2003) Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. J Bus Ventur 18(3):333–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0883-9026(02)00118-0 Oosterveer P (2015) Promoting sustainable palm oil: viewed from a global networks and flows perspective. J Clean Prod 107:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.01.019 Pattberg P, Widerberg O (2016) Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: conditions for success. Ambio 45:42–51. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-015-0684-2 SDSN (2017) Vision and Organization. http://unsdsn.org/ about-us/vision-and-organization/. Accessed 10 Nov 2017 Soetanto D, Van Geenhuizen M (2015) Getting the right balance: university networks’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation 36:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014. 10.008 Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (2017) Sustainable Development Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 16 Nov 2017 UNCSD (2017) UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development: About. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/dsd/dsd_ aofw_par/par_about.shtml. Accessed 09 Nov 2017 United Nations (1972) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. http://www.undocuments.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (1992) United Nations Conference on Environment & Development: Agenda 21. http://www.undocuments.net/agenda21.htm. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2000) The Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_ MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July% 201).pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. http://www.un-documents. net/jburgdec.htm. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2012) The Future We Want: Outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. https://sustainablede velopment.un.org/content/documents/ 733FutureWeWant.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 United Nations (2015a) Sustainable Development Goal 17. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17. Accessed 09 Nov 2017 United Nations (2015b) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainable development.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed 07 Nov 2017 1027 International Networks of HEIs ▶ Global Alliance of Tertiary Education and Sustainable Development International Partnership ▶ International Development Networks and Sustainable Internship I ▶ Reflective Practice for Sustainable Development ▶ Service-Learning and Sustainability Education ▶ Work-Integrated Learning for Sustainability Education Intractable ▶ Wicked Problems Development and Sustainable Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development Junlong Mi, Xingxing Chen and Xianzhong Song Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Definition There is no clear and definitive definition of the investment policy statement in response to crossborder investment, which is essentially a policy constraint on national strategic considerations and 1028 is associated with international prevailing investment policies. In the latest investment policy statements, investment policies include foreign investment legislation in domestic law and in international law (International Investment Treaty practice), in which the main contents are agreements between capital-exporting countries and capital-importing countries. Traditional international investment polices mainly focus on the IIAs (World Investment Report 2012). In recent years, the concept or principle of sustainable development has been universally accepted by the international community as the general principle of economic and social development and has become the general principle of international investment policy. In the context of international investment policy, sustainable development can be a “win-win” goal for all parties involved in international investment activities. Contents that are put forward by the Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD) mainly cover the environment, social development, and corporate social responsibility (Brown 1981). It stressed that foreign investment should be integrated into the sustainable development strategy of host countries and advocates all countries to sign “Sustainable Development Friendly.” Introduction For developing countries, transnational investment can promote their economic development. Due to the imbalance of the “interests” between investors and host countries in the traditional international investment trade agreements and the neglect of sustainable development issues, the international policy framework for sustainable development investment has been gradually formed. Countries have issued new investment policy statements one after another and have considered the position of the relevant international investment agreements (IIAs) based on the principle of sustainable development. The core principles of the investment policy statement for sustainable development include the promotion of inclusive growth and sustainable development investment, the full balance of rights and Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development obligations between investors and host countries, and the integration principle of protection of foreign investment and regulation of foreign investment. Sustainable Development Promotes Investment Policy Change Transnational investment is an important way in international economic intercourse. Investment will have a great impact on the economy and environment in host countries, while economy and environment are very important in sustainable development. Sustainable development requires the transformation of the economic structure, which is mainly generated by investment in new energy production, transportation, and manufacturing. Developing host countries