What drives universities to become more sustainable?

Authors Note: For three years I was involved in campus sustainability efforts at the University of Utah. My effort was focused on sustainability curriculum development and involved collaboration with sustainability leaders from across the campus to develop new interdisciplinary certificate programs and a faculty development workshop in sustainability. Those efforts are discussed in detail in our paper, “Institutionalizing sustainability curriculum at a large, research-intensive university: challenges and opportunities.” The discussion below regarding some of the drivers and barriers affecting sustainability transitions in higher education — and ways to amplify or overcome them — was inspired by this experience (and drafted in 2015).

Inclusive visioning and grassroots leadership

Higher education institutions (HEIs) transition towards sustainability when change is championed by campus visionaries — whether administrators, faculty, staff, and/or students. These visionaries not only see alternative, more sustainable, ways of doing things, they also help others see and embrace those alternatives. As former college president Mitchell Thomashow explained in The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus (2014): “Good leaders are meaning makers. They provide a rationale for change, an explanation of its necessity, and a sequence for how it will unfold.”

Yet, when there are multiple pathways being envisioned, whose should be prioritized?

A study by Sylvestre and colleagues looked at Dalhousie University in Canada and found that some faculty conceptualized sustainable development as an oxymoron or “a Trojan horse for perpetual growth,” whereas others saw it in terms of its positive legacy or “socially transformative potential”; and still other faculty worried that instrumentalizing education (as in education for sustainable development) was not compatible with the college’s fundamental mission of cultivating critical thinking (see also this study). 

Given this plurality of perspectives, the authors argued that instead of creating a single vision of sustainability, universities should “[examine] the potential for multiple critical sustainabilities operating simultaneously and in dialogue with one another.”

A pluralistic vision offers ample space for leaders from all disciplines, units, and ranks to play roles in the transition to sustainability. When university leaders invite others from the campus community to participate in sustainability discussions and actions, they demonstrate their commitment to creating a pluralistic vision, which in turn facilitates its co-creation.

Inclusive visioning for change supports the kind of ongoing critical reflection and dynamism that makes HEIs seedbeds for innovation. Indeed, although there are cases where sustainability leadership originated primarily from top-level administrators (e.g., see Halfacre’s discussion of Furman University in this book), there are probably many more cases of grassroots leadership.

For example, in Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change (2004), Peggy Barlett recounts her initial experience as a “reluctant leader” who nonetheless got involved as a faculty member with organizing faculty, staff, and students at Emory University. One of their first efforts was to draft a mission statement that, even if never formally adopted (it was), would contribute to raising sustainability awareness through the process of inclusive, egalitarian, campus-wide consultations.

These kind of organic, bottom-up processes — particularly those involving integration of interdisciplinary sustainability concepts into research and curriculum — can be encouraged by HEIs through the establishment of interdisciplinary centers and institutes as well as faculty development workshops.

Since the process of inclusion is itself a manifestation of sustainability values, when we practice it, we can see radical change: the key transformational moment at the University of South Carolina happened when, as David Whiteman explained, they made the crucial decision to accept all students who were interested in being sustainability interns.

But students and other stakeholders certainly need not wait for an invitation to participate. Student activism has played an absolutely crucial role in transforming higher education, as seen by the fossil fuel divestment movement and other student-led initiatives such as for carbon neutrality and sustainable food production.

Sustainability pedagogies

Student demand for sustainability-related programs is a key driver of transformation of the curriculum. HEIs can also take steps to nurture demand by creating innovative programs that attract sustainability-oriented students.

Specifically, programs can be designed to engage the three domains of learning: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. These domains — also referred to by sustainability educators as “head, hands, and heart” — can be engaged in different ways. Problem-based learning tends to emphasize the cognitive domain, whereas community service-learning tends to emphasize the affective domain (see this paper).

As argued by Sipos and colleagues, the most transformative pedagogies are those that engage all three of these learning domains. This can be done through curricular innovations. For example, campus sustainable food initiatives can be used not only to analyze and problematize industrialized food production and distribution system but also to enact real world alternatives through gardening and collaboration with local community members.

