Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? – An analysis of steering effects and depth of change

Andrea Cuesta-Claros; Shirin Malekpour; Rob Raven; Tahl Kestin

doi:10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186

Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? – An analysis of steering effects and depth of change

Andrea Cuesta-Claros, Shirin Malekpour, Rob Raven, Tahl Kestin

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Universities are increasingly engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Appeal for the SDGs is partly based on their double transformation framing: they are seen as enablers of societal transformations and transformations within universities. This article aims to understand how the SDGs influence university transformations. We analyse how four universities have integrated the SDGs through a comparative case study. We propose a framework to determine the impact of the SDGs in universities by identifying their scope of change (i.e. discursive, institutional, relational, and resource effects) and depth of change (i.e. accommodative, reformative or transformative). This study shows that discursive effects are the most prominent hinting toward transformative change. To lesser extents, primarily accommodative, the SDGs have influenced institutional, relational, and resource changes. Overall, findings show that for the SDGs to fulfil their transformative potential in universities, they should be used as more than communications and legitimizing tools.

Original language	English
Article number	100186
Number of pages	15
Journal	Earth System Governance
Volume	17
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186
Publication status	Published - Aug 2023

Keywords

University
SDGs
Steering effects
Transformation

Access to Document

10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

490950227-oaFinal published version, 5.63 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{5ff7da2571d34488af927eab89291f57,

title = "Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? – An analysis of steering effects and depth of change",

abstract = "Universities are increasingly engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Appeal for the SDGs is partly based on their double transformation framing: they are seen as enablers of societal transformations and transformations within universities. This article aims to understand how the SDGs influence university transformations. We analyse how four universities have integrated the SDGs through a comparative case study. We propose a framework to determine the impact of the SDGs in universities by identifying their scope of change (i.e. discursive, institutional, relational, and resource effects) and depth of change (i.e. accommodative, reformative or transformative). This study shows that discursive effects are the most prominent hinting toward transformative change. To lesser extents, primarily accommodative, the SDGs have influenced institutional, relational, and resource changes. Overall, findings show that for the SDGs to fulfil their transformative potential in universities, they should be used as more than communications and legitimizing tools.",

keywords = "University, SDGs, Steering effects, Transformation",

author = "Andrea Cuesta-Claros and Shirin Malekpour and Rob Raven and Tahl Kestin",