receiving Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) will implement certain investment policies so that they can achieve the expected development goals. From the perspective of sustainable development, its focus is not only on the quantity of investment but also on its quality. Therefore, it is urgent for some countries to maintain this focus and attract investment to promote their sustainable development (Chen 2007). However, traditional international investment policies are created by developed capital-exporting countries and serve its foreign economic policies. With the emergence of the economic policy under neoliberalism around the world, the foreign capital policies and international investment agreement of various countries have shown a great deal of attention to the investment liberalization and ignore the coordinated interaction between protection of international investment and the realization of the objectives of sustainable development. Firstly, the foreign investment policies of all countries just emphasized the permanent sovereignty over natural resources, but loosened the regulation of transnational corporations to attract foreign investment, which lead to the neglection of the investment environment protection. Many developing countries often adopt a vicious “race to the bottom” (Muchlinski 2002), such as lowering environmental regulations, health standards, labor right issues, Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development tax rates, and public welfares to attract foreign investment. Secondly, IIAs, as the main international legal mechanism for the adjustment of international investment relations, has a significant functional bias, that is, focusing on the protection of foreign investors and their interests while neglecting the function of foreign investment in promoting sustainable development of host countries. IIAs all focuses on the protection of the interests of foreign investors. However, there is a lack of regulation on the foreign investors’ responsibilities and obligations in the realization of sustainable economic and social development in host countries. The rights and obligations of foreign investors are seriously unbalanced. Finally, the mechanism between investors and international investment arbitration, which is generally stipulated in existing IIAs, severely inhibits the ability of host countries to achieve sustainable development. Under this mechanism, only foreign investors enjoy the right to initiate arbitration proceedings unilaterally. For the host countries, measures must be taken as far as possible to protect the interests of foreign investors; otherwise they would face the judgment of the international arbitration tribunal. In recent years, there have been a surge of international investment arbitration cases involving foreign investors directly challenging the host country’s control measures in the public interest in protecting the environment, health, human rights, and security. The traditional international investment policy with such “imbalance” has faced severe challenges and even faced with legitimacy or legitimate crisis because of its serious deviation from the economic sovereignty, fair and mutual benefit, and cooperative development principle generally accepted by the international community. In April 2011, Australia issued a trade policy statement declaring that it would no longer accept “Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)” terms in IIAs to be signed in the future. The reason is that the provision gives foreign enterprises a higher legal right than their domestic enterprises and restricts the government’s ability to make public decisions (e.g., formulation and implementation of social, environmental, and economic laws) (World Investment Report 2012). Host countries 1029 have recognized that it is unwise and inappropriate to attract and encourage investment at the expense of domestic health, environment, and security. The world needs a feasible sustainable development framework to regulate all key players in each country (national and local governments, civil society, business community, scientific community, and academia), to make them move toward sustainable development. The existing development model shows that current international coordination and cooperation are unsuccessful, and the policies of developed and developing countries in achieving sustainable development are insufficient. International investment treaties should emphasize sustainable development in two aspects. First, for host countries, an appropriate investment policy statement should be developed to make sustainable development investment policy as a national development strategy. In addition, foreign investors should be responsible for investments, and their investment criteria should meet international standards. Fortunately, specific to the sustainable development crisis of IIAs, the G8 Summit Declaration in 2009 stressed that FDI was an important source of financing and could drive economic growth and integration for sustainable development. Similarly, the G20 in 2009 elaborated on the core values of sustainable economic activities, namely, the establishment of a sustainable and balanced global economic partnership, emphasizing broad and equitable sharing of the benefits of economic growth. In 2012, the “World Investment Report 2012” of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled “Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies” established the Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD), which shows that the international community has not only reached a preliminary consensus on the common path of international investment policy but also reflects the latest development trend of international investment policies. The Sustainable Development Goals developed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in 