Search results

The implementation of sustainability-related policies at universities has been marked by a greater sense of urgency in recent years. Despite this emerging trend, it is still unclear which leadership processes, at which levels and which theoretical concepts encourage sustainable transitions within universities.

This study aims to offer a systematic literature review of the existing literature on sustainability-related leadership processes, levels and theories that encourage the transformation of universities, aimed at providing guidance on this topic; uncovering gaps in the literature; and finding new paths for future research.

Leadership processes in the context of sustainability-related transitions have been approached in a rather fragmented way in the literature, and the scientific field would benefit from more in-depth and longitudinal studies. In total, this study identifies 95 processes that are related to 17 aspects of universities’ transitions.

The various leadership levels are involved in transition processes at different stages. The theories of distributed and sustainability leadership seem to be the most frequently used theories in the literature.

Structuring and defining leadership processes, levels and theories can lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of the transition process and, in a broader sense, of the process of sustainability integration in higher education. A better knowledge of how such a transition develops could contribute to the enhancement of existing sustainable development strategy and policy.

By focusing on an underresearched topic through a theoretical perspective of leadership theories, this study contributes to literature pertaining to leadership levels and processes involved in sustainability transitions of universities.

The purpose of this study is to assess sustainability reports of US universities to provide findings on the relative importance of disclosure topics.

The authors conducted content analysis by using a specific university-oriented catalogue of indicators to cover the specific sustainability-related aspects of this sector.

Sustainability reporting by universities is still in its early stages. The findings show a clear focus on the environmental dimension, whereas the university and the economic dimensions see lower levels of reporting. The social dimension is rarely addressed.

Future research could use the results of this study as a basis for investigating stakeholder expectations towards universities’ sustainability reporting and developing university-specific sustainability reporting standards.

The results could be used to improve universities’ sustainability reporting, as “good” practices are now readily available.

The level of reporting on the social dimension is very low. Therefore, developing political incentives to improve universities’ social performance might be of interest.

The investigated setting is unique and contributes several findings in a less-researched area along with several practical, social and research implications.

This chapter compares the current biodiversity practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) and their learning effects of the Global North and South. It particularly explores the HEIs’ strategies targeting biodiversity and ecosystem services preservation. In order to answer the research question, a qualitative content analysis of published sustainability reports of the systematically selected HEIs was performed. The Times Higher Education (THE) was used to select HEIs. The results show that biodiversity reporting and management is still in its early stages in HEIs from both the Global North and South and could benefit from further research and suggestions for improvement. One implication for the HEIs is that they could increase public awareness and knowledge of biodiversity through the integration of this topic into their curricula, more research projects on biodiversity, and operations on and off campus.

Higher education institutions (HEI) are acknowledged as a key driver for the development of sustainable societies, so much so that some profess education for sustainable development to be the most fundamental of the United Nation’s (UN) 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). This chapter provides an overview of the chapters in the book: Higher Education for the SDGs, divided into two themes, namely (i) Research from the Global North and Global South and (ii) Rethinking curriculum.

This study aims to focus on the following research question: Which institutional characteristics are associated with sustainability reporting by UK higher education institutions?

To answer the aforementioned research question, this study uses logistic regression.

The results show that 17 per cent of the UK higher education institutions report on their sustainability (July 2014). In line with legitimacy and stakeholder theory, logistic regressions provide evidence that the larger the size of the institution, the higher the probability of reporting. By contrast, high public funding decreases this probability.

The findings show characteristics of higher education institutions that support or hamper sustainability reporting. Overall, the findings imply a lack of institutionalisation of sustainability reporting among higher education institutions.

Although a lot of research has been done on corporate sustainability reporting, only a small number of studies have addressed the issues of sustainability reporting of higher education institutions. This study covers all sustainability reports disclosed among the 160 UK higher education institutions. It is the first study that investigates characteristics of higher education institutions that disclose a sustainability report.