Next Article in Journal
Study on the Sustainable Development Factors of Agriculture-Oriented Characteristic Towns in China
Previous Article in Journal
Interdisciplinarity-Based Sustainability Framework for Management Education
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/su141912290
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Facts, Values and Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Free Teaching Materials in Sweden

by
Karin Skill
1,*,
Cecilia Axell
2 and
Per Gyberg
1
1
Tema Department, Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
2
Department of Behavioural Science and Learning (IBL), Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12290; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912290
Submission received: 9 August 2022 / Revised: 24 September 2022 / Accepted: 25 September 2022 / Published: 27 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, we adopt a critical perspective on knowledge about sustainable development in Swedish free teaching materials, where certain ways of illustrating sustainable development can make invisible alternative ways to understand and delimit it. We analyse physical, free materials for school teaching, distributed by Utbudet. The materials were produced between 2008 and 2019. Our analysis shows that there is a focus on facts, certifications and technical fixes, as well as scientific and societal consensus. The companies’ perspectives are prominent in the free materials, as are anthropocentric and Western approaches. Taken together, our study shows that the free materials convey that the global situation has improved and that development is on the right track, rather than in crisis, or that the sustainability problems are complex and difficult to manage. Thus, the materials present a fairly one-sided picture of the situation and the future, which does not really agree with the aim in Swedish education of presenting a balanced view of sustainable development.

1. Introduction

“In today’s interconnected world, information is easily acquired. … Today’s education requires knowing what to do with information, that is, how to analyze it; make sense of its abundance and complexity; cooperate with others to synthesize information; and communicate the results. Consequently, quality education is no longer based primarily on fact acquisition.” [1] (p. 227).
In education research, a common view is that, except for the teacher, teaching aids are the single most important factor for how an area of knowledge is handled in school [2]. Textbooks have even been seen as a link between curriculum and teaching [3]. In Sweden, the state scrutiny of teaching aids was ended in 1991. This signalled the start for new actors behind the production of teaching aids such as businesses, state agencies and organisations [4]. In the previous Compulsory School Ordinance, the right of pupils to teaching aids was clearly specified, but this was removed in 2011, and teaching aids are not mentioned at all in the current Education Act [5]. This, in combination with the constantly increasing flow of all types of information—especially in digital media—means that, today, teachers are largely trusted to scrutinise the materials they use, to ensure they meet the curriculum’s targets [6]. Considering the importance of teaching aids in teaching, it is relevant to study their contents [7], especially in terms of sustainable development, which is an area with potentially lots of complex information. Sustainable development is included in Swedish curricula, and pupils at all levels are to learn about it in what is called teaching for sustainable development.
Swedish studies of teaching aids show that there are rarely common principles for the teachers to base their assessment on and teachers today use many different types of teaching materials, including free materials from organisations, commercial actors and state agencies [8,9]. In a study of teachers and headmasters conducted by Swedish teacher and pupil organisations, it was found that resources for purchasing teaching aids at schools are limited [8]. For schools with strained finances, which have trouble obtaining funds to suffice for updated textbooks, free teaching materials are of interest, and today, the selection of free teaching materials is large [9]. Thus, part of working in education is the use of free teaching aids (both digital and physical) created by various stakeholders in society and distributed in various forms where questions regarding accuracy, assessing information and source criticism become particularly important [5,10,11,12].
The design of the materials, and their use in day-to-day education, contributes to the definition of teaching for sustainable development and how the dimensions of economic, ecological and social sustainability are managed in education [13]. Some subjects can be contentious, controversial or rapidly evolving, such as nuclear power or meat consumption. In such cases, there are even higher demands on teachers and pupils to (according to age) be able to critically assess sources and materials. Requirements for source criticism and “for a life as a member of society in a digitalised world” were introduced into the school plan in 2018 [14,15]. All teaching is to be factual, based on science and encompass a range of different approaches, while it is to be for sustainable development, i.e., not just about sustainable development which has been established in the Swedish curriculum for compulsory school, preschool and after-school centres [14]. This creates potential tension between facts and values, which has been a core question in pedagogy [16,17] and is central to education for sustainable development (ESD). ESD implies teaching about how to change or transform the world to become more sustainable, and to challenge the status quo [18]. This is obviously based on ideological grounds, and provide pupils with competencies to contribute to the solution of sustainability problems, i.e., what to do with information and not only “fact acquisition” [1,19,20] and/or faith in technological solutions [21,22]. This further relates to the curriculum that states that pupils shall develop their ability to critically examine how different actors try to influence society through the way they present information and arguments in different types of sources [14]. However, sometimes sustainability appears “to be only a question of knowledge, free from political and scientific controversies and value conflicts” [23] (p. 149). It is assumed that there are ready answers to moral questions and value conflicts, for instance, being “climate smart”, while risks and knowledge uncertainties are toned down.
There is research on Education for Sustainable Development, e.g., [20,24,25,26,27,28,29,30], as well as some research on teaching materials [19,21]. However, research on free teaching materials [9] for use in teaching for sustainable development is still scarce.
Consequently, the aim of this article is to examine how knowledge about sustainable development is presented in free materials intended to be used in school teaching. Our research questions concern: (1) “How is sustainable development presented and delimited in free materials?” and (2) “What claims are made regarding sustainable development?” To find answers to our questions, we analyse free materials distributed via a service called utbudet.se produced between 2008 and 2019.