2015 once again stated that IIAs could play an important role in making international investment activities more conducive to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (World I 1030 Investment Report 2016). The “Group of Twenty” (G20) Hangzhou Summit in 2016 reached a “G20 Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” which emphasized that global investment policies should promote inclusive economic growth and sustainable development. It can be said that the sustainable development reform of promoting and realizing IIAs has become a major policy choice and legal response to problems in the development of the contemporary international investment legal mechanism. With the promotion of many countries and international organizations, the concept or principle of sustainable development is increasingly being incorporated into the development of IIAs. First, at the national level, about 100 countries are reexamining their international investment policies, and about 60 countries have refurbished or created new models for negotiations on IIAs. For example, in 2009, South Africa completed its assessment of its bilateral investment agreement policies and stated that its future investment policies should not only protect the legitimate expectations of foreign investors but also consider domestic environmental protection, public health and safety, injustice, and public policy. According to a survey of the newly developed Bilateral Investment Agreements Models of ten countries by UNCTAD, these ten models adopted some reform measures in favor of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for example, the preface makes reference to sustainable development, defines the meaning of “investment,” and restricts the excessive application of international investment arbitration mechanisms between investors and nations. In addition, seven models clarified the meaning of fair and equitable treatment and newly incorporated the concept of corporate social responsibility. At the bilateral level, the percentage of Bilateral Investment Agreements (BITs) includes the provisions of a friendly and sustainable development that has been significantly increased, and the principles of sustainable development will have profound impact on international investment policies (Chaisse and Debashis 2014). There are 21 BITs with full texts available in 2015. Among these 21 BITs, Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development there are 14 BITs prescribing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the preface; there are 15 BITs clarifying the definition and scope of investment; there are 16 BITs abandoning provision on the space-constrained for public policies in the host country; there are 11 BITs providing for non-reduction provisions, which stipulated that contracting parties should not attract investment by means of relaxation of health, safety, and environmental standards; and there are 7 BITs stipulating the content of corporate social responsibility (World Investment Report 2016). The reform of IIAs at the regional levels can effectively expand the scope of application of the IIAs provisions and generate the demonstration effect, thus contributing to the consolidation of the existing IIA network. The EU Report on the Future International Investment Policies in Europe, released in March 2011, emphasizes that the future international investment agreement suggested by the EU should respect the necessary public affairs authority of the host country and clearly stipulates that the host country has the power to exercise control over the protection of safety, environment, health, labor, consumers, industrial policies, and cultural diversity. On February 4, 2016, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, formally signed by 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, embodied Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including the concept of economic, social, and environmental responsibility. At present, investment in promoting sustainable development at the multilateral level is also actively carried out. However, it is too early to reach a unified multilateral agreement on international investment. Core Principles of Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development The investment policy statement for sustainable development should demonstrate investment for sustainable development, which clearly shows that the primary objective of investment decision-making is to promote inclusive growth and investment in sustainable development. It should stipulate that investment promotion and Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development facilitation policies should meet the sustainable development objectives and should be designed to minimize the potential risk of investment competition. It mainly includes three aspects: first, formulating priority strategic investment and investment policies conforms to productive capacity building, including human resources development, infrastructure, technology diffusion, enterprise development policies, and investment policies for the protection of sensitive industries. Second, investment policies should be combined with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition to reflect the provisions to minimize the potential negative impact of investment, they are also reflected in the following aspects: (1) promoting responsible investment policies are in line with international core standards; (2) investment promotion and preferential policies promote inclusiveness and sustainable development; and (3) land access policies and relevant policies are combined with the principle of responsible agricultural investment. Third, the relevance and effectiveness of investment policies are assessed. It mainly includes public governance and institutional capacity building, the