All HEIs have a physical infrastructure of buildings and landscapes that could be turned into “living labs” where students get hands-on, real-world experience designing and managing projects — and universities get more energy and water efficient infrastructure and better managed soils, watersheds, plants, and wildlife.

HEIs can also connect their students with local businesses, community associations, NGOs, and government agencies for internships and collaborative projects that positively impact outcomes for student learning and community development.  

In order to encourage and support student creativity and leadership, many schools now offer student grants for projects that improve campus sustainability. The experience of designing and leading a project — including research projects — contributes to a student’s professional development.

Disciplinary structures and individual incentives

Despite the aforementioned curricular innovations, the disciplinary structure of academia itself — and the incentive system designed to support it — can pose barriers.

It’s unsurprising that higher education has been traditionally organized around disciplines. People with similar expertise have reason to gather together to share ideas and evaluate their peers’ ideas. Fields of specialization evolved over time and have clearly contributed a great deal to the advancement of knowledge by enhancing both the rigor and novelty of research.

The caveat to this is that disciplinary “habits of thought” can also lead to the reproduction of traditional ways of thinking at the expense of new ones. Although faculty in each discipline presumably pursue what they believe is cutting-edge research, the assessment of this research comes from within their own disciplines and tends to reward research that employs their discipline’s perspectives and methods. Again, this is not inherently bad, but it can hinder innovation, especially at the intersection of disciplines.

To the extent that the global sustainability crisis — or rather, this set of interconnected crises — requires different analytical tools to understand and address it, disciplinarity is a barrier.

Unfortunately, researchers often struggle with getting adequate recognition for interdisciplinary research (in terms of retention, promotion, and tenure) because universities are designed to recognize discipline-based accomplishments. Krizek and colleagues suggested that there may even be an inverse relationship between the prestige of a department and its willingness to embrace interdisciplinary sustainability efforts:

“the strongest departments are often the most resistant to change such as incorporating interdisciplinary efforts (e.g. sustainability); their rationale is that because they are strong, they consider their activities as cherished and there is little reason to change.”

— Krizek et al. (2012), p. 26

In a study of seven universities, the lack of incentives for changes at the individual-level emerged as the main barrier to university sustainability transformations. To overcome this barrier, some universities have adopted formal policies for faculty performance evaluation that recognize the value of interdisciplinary research.

Other means of recognition are also emerging — such as campus-wide awards for outstanding sustainability research.

Cross-institutional policy and assessment movements within higher education

One of the most important drivers is institutional reputation within higher education itself. Since 1990, when the president of Tufts University convened university presidents and chancellors to create an action plan for how HEIs could contribute to creating a more sustainable future, the Talloires Declaration has played a pivotal role. As of June 2020, it has more than 500 signatories representing institutions from across 60 countries.

Although several other similar declarations have come after the Talloires Declaration, the reality is that signing declarations generates publicity but does not necessarily result in meaningful change unless there is also accountability.

At the 2006 conference of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), a group consisting of university presidents and representatives from Second Nature and ecoAmerica launched the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) — now known as the Presidents’ Climate Leadership Commitments.

This commitment, which had more than 665 signatories by early 2010, is notable for its explicit requirement that signatories not only take very specific steps towards climate neutrality at their institutions but also that they report publicly on the progress. This kind of public accountability was further strengthened by AASHE through the establishment of the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) in 2010.

STARS is a framework for HEIs to measure their progress on sustainability in academics, engagement, operations, and planning and administration. Like the Presidents’ Climate Leadership Commitment, participating institutions report their progress publicly; however, STARS goes further in assigning a rating based upon the number of points earned in each of the aforementioned domains. AASHE strives to foster a cooperative and supportive environment through its workshops, webinars, annual conference, and online resources.

Communication and coordination

To build on the work of change agents and counter the institutional inertia that makes change happen slowly, there must be strong channels of communication and effective coordination among people and units.