1.1. Background to the Interest in Free Teaching Materials on Sustainable Development

In Sweden, the interest in free materials and teaching on sustainable development grew in conjunction with the distribution of Miljö—så funkar det [In English: Environment—how it works], of which at least 70,000 copies were sent to Swedish schools by the interest organisation Svenskt Näringsliv [Confederation of Swedish Enterprise] in 2009. This material presented statistics, figures and fact boxes, as well as how technical solutions to contemporary problems have led to general improvements in society. When the material was criticised for “downplaying” climate change, the head of school and education at the confederation responded that environmental organisations such as Greenpeace also published materials that are used in schools [31], and that the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise should also be able to put its view forward. The examples illustrate the importance of being able to analyse and study the materials critically.
The free materials about sustainable development provided by portals such as utbudet.se can be seen as a way for different stakeholders to influence teaching by offering their view of reality, and presenting their operations. Utbudet.se promotes its service as providing Swedish teachers with digital and print teaching material, free of charge for delivery. The Swedish Education Act (2010:800) states that education “shall be based on scientific foundations and proven experience”. School education concerns several different areas of knowledge, and is given and takes the right to define what can be considered valid knowledge in a particular area, such as sustainable development [13]. Free materials from businesses and interest organisations provide their perspective on sustainable development, especially through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and an economic discourse [21].