evaluation of the effectiveness of policy and the effectiveness of specific measures, and the impact indicators involving quantitative investment (Zeng 2010). The investment policy statement of sustainable development also needs to fully balance the rights and obligations between investors and host countries. The concept of “balance” can be embodied in different levels: First, “balance” can be embodied in the relationship between parties or between a contracting party and a third party, including the power, rights, and responsibilities between the developed capital-exporting countries and the developing capital-importing countries, between public institutions and private interests, and between host countries and foreign investors. The “balance” particularly needs to be applied to the relationship between the developed and developing countries. Investing in each other, investing between two developed countries, or investing between two developing countries of comparable economic strength can be based on the concepts and principles of reciprocity and mutual protection (Jeswald et al. 2005). Second, the “balance” 1031 can also be reflected in the relationship between the objectives of investment policy, such as the relationship between protecting foreign capital and promoting foreign investment, between protecting foreign capital and foreign capital control, and between the economic objectives of the contracting parties and other public or social objectives. “Balance” is taken as a tool or embodiment of investment policy in combination with sustainable development objectives, such as the design of specific investment policies and regulations, which not only stipulates the establishment and operation of investment, the treatment and protection of investment, and the promotion and facilitation of investment but also the responsibility of investors. To take another example, the purpose of developing specific guidelines is to minimize the potential negatives impacts of investment, such as avoiding tax evasion, preventing anti-competitive behavior, exploiting labor standards, and minimizing the environmental impact. Promoting sustainable development and substantial growth through investment, maximizing the positive impact of investment, and eliminating the negative effects of investment all require balance investment promotion and investment control. The investment policy statement of sustainable development also needs to consider the integration principle of protecting foreign capital and controlling foreign capital. Traditionally, the two efforts are to protect foreign investment and regulate foreign investment. The law protecting foreign capital is legally binding regardless of domestic legislation or international treaties. However, the international norms on governing foreign investment are mostly regarded as “soft law” that has achieved little success (He 2008). In the context of international investment policy, the concept of “integration” is completely new. It serves different purposes, especially in terms of substance and form. First, it implies a combination of the host country’s investment protection and the responsibility of foreign investors, to redress the one-sided emphasis on the protection of foreign investors without imposing the necessary responsibilities on them. Second, I 1032 domestic and international policies relating to foreign investment need to be considered as a whole, both need to be coordinated and developed according to the changing situation in the country. The concept of “integration” emphasizes the close connection between IIAs and domestic laws. Third, given the close relationship between domestic policies on foreign investment and other economic and social policies, the concept of “integration” requires that domestic foreign investment policies should be integrated into the national strategy of sustainable development. Finally, at the technical and legislative level, the concept of “integration” implies a structural reform of the international investment policy document that includes norms for the protection of foreign investment and foreign investment control in IIAs and domestic legislation and in particular the regulation of both host country and foreign investor rights and responsibilities. In the investment policy statement, foreign investment policy should be emphasized as an integral part of national development strategy. Its main contents include the following: (1) In the aspect of foreign capital and sustainable development strategy, foreign capital should be combined with the national sustainable development strategy, to maximize the contribution of foreign capital to productive capacity building and international competition. (2) In the aspect of control and promotion of foreign capital, design-specific foreign investment policies, it involves establishment and operation of foreign capital, treatment and protection of foreign capital, and responsibility and facilitation of investors. (3) Foreign investment policies ensure its consistency with other policy areas, including trade, taxation, intellectual property rights, competition, labor market management, land acquisition, corporate responsibility and governance, environmental protection, infrastructure, and public-private relations. (4) The effectiveness of foreign capital policies establish effective public institutions to implement foreign investment policies, evaluate the effectiveness of foreign investment policies, and draw experience from the feedback for the new round of decision-making (OCED 2008). Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development Final Remarks This brief overview, combined with different types of research results, introduces the investment policy statement of sustainable development. The main background of the investment policy statement of sustainable development is the challenge faced by the traditional investment policy itself and the recognition of the core value of sustainable development by all countries. At present, there is no uniform standard for the investment policy statement of sustainable development. With some policies and promotion of international organizations, its core principles are becoming clearer and promoting international investment toward achieving sustainable development objectives. Cross-References ▶ Investment Policy Statement for Sustainable Development References Brown LR (1981) Building a sustainable society. W. W. Norton, New York Chaisse J, Debashis C (2014) The evolving and multilayered EU–India investment relations – regulatory issues and policy conjectures. Eur Law J 20(3):385–422 Chen A (2007) New practice of bilateral investment treaty in the new development of International Investment Law. Fudan University Press, Shanghai He ZP (2008) From the new international economic order to sustainable development. J Int Econ Law 15(3):168–189 Jeswald W et al (2005) Do BITs really work? An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their grand bargain. Harv Int Law J 77:67–131 Muchlinski PT (2002) Attempts to extend the accountability of transnational corporations: the role of UNCTAD. In: Liability of multinational corporations under International Law. Kluwer Law International, Hague OECD (2008) International investment law, understanding concepts and tracking innovations, companion volume to international investment perspectives. OECD 611 UNCTAD (2012) World Investment Report 2012: towards a new generation of investment policies. United Nations, Hague UNCTAD (2016) World Investment Report 2016. United Nations, Hague Zeng HQ (2010) On the practice of bilateral investment treaties ‘Imbalance’ and innovation. Jiangxi Soc Sci 6:7–15 Investor Activism Towards Sustainability Investor Activism Towards Sustainability Yang Zhao, Junlong Mi and Jingyan Fu Research Center of Low Carbon Economy for Guangzhou Region, Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China Definition Combined with existing research, investor activism can be considered as investors through positive action and taking appropriate measures to intervene in corporate affairs, usually referring to an active state. Stephen (2005) defines investor activism as investors’ monitoring and intervening corporate policies and practices. Investor activism can be divided into two categories, namely, individual investor activism and institutional investor activism. Individual investor activism is based on the individual level, while institutional investor activism refers to investor activism based on funds companies, insurance companies, and trust companies. The institution refers to institutional investors. Therefore, institutional investor activism is also known as institutional investor activism. Similarly, investor activism for sustainability refers to the investor through positive and active behavior to promote enterprises to perform better in social responsibility and to achieve sustainable investment behavior. Introduction It is an indisputable fact that more investors actively intervene in corporate governance. The purpose of investor activism towards sustainability is to encourage organizations to better fulfill their social responsibilities and to realize the sustainable development and their investment behavior. The difference between traditional investment behaviors and investor activism lies in the fact that the investment concept gradually moves from simply pursuing capital appreciation to consider the influence of environment and 1033 society. Investor activism will actively exercise the rights of investors’ right to know and to propose rights and proxy solicitation, and organizations promote organizations to practice their social responsibilities consciously. Investor Activism and Corporate Social Responsibility The development of investor activism embodies the development of investor activism. Investor activism has gradually arisen the extensive concern in academia since the 1970s. Peter (1976) published the paper “The Unseen Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America,” which opens the prelude to this upsurge of concern, and analyzes the revolutionary changes and the rapid development of pension funds. Investors in western countries, such as the USA and Britain, are also slowly pursuing investor activism. On one hand, investors with professional insight and advanced financial analysis tools select the most valued companies to invest (Guercio and Hawkins 1999). On the other hand, investors take private negotiations, investor proposals (Barnett and Salomon 2002), solicitation of cumulative voting (Gillan and Starks 2000), and other methods to monitor management decision-making and actively intervene the governance of shareholding companies. According to Brent (2002), more public funds have tended to initiate, participate in investor proposals or solicit voting proxies since 2001 to strengthen participation in corporate governance. Gillan and Starks (2000) also found that institutional investors, such as investor proposals, take a higher rate of support. Active participation in corporate governance is much higher than the cost of supervision. Therefore, investor’s activism plays an important monitoring role in corporate governance. Investor activism can be considered as an investor, especially an institutional investor, who proactively monitors and intervenes with corporate management through the share voting rights in order to achieve the shareholding objective of improving corporate performance. When the company’s decision does not meet the interests I 1034 of all investors, investors generally have three strategies to express their dissatisfaction with the company’s management: the first strategy is to vote with