note = "Funding Information: We could not find a university that strongly resembled the Post-Developmental University model, as the model largely remains an ambition for alternative institutions rather than mainstream universities. However, the selected universities, through specific strategies and programmes, showed indications of this model. This is the case of WSU, which foregrounds Indigenous Knowledges in its latest sustainability strategy, and TS, which supports the self-determination of First Nations peoples, through its interculturality programmes.The SDGs are also used in strategic documents and public presentations to support the universities' emerging reputation as SDG leaders, thus differentiating themselves from other universities (discursive effect 1.2). Both MU and WSU are portrayed as international SDG leaders. However, whilst MU mainly communicates this leadership position to external audiences (reformative/accommodative 1.2), WSU does so internally and externally (transformative 1.2). These leadership statements are commonly supported by their ranking in the THE Impact Rankings, where, in 2021, WSU ranked first and MU ranked 42nd (THE 2022). According to interviewee 17, at WSU, “the only rankings we've been extremely successful are the SDG Impact Rankings, which rankings didn't matter to us until they did. And now we're very proud of that and the university now presents us as leaders of the SDGs.” Similarly, rankings are used to describe TM as the “leader of the SDGs in Mexico” (interviewee 35). Furthermore, TM uses its newly established leadership role in university networks (e.g. SDSN), to support its SDG-leader image (transformative 1.2). Finally, TS also uses rankings to be described as the “most sustainable private university in Mexico” (TS1; TS2; interviewee 41). However, these leadership claims are also based on other rankings, such as UI GreenMetric, to support its positioning (reformative/transformative 1.2).Besides changes to strategic plans, institutional effects also refer to changes in reporting and evaluating mechanisms for the SDGs (institutional effect 2.3) and changes introduced to govern the SDGs across universities (institutional effect 2.4). Although TS does not have formal structures to govern the SDGs (no change 2.4), the university is integrating SDG-reporting mechanisms (interviewee 44), partly driven by the THE Impact Rankings (accommodative/reformative 2.3). Conversely, MU has two structures for managing the SDGs (reformative 2.4). The first one includes the ESG Working Group and the University Council behind the ESG statement, which oversee its progress and monitoring. According to various interviewees, the second structure is the Monash Sustainable Development Institute (MSDI). MSDI is a cross-university institute, considered the owner of the SDGs at MU, and is seen as the apparatus that other areas can consult about the Goals (interviewee 15). Moreover, MSDI's newly released five-year strategy has defined {\textquoteleft}leadership for the SDGs{\textquoteright} as one of its strategic priorities (MU5). Finally, WSU governs sustainability and SDG action through their C.O.R.E. framework, which is defined as a “distributed governance framework that supports the delivery of the SDGs” (interviewee 17) (reformative 2.4).Regarding collaborations with universities (relational effect 3.2), all cases are part of university networks where they actively engage with other universities to promote solutions for the Goals (accommodative/reformative 3.2). In the case of MU and TM, they lead their regional SDSN networks. As a part of these networks, MU has worked with other universities to support SDG integration in the HE sector through SDG guides (SDSN 2017; SDSN 2020), webinars, research depositories (MU6), and other events. Additionally, as part of SDSN, MU, TM, and TS worked with the Australian and the Mexican government, respectively, to elaborate their countries' SDGs Voluntary National Review (VNR). Besides collaborative work through networks, MU has also worked with another university to support the City of Melbourne's Voluntary Local Review (VLR). Finally, MU, WSU, and TM are increasingly encouraging SDG-based collaborations with other universities as part of their internationalisation agendas. For example, as part of their internationalisation plans, TM joined a Global Classroom initiative, where they partner with universities across the world to deliver a course (i.e. unit) to students from their university and the partner university. According to interviewee 37, when they joined the initiative, “we decided that we would only offer courses based on the SDGs. This way, we look for teaching partners from other universities within the initiative and we deliver the course together”.The last steering effect refers to changes to resource allocation because and in support of the SDGs. Fig. 5 presents the three different resource effects found in this study. The first effect, changes in resource allocation within the university (resource effect 4.1), is present in all cases. At TS, effects are accommodative since the university mainly dedicates resources to supporting one-off SDG efforts (e.g. TS4). Conversely, based on the institutional changes described earlier, funding is becoming more consistent and long-term at MU and WSU (accommodative/reformative 4.1). Finally, establishing the VIISS and the SDGs Initiative at TM has created new permanent staff positions to support SDG coordination (reformative 4.1). According to interviewee 27 from TM, “at least three new people at the {\textquoteleft}ODS en el Tec{\textquoteright} initiative have been hired because of the university's commitment to the SDGs. There are more, definitely. The new Vice-Presidency has hired multiple people lately and I am sure you will find at least 2 or 3 more people hired because of the SDGs.”. Additionally, given the rising importance of SDG rankings, interviewees expect their universities to assign funds for new job roles supporting the development of suitable SDG reporting mechanisms (interviewees 12 & 35).Lastly, resource allocation from national and international funding (relational effect 4.3) is accommodative in the four universities. According to interviewees 6, 7, 10, 20, 24, 27, 43, and 45, Australian and Mexican national governments do not use the SDG framework to allocate funds to universities. This is also the case with national research entities in both countries (i.e. ARC and CONACYT). Despite this lack of SDG-driven resource allocation, all universities have been able to procure funds because they have located SDG-issues in governmental priorities (interviewees 7, 17, 27 & 45). However, in Mexico, based on recent changes in how funding is assigned to private universities, interviewees are pessimistic about their chances of being further funded by the national government (interviewee 45). In response, in 2021, TM and TS joined a network of Mexican private universities which aims to procure international funds for research addressing the SDGs.",

year = "2023",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

journal = "Earth System Governance",

issn = "2589-8116",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? – An analysis of steering effects and depth of change