1.2. Sustainable Development and Sustainability

We live in a time when we are reminded daily about all the environmental problems we humans have created. In research these have been called wicked sustainability problems, characterised by uncertainty, complexity and value conflicts [32]. The concept of sustainable development became widely known due to the Brundtland Commission, which the UN appointed in the mid 1980s. The concept is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [33] (p. 8). The report was followed by several Agendas. In 2015 the UN General assembly ratified Agenda 2030, which contains 17 global goals for sustainable development. Every goal has been given colourful icons. The three dimensions of economic, social and environmental sustainability continue to be important. Agenda 2030 replaced the eight millennial goals that the UN and the countries of the world had been working on between 2000 and 2015. Agenda 2030 is not legally binding; it is the duty of each individual country to meet the goals. In Sweden, much of the work is also done at the local level, by municipalities and regions [34].
Despite the global unity on the importance of shifting towards a more sustainable development, humanity has thus far not made very much progress in terms of realising any of the goals that were stipulated more than 30 years ago. A continually recurring question has been whether environmental care and social justice are compatible with economic growth. The final document of 2012 from the Rio+20 summit for sustainable development emphasised the possibilities for businesses to contribute to the development and growth by way of CSR [35]. The wording in the document indicates a potential conflict between the three dimensions, especially considering that the goals can require radical changes to the way we live and that we need to make decisions that can seem difficult [36,37].
Thus, as a phenomenon and concept, sustainable development has come to be problematised from several directions. For instance, the concept of “needs” as defined in the Brundtland Commission can have completely different meanings for different people, depending on their life situation, and national circumstances can be interpreted as an ambition to continue on the same path, i.e., a society with economic growth based on increased consumption and extractivism. Another criticism is that the definition focuses far too much on people alive now, and that future generations of people and their well-being can be threatened [37]. The wording of the Brundtland Report can also be interpreted to mean that we have duties, but only towards our own species, including the unborn, and not necessarily towards other species [13,23,38,39,40,41,42]. It is thus mainly human rights that are evaluated in the discourse of ESD. The rights of other species are rarely addressed, and are only valued in relation to what extent they promote or do not promote human well-being [37,41]. In other words, sustainable development has an anthropocentric perspective which privileges human interests rather than promoting an ecocentric or biocentric perspective [41,43]. This can be linked to the criticism that the concept, as it is used, has an excessively Western focus, where, for instance, indigenous people’s idea of managing nature is not included, respected or given influence see, e.g., [41,44,45,46]. In conclusion, from a critical perspective on pedagogy, teaching is never neutral and always ideological [16,17]. Education for sustainable development is hence about values and political conflicts (including what counts as facts and truths) [47,48].
The vagueness of the concept tends to contribute to disillusionment because it can be used in ways that benefit the actor’s interests [22], i.e., its plasticity makes it useful for many, regardless of standpoint. To remedy this, e.g., Robinson [22] argues that we abandon sustainable development in favour of sustainability, which is not a technical fix, but something that involves local communities and increases preparedness. Thus, it is also about finding long-term solutions based on our need to change our values [47,49], e.g., abandoning the anthropocentric view of nature as simply an inexhaustible economic resource that only exists for us humans [19,41,42]. However, previous research has also critically examined the possibility of achieving consensus through dialogue in work with sustainable development [19,22,50]. The focus on consensus can neglect power relationships such as colonial structures, and various risk assessments and perspectives [46,51,52], i.e., conflicts and controversies around extractivism and resource use. Not everyone has the same opportunity to participate; there are unjust structures in terms of whose voice is heard and who is considered able to address problems and find solutions, e.g., [53,54]. Said [55] argues for instance that constructions of “the other” have strengthened the West’s image of itself as a superior civilisation. This kind of othering is operating in the educational discourse too [56]. These questions are essential when we address sustainable development. Consequently, it will not be surprising if consensus permeates educational materials as well.
In summary, we can conclude that even if sustainable development is ambiguous and contentious, it has been spread widely to more or less every corner of society [57,58]. Virtually all operations with links to education and school have been tasked with working with matters relating to sustainable development and the goals of Agenda 2030.

1.3. Education for and about Sustainable Development

Teaching for sustainable development is held up as something that should permeate all education, from preschool to university, so that pupils and students learn to work for this goal. Education has long been identified as one of the most central instruments for achieving a more sustainable development [1,59,60] and is mentioned specifically in the global sustainability development goal (SDG) 4.7. Sustainable development has been included in the Swedish curriculum since 1994 see [61]. The UN sees education as one of the most important tools for achieving sustainable development, and the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) [62], from 2005 to 2014, became very influential. This general trend has significance for how the field of knowledge is handled in the education system. However, sustainable development as a field of knowledge is not a “subject” of its own. Rather, it should permeate all education, regardless of the subject [14].
The impact of the concept of sustainable development is considerable, both nationally and internationally [1,24,29,37,49,57], and therefore the understanding and interpretations are very important in what is considered knowledge about it. In the Swedish curriculum for compulsory school, sustainable development is included in one of four fundamental perspectives—the environmental perspective. To be more specific, environment, energy, resource use and the concept of sustainable development are featured in various syllabuses, especially in technology, social science subjects, natural science subjects and home and consumer sciences [14]. Based on Agenda 2030, the Swedish National Agency for Education has also developed materials for training in sustainable development for teachers in preschool, compulsory school and upper secondary school [14].