your feet, that is, to sell the shares of its investment; the second strategy is to vote by hand, that is, not immediately sell the shares held, but by means of a variety of formal or nontechnical means to influence management in order to enhance corporate performance; the third strategy is to vote neither by foot nor by hand, just to continue holding shares and remain silent. The three strategies are known as exit, speaking, and loyalty (Gillan and Starks 2000). But the former investor activism is generally in the form of individual investor activism, and this stage of institutional investors is mostly in passive and silent roles. Individual investors are concerned not only with the company’s own operational problems but also with social and environmental issues. Individual investors, who are actively concerned about corporate affairs, have indeed added a lot of trouble to investors, so they are also called “Gadfly.” Individual investors tend to be weak as they do not actively promote corporate governance (Useem 1996). Before 1984, majority of investor proposals were initiated by individuals or social organizations, with only a handful of institutional investors focused on corporate governance. In the process of capital market development in western developed countries, with the increasing of the shareholding ratio in listed companies, institutional investors have replaced individual investors as the main investment subject of capital market. The total market value of US institutional investors holding shares of listed companies’ rose to 55% in 2003 and more than two-thirds of all large American companies had institutional investors. At the end of 1998, institutional investors, such as pension funds and mutual funds, accounted for more than 50% of the total assets. Institutional investors have been active in the exercise of investor rights, and actively pursued investor activism, which has become an important part of corporate governance since 1980s. They slowly abandoned the “Wall Street rules,” and began to play an active role in intervention, constantly to strengthen the supervision of managers in order to prevent moral Investor Activism Towards Sustainability hazard (Shleifer and Vishny 1986) and to curb the “free-rider” problem in corporate governance (Maug 1996). Institutional investors in the USA have adopted investor proposals since 1984, and the number of investor proposals was more than 1000 in 1986 (Guercio and Hawkins 1999). Institutional investors have more resources and more capacity to influence the corporate management than the dispersed individual investors and the board of directors with small holdings (Shleifer and Vishny 1986). Due to the large and concentrated shareholding, institutional investors have to vote after the active intervention in corporate governance (Feng et al. 2010), financial performance, market value, and corporate social performance (Petersen and Vredenburg 2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) was first proposed by Sheldon in 1924. Sheldon (1924) believed that companies should link corporate social responsibility with the various responsibilities that business owners meet consumer needs and promote community interests. Academics have examined the studies on corporate social responsibility, so the society began to accept the view that enterprises should take their social responsibilities. Davis (1960) suggested that most of the businessmen are only interested in economic performance or technological benefit. He believed that some socially responsible business decisions could bring long-term economic benefits to the company. This view of “long-term economic interest” was widely acknowledged at the end of the twentieth century. However, there is clear definition of corporate social responsibility. In different historical periods, scholars of different periods have different understandings and the meaning and understanding of corporate social responsibility due to the different political, economic, legal, and social factors. For example, as the deterioration of the global environment, active participation in environmental protection is increasingly recognized as one of the core components of corporate social responsibility. At the global level, less than 50% of Fortune 500 companies mentioned social responsibility at the end of the 1970s. However, about 90% of companies regard social responsibility as a core component of a company’s goals Investor Activism Towards Sustainability by the late 1990s. Besides, the emergence of NGOs seeking to promote more ethical and socially responsible business practices is beginning to cause substantial changes in corporate management, strategy, and governance. Both long-term interest theory and strategic management theory support the necessary relationship between corporate social responsibility and business development and the sustainability of investment behavior. The long-term interest theory divides the interests of enterprises into short-term benefits and long-term benefits, and believes that the corporate social responsibility is conducive to maximize the long-term interests of enterprises. After this theory was proposed, the research focus of corporate social responsibility in the 1970s was no longer whether the enterprise should assume social responsibility, but what kind of social responsibility should be assumed and how to shoulder social responsibility. The strategic management theory combines the theory of strategic management with corporate social responsibility and enterprises can gain competitive advantage by integrating social responsibilities as a part of corporate strategy. As mentioned earlier, investors are increasingly concerned about the companies’ sustainable value and act as an improving role in corporate governance. Sustainable investment behavior is related to corporate social