Too often HEIs struggle with this, as Julie Snow recalled in an essay aptly titled “Bowling gutter balls”:

“I found myself appointed to the Energy Conservation Committee my fourth year at Slippery Rock University. Before my first meeting as committee chair, I spent some time looking at what other universities in the Pennsylvania State system were doing and compared it to what I knew Slippery Rock University was doing. I went into that meeting all hot and bothered and somewhat on a tirade. I said, “Look, these other schools have already completed Energy Services Company audits, they’ve changed their lighting, they’ve hired sustainability directors…” and I went on and on. And then I was put in my place. The great folks on the committee said, “We’ve already gone through an audit, we’ve already started to change our lighting…” I was stunned. “How come I don’t know about this?” I asked, feeling pretty stupid.”  

— Snow, in Sustainability in Higher Education (2013), p. 57

According to Snow, the problem at Slippery Rock University was that there were groups on campus working towards sustainability, but they were not communicating with each other. The lack of communication not only created situations where different groups on campus were unknowingly duplicating efforts, but also contributed to feelings of frustration and isolation.

Creating a communication infrastructure and developing a sense of community are critical steps towards broad institutional change. This kind of campus-wide coordination often emerges in the third of four phases that are typical of sustainability transitions in higher education.

According to a framework developed by Krizek and colleagues, these four phases include the following:

• Phase 1 – grassroots efforts,
• Phase 2 – executive leaders accept the “business case” for sustainability (i.e., money saving initiatives like energy efficiency and water conservation, etc.),
• Phase 3 – a visionary leader, usually a high-level executive, whose vision combined with coordination of previously isolated and ad hoc programs spurs radical change, and
• Phase 4 – a “fully self-actualized and integrated campus community.”

This linear progression across phases does not necessarily characterize all sustainability transitions, but the various phases do reflect many of the drivers and barriers outlined above. Ultimately, we should expect to see full transformation only after there is a multi-level, coordinated effort across diverse actors, actions, and visions. The creation of sustainability offices can significantly facilitate this coordinating effort.

Funding

Finally, at least a brief word must be said about funding since without it, new initiatives can be difficult or impossible to implement, especially if they require ongoing resource inputs (e.g., faculty development workshops).

In addition to traditional funding sources for HEIs, there are some innovative funding mechanisms that illustrate the kind of “out-of-the-box” thinking that is so vital for creating lasting change. In particular, green revolving funds have been proving themselves sustainable in terms of their perpetuity as well as their contribution to improved energy efficiency. Again turning to Thomashow:

“Campus sustainability projects gain their financing from institutional capital. The money for these funds comes from a variety of sources – administrative budgets, student “green fees,” endowments, utility companies, and donations. Essentially these funds are used to finance a variety of sustainability projects on campus. Projects range in scope from quick-payback investments, such as upgrading lighting fixtures in a residence hall or installing composting equipment, to more systemic projects, such as comprehensive energy retrofits or investments in alternative energy sources. The savings from these projects are then returned to the loan fund, and the money can then be reinvested in additional projects.” 

— Thomashow, The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus (2014), pp. 118-119

The simple logic of the green revolving fund has led to its widespread adoption: more than 50 HEIs have signed on as participants in the Billion Dollar Green Challenge.

Many HEIs have used green revolving funds to support student-initiated projects. Such projects are excellent ways to promote experiential learning and research while achieving campus sustainability goals.

Amplifying the drivers and overcoming the barriers

Although each HEI has its own unique institutional culture, there are certain recurring drivers and barriers of sustainability transformations (for a complementary perspective, see this paper). 

Fortunately, these drivers and barriers can be amplified or overcome through a variety of tactics. Tables 1 and 2 summarizes these with some illustrative actions.

Table 1. Key drivers of sustainability transitions in higher education and ways to amplify them.

Table 2. Key barriers to sustainability transitions in higher education and ways to overcome them.

To return to a point made at the outset of this essay: envisioning change is necessary but insufficient for achieving change. Good leaders know this. They envision change, then roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of making it happen. This includes communicating and coordinating with others in ways that are meaningfully inclusive of diverse perspectives from within and across organizational hierarchies and stakeholder communities.