2. Materials and Methods

An abundance of free materials for teaching has been published, directly or indirectly covering sustainable development—all depending on how it is defined. This is a case study [63] of free teaching material ordered from utbudet.se. To account for the selection of utbudet.se as a case, we chose it because it gathers and distributes free teaching material in Swedish from many different actors, including governmental bodies, interest organisations and companies, and gives a picture of how knowledge about sustainable development in free materials is designed and legitimised in Sweden. The fact that it distributes print material for free in a time of abundance of digital material was also a reason for selecting this portal. Additionally, many schools have limited resources to purchase updated textbooks [8].
The materials range from specially made materials for school teaching, but the distributor also sends brochures and sustainability reports from companies. The selection of materials is based on the assessment of utbudet.se as to which materials the teachers need when they order free materials about sustainable development from the platform. The first order, placed in 2011, contains materials published in 2008 and later, but we also made subsequent orders in 2014 and 2019, which are included in our analysis. Today, teachers who use utbudet.se can make their own selection by way of a filter, and choose themes such as sustainable development, combined with other selections. We placed the three orders with utbudet.se as if we were teachers, and the result was a total of 23 individual free materials, which were analysed in the study. How frequently different materials are used is virtually impossible to say here, and nor is that the aim. Table 1 presents a summary of the materials.
The Table 1 shows the stakeholders behind the production of free materials about sustainable development. The materials about sustainable development that the distributors send out for use in teaching consist of industry organisations’ and companies’ sustainability reports and magazines. Free materials can provide a picture of the current situation, even if they are presented from a single, and not a comprehensive, perspective.
Some materials have an expressed purpose, such as the magazine The Atom, which aims to “give young people information about nuclear energy in general, and encourage them to pursue a career in nuclear energy in particular”, while the Energy Case says that it aims to facilitate for teachers to give pupils knowledge and tools to address the future and to envisage their role in a democratic and equal society. In the Energy Case, pupils are expected to learn “to critically examine facts in a large information flow, take personal responsibility and see the consequences of various alternatives”. In other instances, it is a matter of companies showing “how we continually take responsibility for the environment, the improvements we have implemented over the past ten years and our plans for the future”, as in the case of the ice cream company SIA, or to push for “genuine optimism” in Equal for everyone, published by The Hunger Project.
The free materials discussed in this text often resemble sponsored materials. Much is of a nature where it is not clear if it is marketing. There are no rules prohibiting free or sponsored materials in the Swedish school system. It is up to the teachers to decide how the materials are used. In terms of guidelines for how the free materials should be formulated, utbudet.se required that they “have informative contents that are relevant to the target group … (and that they) are not product samples or pure product advertisement” (utbudet.se).

2.1. Analysis Framework

Starting from the position that teaching is not just about fact acquisition [1], we explore how knowledge about sustainable development is presented and delimited in free teaching materials, and what claims are made. Different actors present what they regard as knowledge through what we call “knowledge claims”. Knowledge claims can be made not only through calling information “facts”, but also through omitting the history and origin of this knowledge, i.e., regarding conflicts and controversies [64], so that it appears “closed” for further interpretation [65]. Figures, bar charts and formulas are a part of scientific communication strategies, claims Theodore Porter. In some cases, these can be used to “make … pretense of embodying laws of nature, … (and) providing complete and accurate descriptions of the external world” [66] (pp. viii, ix). Porter continues: “Quantification is well suited for communication that goes beyond the boundaries of locality and community” [66] (p. ix). In the sense that legitimised ways of expressing phenomena can obscure alternative ways of understanding and delimiting them [67], that which comprises knowledge about sustainable development is about power. In order to strengthen their knowledge claim, actors who are implicitly understood to argue for the legitimacy of the knowledge may be invited to speak about it [68]. This also affects the power relations in creating knowledge, and the fact that one tries to find an audience for one’s argument or hypothesis [69]. It is thus of central importance to investigate what is presented as knowledge, and how it is presented.
A central theme of the study of knowledge production regarding sustainable development is the question of what comprises certain and reliable knowledge, evidence and probabilities, as well as what we can know about the present and future [23]. This is of interest in relation to climate change and other environmental risk [70]. Beck asserts that modern, industrialised society is forced into a confrontation with the consequence of its activities. However, Blowers [71] argues that the positive tone around sustainable development and ecological modernisation has led to their advocates receiving more attention than, i.e., the idea of risk society. In this context, it is impossible to ignore the importance of, i.e., activists such as Greta Thunberg, and high-ranking political opponents who discuss facts in relation to these questions. The question of “fact resistance” should also be addressed here. Fact resistance regarding sustainability is addressed by the internationally renowned and now deceased public health scientist Hans Rosling in his 2018 book Factfulness. He argued that it was worrying that people, when asked about the state of development around the world, tend to guess less well than monkeys do. Rosling’s use of statistics and certain knowledge, and his focus on economics and education, appeals to teaching, but may be said to refrain from touching upon the value questions that sustainability entails. He was also criticised for playing down global climate questions, i.e., in connection with an interview in which he said: “I do not give a damn about polar bears. I can live without polar bears” [72,73,74]. One can interpret this critique as saying that Rosling justified an anthropocentric lifestyle and perpetual economic growth with resource extraction as the only way forward. The latter depends on whose perspective on sustainable development is in question, and analyses of differentiated humanism [29] and what the more-than-human can contribute to this matter [13].