responsibility, so it can understand its content from the perspective of social responsibility investors. As an organic part of corporate governance, corporate social responsibility has also received more attention from investor activism (Petersen and Vredenburg 2009). Investors are aware that long-term interests depend on effective management and good interaction with different stakeholders, which provide the resources that companies need to maintain competitive advantage (Jones and Murrell 2001). In addition to the traditional financial performance, investors in investment decision-making process pay more attention to the long-term development of the company. Investors tend to integrate social, environmental, ethical concerns into the company. At the same time, investment through the change of ownership influence corporate behaviors, including corporate social 1035 responsibility. In 1970, a regulation on social issues became important to draw investors’ attention to corporate social responsibility. Investors began to focus on corporate social responsibility, especially in the annual investors’ meeting, where a large number of social and environmental issues, including human rights and labor standards, climate issues, and apartheid in South Africa, Therefore, investor activism can help investors to effectively monitor the corporate social responsibility, improve the company’s social, environmental, and ethical performance, and then promote the fulfillment of CSR by the investors’ right. More and more investors take socially responsible investing (SRI) into consideration when doing investing decisions. SRI is an investment approach that uses both financial and nonfinancial criteria to determine which assets to purchase but whose distinguishing characteristic is the latter (Guay et al. 2004). SRI possesses ethical dimensions explicitly and has become an increasingly popular investment approach across advanced industrialized countries. Shareholder activism is a mix of SRI, corporate governance, and stakeholder capitalism (Guay et al. 2004). Activists play a role in corporate governance by many ways, such as using SRI, writing letters, and filing shareholder resolutions about social, environmental, and governance issues at corporate annual meetings. The financial market is gradually being used as an important tool to influence corporate social responsibility and environmental management. Shareholders are owners of the corporations, so they have incentives to optimize their values. The values contain not only traditional financial values but also social and environmental values. Shareholders have an interest in the company and have a right to participate in corporate affairs, including choosing company directors to act in the best interest of shareholders. Shareholder activism occurs when disgruntled shareholders loudly complain that management is not acting in the best interests of shareholders and threaten to do something about it (Guay et al. 2004). Shareholders could use their ownership position to have impact on companies’ policies as well I 1036 as practices. Shareholder activism could be exerted through lots of forms, including dialogue with company management or the board, raising questions at general meetings, writing formal shareholder proposals, and so on. There is a growing body of research of investor activism. However, the research related to investor activism for corporate social responsibility is limited. Actually, with the development of international economy and increased public environmental awareness, there are more and more investors pay close attention to issues about corporate social responsibility and environmental management in practice. Investors try to explore effective ways to achieve sustainable investment. The Approach of Investors to Achieve Sustainable Investment Investors can actively exercise investor rights to promote enterprises to carry out social responsibility and sustainable investment. There are three basic approaches: (1) investor’s right to know, (2) investor’s proposal, (3) proxy solicitation. Investor’s right to know is the right of investors to understand company information. The investor’s right to know is an important legal tool for social responsibility investors. First of all, social responsibility investors through the exercise of the negative right to know, such as reading the corporate social responsibility report, to understand the corporate practice on social responsibility. Second, social responsibility investors can also exercise the right to examine how corporations disclose human rights protection, environmental management, and ethical issues. Once again, socially responsible investors can ask the corporate performance on social responsibility to obtain more specific information. Acquiring company-related information through the right to know is the basis of follow-up action of social responsibility investors, management dialogue, and proposing proposals. Investor proposal right refers to the practical experience of investors to propose social responsibility to the general meeting of investors that is the most effective way to promote corporate social responsibility. Although socially responsible Investor Activism Towards Sustainability investors hold fewer shares, such limited shares are hard to get majority support at investors’ meetings. The fact is that management has consistently reacted to such proposals by two. The first is to communicate with the sponsors before the meeting of the investors, making a certain advance commitment to meet the latter’s full and partial requirements in return for its withdrawal. McDonald, for example, has agreed to study the use of substitutes in exchange for the withdrawal of proposals by the church group, when it is critical of the church group’s proposal for a “Synthetic Styrofoam” meal