AU - Cuesta-Claros, Andrea

AU - Malekpour, Shirin

AU - Raven, Rob

AU - Kestin, Tahl

N1 - Funding Information: We could not find a university that strongly resembled the Post-Developmental University model, as the model largely remains an ambition for alternative institutions rather than mainstream universities. However, the selected universities, through specific strategies and programmes, showed indications of this model. This is the case of WSU, which foregrounds Indigenous Knowledges in its latest sustainability strategy, and TS, which supports the self-determination of First Nations peoples, through its interculturality programmes.The SDGs are also used in strategic documents and public presentations to support the universities' emerging reputation as SDG leaders, thus differentiating themselves from other universities (discursive effect 1.2). Both MU and WSU are portrayed as international SDG leaders. However, whilst MU mainly communicates this leadership position to external audiences (reformative/accommodative 1.2), WSU does so internally and externally (transformative 1.2). These leadership statements are commonly supported by their ranking in the THE Impact Rankings, where, in 2021, WSU ranked first and MU ranked 42nd (THE 2022). According to interviewee 17, at WSU, “the only rankings we've been extremely successful are the SDG Impact Rankings, which rankings didn't matter to us until they did. And now we're very proud of that and the university now presents us as leaders of the SDGs.” Similarly, rankings are used to describe TM as the “leader of the SDGs in Mexico” (interviewee 35). Furthermore, TM uses its newly established leadership role in university networks (e.g. SDSN), to support its SDG-leader image (transformative 1.2). Finally, TS also uses rankings to be described as the “most sustainable private university in Mexico” (TS1; TS2; interviewee 41). However, these leadership claims are also based on other rankings, such as UI GreenMetric, to support its positioning (reformative/transformative 1.2).Besides changes to strategic plans, institutional effects also refer to changes in reporting and evaluating mechanisms for the SDGs (institutional effect 2.3) and changes introduced to govern the SDGs across universities (institutional effect 2.4). Although TS does not have formal structures to govern the SDGs (no change 2.4), the university is integrating SDG-reporting mechanisms (interviewee 44), partly driven by the THE Impact Rankings (accommodative/reformative 2.3). Conversely, MU has two structures for managing the SDGs (reformative 2.4). The first one includes the ESG Working Group and the University Council behind the ESG statement, which oversee its progress and monitoring. According to various interviewees, the second structure is the Monash Sustainable Development Institute (MSDI). MSDI is a cross-university institute, considered the owner of the SDGs at MU, and is seen as the apparatus that other areas can consult about the Goals (interviewee 15). Moreover, MSDI's newly released five-year strategy has defined ‘leadership for the SDGs’ as one of its strategic priorities (MU5). Finally, WSU governs sustainability and SDG action through their C.O.R.E. framework, which is defined as a “distributed governance framework that supports the delivery of the SDGs” (interviewee 17) (reformative 2.4).Regarding collaborations with universities (relational effect 3.2), all cases are part of university networks where they actively engage with other universities to promote solutions for the Goals (accommodative/reformative 3.2). In the case of MU and TM, they lead their regional SDSN networks. As a part of these networks, MU has worked with other universities to support SDG integration in the HE sector through SDG guides (SDSN 2017; SDSN 2020), webinars, research depositories (MU6), and other events. Additionally, as part of SDSN, MU, TM, and TS worked with the Australian and the Mexican government, respectively, to elaborate their countries' SDGs Voluntary National Review (VNR). Besides collaborative work through networks, MU has also worked with another university to support the City of Melbourne's Voluntary Local Review (VLR). Finally, MU, WSU, and TM are increasingly encouraging SDG-based collaborations with other universities as part of their internationalisation agendas. For example, as part of their internationalisation plans, TM joined a Global Classroom initiative, where they partner with universities across the world to deliver a course (i.e. unit) to students from their university and the partner university. According to interviewee 37, when they joined the initiative, “we decided that we would only offer courses based on the SDGs. This way, we look for teaching partners from other universities within the initiative and we deliver the course together”.The last steering effect refers to changes to resource allocation because and in support of the SDGs. Fig. 5 presents the three different resource effects found in this study. The first effect, changes in resource allocation within the university (resource effect 4.1), is present in all cases. At TS, effects are accommodative since the university mainly dedicates resources to supporting one-off SDG efforts (e.g. TS4). Conversely, based on the institutional changes described earlier, funding is becoming more consistent and long-term at MU and WSU (accommodative/reformative 4.1). Finally, establishing the VIISS and the SDGs Initiative at TM has created new permanent staff positions to support SDG coordination (reformative 4.1). According to interviewee 27 from TM, “at least three new people at the ‘ODS en el Tec’ initiative have been hired because of the university's commitment to the SDGs. There are more, definitely. The new Vice-Presidency has hired multiple people lately and I am sure you will find at least 2 or 3 more people hired because of the SDGs.”. Additionally, given the rising importance of SDG rankings, interviewees expect their universities to assign funds for new job roles supporting the development of suitable SDG reporting mechanisms (interviewees 12 & 35).Lastly, resource allocation from national and international funding (relational effect 4.3) is accommodative in the four universities. According to interviewees 6, 7, 10, 20, 24, 27, 43, and 45, Australian and Mexican national governments do not use the SDG framework to allocate funds to universities. This is also the case with national research entities in both countries (i.e. ARC and CONACYT). Despite this lack of SDG-driven resource allocation, all universities have been able to procure funds because they have located SDG-issues in governmental priorities (interviewees 7, 17, 27 & 45). However, in Mexico, based on recent changes in how funding is assigned to private universities, interviewees are pessimistic about their chances of being further funded by the national government (interviewee 45). In response, in 2021, TM and TS joined a network of Mexican private universities which aims to procure international funds for research addressing the SDGs.