2.2. Analysis Method

A methodology that enabled us to interpret the texts and illustrations in the free materials under study, was needed. First, we performed a content analysis [75,76]. Erlingsson and Brysiewicz suggest that the coding focuses on what is described, how and in what way it is described, and who is in focus. This coding was carried out collectively to ensure that the researchers agreed on the themes. Then, we posed a second round of critical questions to interpret how knowledge about sustainable development is constructed and what the implications are [16,77]. An abductive approach inspired the coding sense that we were interested in fact acquisition and value conflicts. The coding of whose perspective highlighted both who is affected by unsustainable development and who is responsible for achieving sustainable development. The coding resulted in patterns that can be understood in relation to how knowledge about “sustainable development” is framed in the materials and which knowledge claims are made in the texts [1,16,65,66,67,68]. The themes that we have extracted through our interpretation of the free materials can be seen in Table 2.

3. Results

3.1. Presenting Information about Sustainable Development as Knowledge Relevant to Schools

According to the Swedish curriculum, the education shall teach pupils to think critically and handle both facts and values, including how different actors try to influence society through the way they present information and arguments in different types of sources [14]. This constitutes a framework for how teaching shall be designed, and what it should focus on. Here, we will show what is presented, with a focus on statistics and certifications, how information about sustainable development is presented as relevant to schools, and whose perspective is highlighted. We have already indicated that the distribution services play an important role in choosing the type of material on offer—i.e., a company’s sustainability report. Of course, this latter kind of material differs from those that are specially developed for teaching in schools, as they have a wider target group of, e.g., shareholders and interested members of the general public.

3.2. What Is Presented as Knowledge about Sustainable Development in Schools: Figures and Facts, Certifications and Technical Solutions

The free materials examined present questions on the climate, combatting poverty, energy, waste handling, clothing production and food consumption. They often contain information about certifications that guarantee that a forest has been grown in a sustainable way, or that a pair of trousers has been produced with less environmentally damaging methods. In some cases, the materials which are designed specifically for schools, are said to be intended to give pupils “hope for the future” (see The Hunger Project, n.d.).
The sustainability reports and annual reports from Swedish companies, distributed by utbudet.se, contain all figures and indicators, in complete agreement with what one can expect from an annual report. The reports are about the European standard EN 16001, and the standards family ISO 14001. These are about future projections, and mean that companies “continually promise improvements”. However, the ambition to measure things sometimes runs up against difficulties, such as when SIA Glass comments that: “The aspect which is most important, yet at the same time hardest to measure, is that we have heightened the environmental awareness of our staff” (p. 4, authors’ italics).
Nuclear power, which has been a hot topic in Swedish politics, is the focus of the brochure The Atom, which was published by the Swedish Centre for Nuclear Technology at the same time as the centre launched a website about Swedish nuclear power in 2012 (svenskkarnkraft.se). In several places, comparisons are made with other types of energy. One fact box contains the question: “Did you know that ... 1.6 million people die every year from indoor wood and coal combustion? This is the fourth largest risk factor for illness and death in developing countries ... according to the WHO.” (p. 17). This comparison portrays nuclear power as contributing to fewer deaths, and therefore better than other energy sources. The accident in Fukushima, Japan is discussed against the background of (Swedish) nuclear power as being safe and economically viable “as long,” writes the Swedish Centre for Nuclear Technology in The Atom “as no accidents occur” (p. 17). The accident was written about in the article “Cold, hard facts about Fukushima”, which was published in the 2012 edition of the journal. The 2013 edition also mentions the accident, in a box with the title “7 myths about nuclear power”. What is interesting here is that they refer to myths and “cold, hard facts”. The second “myth” is: “Thousands of people died due to the nuclear power accident in Fukushima in 2011. Wrong: The 16,000 people who died in Fukushima all died due to the earthquake and ensuing tsunami. Nobody died due to radiation. The fact is that nobody suffered even slight radiation injury.” (p. 5).
Myths are contrasted with facts. Jan Blomgren, who worked as a senior expert in education on nuclear energy, and initiated the publication of The Atom and an educational guidebook to the work, commented: “It makes for a good exercise in source criticism. It’s easy to find information on the internet, but which sources are reliable?” [78]. In his description of the material as suitable for source criticism, Blomgren portrays it as well-suited to use in schools.
In the material Things have got better, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise states that: “At the same time as many factors indicate that living conditions around the world have successively improved, there are areas where development has been less clear. One such area is the environment. It is a large, sprawling area, so it is hard to get a comprehensive picture of it. Threats to the environment have been around for a long time.” (p. 26, author’s italics). However, the Confederation also writes: “One problematic area around the environment is carbon dioxide emissions, which are increasing globally. ... However, Sweden is an exception to this. Since the middle of the 1970s, carbon dioxide emissions here have fallen. This is partially because energy efficiency has grown ...” (p. 26). This is a further example of how the situation in Sweden is portrayed as having got better.