box. Second, although this kind of proposal does not get the majority pass, but the company under the pressure of all parties will take the initiative in subsequent business decision-making partial content. For example, the well-known consumer advocates, GM President Candidate Nader launched the General Motors program in 1970, the success of the following two issues during the General Motors annual general meeting vote: winning the company’s board members to diversify the report and strengthening the vehicle carbon emission standards report. Despite the failure to vote on two issues, public concern has led the company to elect Leon Sullivan, an AfricanAmerican pastor from Philadelphia, as a director of the company, and to push the company through a policy of gradual tightening of vehicle carbon emission standards. There are roughly three reasons why corporate management has responded so positively. First, management is willing to do and does not consider before. After the investors put forward, they are certainly willing to accept it and may make a corresponding commitment before the proposal is formally submitted in exchange for the withdrawal of investors in order to reduce the cost of convening the investors’ general meeting. Second, once these kinds of proposals have been proposed, they will arouse great attention from the media and the public at large, and their contents are mostly the reasonable expectation of the public to the company. Under “all eyes and ears,” it is very hard for management to turn a deaf ear to the proposal. If it is rejected, it may lead to serious negative consequences such as the opposition from the media and the public as well as the consumer boycott. Third, socially responsible investors can encourage senior management to focus on such Investor Activism Towards Sustainability social issues. Practice has shown that voting at investors’ annual meeting always draws attention from senior managers. The threat of making a proposal is enough to motivate senior management to act quickly in order to comforting investors and not confronting religious groups. Perhaps, issues raised in the resolution will be submitted to the board of directors for further discussion. They wrote investors’ authorized letters, to let senior management feel pressure from both the upper and lower levels. Therefore, the proposal does not need voting support to achieve the intended outcome. In practice, when a socially responsible investor submits a proposal to the general meeting of investors, it will usually issue a proxy letter of attorney to the other investors to obtain the latter’s authorization. Socially responsible investors usually hold fewer shares. Only with the support of a large number of other investors could reach the required share. Most investors will not actually participate in the investors’ meeting, so that they cannot vote on social responsibility proposals suggested by socially responsible investors. Therefore, social responsibility investors through proxy solicitation to enhance the possibility of the proposal or increase the attention of the bill, it can be seen that proxy solicitation is a useful tool to realize investors’ proposal right. Final Remarks This brief overview introduced investor activism towards sustainability. When analyzing investor activism, however, it followed the evolution of individual investor activism and institutional investor activism. Investor activism is that investors pay more attention to corporate social responsibility that is an important issue in the modern business world. Investor activism is also related to corporate sustainability and responsible investment. Institutional investors have a greater impact on corporate behavior, and thus most research is based on the activism of institutional investors. 1037 Cross-References ▶ Corporate Governance ▶ Corporate Social Responsibility ▶ Investor Activism Towards Sustainability ▶ Socially Responsible Investment References Barnett ML, Salomon RM (2002) Unpacking social responsibility: the curvilinear relationship between social and financial performance. Acad Manag Proc 2002:B1–B6 Brent A (2002) Some Funds try Shareholder Activism, Mutual Fund Market News 10 (No. 25, June 24), 1–3 Davis K (1960) Can business afford to ignore Social Responsibilities. California Management Review 2 (3):70–76 Feng Z et al (2010) Institutional monitoring and REIT CEO compensation. J Real Estate Financ Econ 40(4):446–479 Gillan S, Starks L (2000) Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: the role of institutional investor. J Financ Econ 57:275–305 Guay T, Doh JP, Sinclair G (2004) Non-governmental organizations, shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: ethical, strategic, and governance implications. J Bus Ethics 52(1):125–139 Guercio DD, Hawkins J (1999) The motivation and impact of pension fund activism. J Financ Econ 52:293–340 Jones R, Murrell A (2001) Signaling positive corporate social performance. Bus Soc 40(1):59–78 Maug E (1996) Corporate control and the market for managerial labour: on the decision to go public. Eur Econ Rev 40(3):1049–1056 Peter FD (1976) The unseen revolution: how pension fund socialism came to America. Harper and Row, New York Petersen N, Vredenburg H (2009) Morals or economics? Institutional investor preferences for corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 90(1):1–14 Sheldon O (1924) The Philosophy of Management, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd: London, England. 70–99 Shleifer A, Vishny R (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J Polit Econ 94(3):461–488 Stephen M (2005) Shareholder activism and institutional investors. CLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research paper no. 38:05–20 Useem M (1996) Investor capitalism: how money managers are changing the face of corporate. Basic Book, New York I