PY - 2023/8

Y1 - 2023/8

N2 - Universities are increasingly engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Appeal for the SDGs is partly based on their double transformation framing: they are seen as enablers of societal transformations and transformations within universities. This article aims to understand how the SDGs influence university transformations. We analyse how four universities have integrated the SDGs through a comparative case study. We propose a framework to determine the impact of the SDGs in universities by identifying their scope of change (i.e. discursive, institutional, relational, and resource effects) and depth of change (i.e. accommodative, reformative or transformative). This study shows that discursive effects are the most prominent hinting toward transformative change. To lesser extents, primarily accommodative, the SDGs have influenced institutional, relational, and resource changes. Overall, findings show that for the SDGs to fulfil their transformative potential in universities, they should be used as more than communications and legitimizing tools.

AB - Universities are increasingly engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Appeal for the SDGs is partly based on their double transformation framing: they are seen as enablers of societal transformations and transformations within universities. This article aims to understand how the SDGs influence university transformations. We analyse how four universities have integrated the SDGs through a comparative case study. We propose a framework to determine the impact of the SDGs in universities by identifying their scope of change (i.e. discursive, institutional, relational, and resource effects) and depth of change (i.e. accommodative, reformative or transformative). This study shows that discursive effects are the most prominent hinting toward transformative change. To lesser extents, primarily accommodative, the SDGs have influenced institutional, relational, and resource changes. Overall, findings show that for the SDGs to fulfil their transformative potential in universities, they should be used as more than communications and legitimizing tools.

KW - University

KW - SDGs

KW - Steering effects

KW - Transformation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85165090970&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186

DO - 10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85165090970

SN - 2589-8116

VL - 17

JO - Earth System Governance

JF - Earth System Governance

M1 - 100186

ER -

Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? – An analysis of steering effects and depth of change

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this