3.3. The Consequences of Presenting Certain Things as Sustainable Development: Progress—It Has Got Better

The above examples mention technical solutions such as biogas and nuclear power. What is presented contributes to an impression of linear development, in which constant technical and scientific improvements take place [79]. The development can be measured with figures and standards, presented as truths closed for further interpretation and as if there are no value conflicts. Therefore, even if the environmental perspective, in certain cases, is described as uncertain due to being difficult to measure, the overall impression is that sustainable development is portrayed as continual progress, and that, therefore, nothing needs to change. The companies promise continual improvement through raising standards and different kinds of technical fixes will ensure future sustainable development.

3.4. How Information about Sustainable Development Is Presented in School: Scientific Concepts, Enrolling Researchers, and One-Sided Perspectives

We have identified how information and knowledge about sustainable development are presented in the free materials. For example, the materials that were developed specifically for use in teaching in schools are designed around, and have sections focusing on scientific concepts which are laid out in a way reminiscent of traditional schoolbooks. In several examples, these concepts are communicated with colourful illustrations, or, as in the case of Malmö City, a comic strip. Other examples include “the ecological cycle”, which Returpack Svensk Fågel, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, SIA Glass, and WWF refer to, “life cycle analysis” and “CO2 equivalents”, which SIA Glass refers to, “ecological footprint”, which Boliden and WWF refer to, “climate smart, which Svensk Fågel refers to and “energy smart” which Söderenergi and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation refer to.
Something else which concerns the design and layout is the use of fact and question boxes in teaching materials. What characterises these boxes is that content has been taken from the text and summarised, with information about a phenomenon related to what is being discussed in the text as a whole. These might be questions about the text being read, or simply definitions, and can be filled with dates, figures or percentages. In several texts, there are glossaries that have a function similar to fact boxes. These are ways of presenting a certain area of knowledge as divided up into specific bits of knowledge that simplify the whole area. For example, Returpack’s brochure has a box saying: “Did you know that ...—a returned, recycled aluminum can is always turned into a new can without additional new material—95% of energy is saved by making a new can from recycled aluminum.” Returpack also refers readers to a website (pantamera.nu), indicating that the physical and digital materials are linked.
In the material Is the world getting better? by the UNDP, the following comment is made: “By doing lots of surveys, with good, tried and tested methods, and by openly describing sources, methods and documentation, researchers and statisticians come ever closer to the truth. The margin of error is reduced. One can only get a correct view of the world with reliable data, and one can only make the right decisions as to the way forward with a true picture of the world.”
This way of describing the world and knowledge production suggests that there is just one way of interpreting statistics, and that researchers and statisticians do not have differing opinions, but rather come closer to the truth together. Sustainable development becomes a field of knowledge in which there are no disagreements, but rather simply consensus, which can in turn be used to make political decisions.
Many of the topics in the free materials treat resources and products that are core in modern industry, such as wood and concrete. When Svensk Betong, a Swedish concrete industry organisation, describes the material they want more young people to be interested in, they describe the opportunities for optimising and contributing to zero emissions: “Concrete is a material of the future, with a 5000-year history. It is a robust and sustainable building material with many advantages, not least for the environment. ... The cement and concrete industry has for a long time worked to reduce the environmental impact of producing cement and concrete. The largest environmental impact comes from cement production. For this reason, we are currently working on a zero-carbon emissions vision. We can also optimise our concrete recipes, and use cement in recycled residual products such as slag and fly ash.” The students are told that concrete has many advantages for the environment and is a material for the future, since they are working on their vision of reducing emissions by optimising recipes. Even if they admit that it has large carbon emissions, we take this as an example of a one-sided story since they conflate their vision with the actual outcome.
One method that is used to legitimise this kind of content is to refer in a general way to researchers, to somebody with an academic title, or to a public authority or an international organisation such as the UN. Instead of highlighting controversies or differences of opinion between them, researchers are often presented as a homogeneous group. Some such authorities named in the materials are the UN’s International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the Swedish Research Council, Nobel prize winners, and environmental organisations such as the WWF. The materials might also refer to experts, or people who call themselves experts, like SGU, and Swedish Centre for Nuclear Technology, do. The Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) describes itself as simply a “knowledge organisation”, and says at several points that it offers its “experts” to society. In some cases, researchers are referred to by name. The company Boliden, in its sustainability report from 2011 (p. 33), mentions its collaboration with Luleå University of Technology and the university’s Institution for Applied Geography, where “research is performed in close collaboration with the mining industry, in order to reduce the environmental impact of mining”. In its free material, the company SIA Glass mentions its collaboration with the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (p. 11). We interpret the fact that the creator of this material mentions that the Academy has many members as a way of giving legitimacy to their knowledge claims. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation refers to its thousands of members as a way of strengthening its knowledge claims.

3.5. The Consequence of How Knowledge about Sustainable Development Is Presented: Avoidance of Value Conflicts, Focus on Fixed Knowledge, and Scientific Consensus

Previous research has shown the importance of statistics in making knowledge claims [66]. The way in which knowledge about sustainable development is presented is associated with exactness, universality and meticulousness, playing down difference of opinion as to how statistics should be interpreted or what they mean. This involves using and referencing statistics, and portraying them as neutral, certain facts. Worth noting in this context is the scientific journals which have extra requirements for industry-sponsored studies, involving analysis of articles by independent statisticians before being accepted for publication [80]. This requirement shows that various conflicts of interest and values can be hidden behind the neutral façade of statistics, and that the identity of the producer of statistics and knowledge matters. Another consequence of how information is presented is that conflicts of value are downplayed.

3.6. Whose Perspective on Sustainable Development Is Presented in the Free Teaching Materials: Companies, a Homogenised Human “We” and Anthropocentrism

As has been mentioned, Swedish teaching aims to prepare students to work for sustainable development, and not just to learn about it. This begs the question of whose knowledge is included, who is described as being affected by unsustainable development and environmental problems, and who has, takes and is given responsibility for working with sustainable development?
The companies we have mentioned have a central role among the interested parties whose free teaching materials are distributed to schools. A striking example of this is a report on sustainable development with the title “The world’s chance”, in the TMF the Swedish Federation of Wood and Furniture Industry’s 2019 magazine. With Agenda 2030 as the basis, they have formulated goals for the wood and furniture industry’s long-term sustainability work, and assert that “we have come much further than other industry organisations. Happily, companies in our industry are keen to get onboard.”. The accompanying illustration comprises a compilation of icons—a globe, green leaves, and a chart line going up. The text explains that the UN General Assembly has adopted Agenda 2030, and that the Swedish government has overall responsibility for meeting the goals, but that “we are all—from organisations, industry, the public sector, researchers and individuals—responsible on the journey towards these goals”. “One could describe Agenda 2030 as one big puzzle, and the UN, the world’s governments and the equivalent of the Agenda 2030 delegations around the member countries as the edge pieces. The rest of the puzzle is to be completed by the whole of society. Among those who deal with most pieces of the puzzle, is the industry. A big challenge certainly, but nothing that we shy away from. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise’s former CEO ... described Agenda 2030 as a ‘long order list for industry’, and said that they are generally very positive towards their role in working towards the global goals.” (authors’ italics).
However, according to the free teaching material The Energy Case published by Söderenergi and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, pupils should be trained to take “personal responsibility”. This differs from the aim of The Atom brochure, distributed among school pupils in 2012, where the stated aim was: “to give young people information about nuclear power in general, and specifically to encourage them to have a career in nuclear power”.
In the teaching material ekonomifakta.se, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise writes: “Basically, things have got better. We live longer and are healthier; we have found cures for diseases which were previously lethal; we have higher incomes; and we have safer, more interesting jobs.” (p. 28).
Who is included in this “we” who have less dangerous and more interesting jobs, and whether this applies to all of humanity, are questions which arise from a critical reading of the material. By speaking of a “we” and “together”, potential conflicts and differences are hidden. With corporate social responsibility as a central part of sustainable development, parts of the free teaching materials work as a lesson in economics, and present the companies’ perspectives on areas in which market-based solutions make things better for “us”. To name one example of differences in how people experience sustainable development: there are at least 690 million people who experience severe hunger [81].
The analysed materials are, furthermore, dominated by an anthropocentric perspective—i.e., that humans are at the centre of things and nature exists for them, denying nature of any worth in and of itself. This way of looking at things can be interpreted as meaning that the effects of human activity on nature should be interpreted according to the consequences they cause for humans—not other living creatures or nature as a whole [23,38,39,40,41,42,43,82]. When forestry companies describe their work with sustainable development in forests, they describe elk and bark beetles as pests; and in the report titled Klimatpimpa din livstil [Climate-pimp your lifestyle], a comic strip character is encouraged to consume chicken instead of beef, in order to reduce their impact on the climate. When the poultry industry organisation Svensk Fågel in 2018 compares the environmental impact of eating chicken, they only compare it to other kinds of meat, and not a vegetarian alternative: “kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of pure meat. Chicken 2.7, farmed salmon 2.9, pork 5.9 and beef 30”.

3.7. The Consequence of Whose Perspective Is Presented: Continuing to Live as We Do

One consequence of the companies’ perspective on continual improvements in the world is that we appear to be able to continue living as we do. Our values do not need to change, because sustainability issues can be solved with technical solutions—so-called technical fixes [22] (p. 372) which companies portray themselves as having developed and optimised with their innovative power.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study has been to investigate how knowledge about sustainable development is presented and demarcated in free teaching materials for schools, and which claims are made. Based on our critical perspective on knowledge and pedagogy [16,17,56,66,67] regarding sustainable development in Swedish free teaching materials, we have investigated what is presented as sustainable development, and also how different ways of understanding and demarcating it risk being made invisible. As the introductory quote to this article emphasises, teaching about sustainable development is “no longer based primarily on fact acquisition” [1] (p. 227)—it depends, just as much on difficult trade-offs, ethical questions and values [19,21,23,30,40,47,52].
As highlighted in the Introduction, there are few previous studies of free teaching materials about sustainable development. When we examine what is presented in the free materials, we see lots of statistics, facts, certifications and standards. Technical and scientific solutions to complex social problems and risks are presented. In the materials, pupils are encouraged to realise that things have got better, and that there is a “truth” which can be defined through statistics and continual progress. This can be interpreted as a will to present technical fixes, as well as a will to show that actors in this area have control, and that things are getting better [21,22,23]. This hides perspectives such as gaps in knowledge, problems with trade-offs and conflicts of value, which do not engage readers into action or critical thinking. The latter can be seen as problematic given the focus on education for transformation in international policies [18], and the goals in the Swedish curriculum [14]. Previous studies show that textbooks that treat sustainable development may also address complexities to a limited degree [19].
Our investigation into how sustainable development is presented, suggests that the stakeholders behind the free teaching material use scientific concepts and fact boxes, and sometimes use the term “myths” to describe understandings of, e.g., the consequences of the Fukushima disaster. Thereby, they tend to delegitimise other interpretations and experiences. By including scientific experts, such as the UN’s IPCC climate panel, and research organisations, the stakeholders attempt to strengthen their claims. We have also shown that imagery and symbolism are used, such as the colourful SDG icons, and the circular green arrows that symbolise recycling. Our analysis has identified the overarching message of the free teaching materials: that the world’s situation has improved. Conflicts of value and differences of opinion are downplayed, and no disagreements about the meaning of sustainable development are presented, which leads to a one-sided presentation. There is a strong focus on consensus, which is in line with previous studies of depoliticisation of sustainable development in general [50,71], and ESD in particular [19]. We interpret this as meaning that thanks to the technical and market solutions, further changes and reflection over values are unnecessary.
Regarding the analysis of whose perspective is emphasised, we have shown that companies have a central role in the free teaching materials on sustainable development. They show how they are accountable by implementing what is termed corporate social responsibility. This can be seen as different to before, when it was consumers and their conscious choices about lifestyles that were to contribute to sustainable development [36,47,71,82]. This is related to the question of which expectations are placed on pupils to act based on what they learn from being educated for sustainable development and transformation. In the teaching materials, the idea that “things have got better for us” is portrayed, which appears to be a one-sided western perspective, which corresponds to findings by Wakefield et al., and Biström and Lundström [19,47]. Another thing shown in our analysis that is similar to other studies is that there is a one-sided focus on humans—i.e., there is an anthropocentric perspective in which solutions are presented based on what is beneficial for people [13,23,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Thereby, alternative perspectives, such as veganism and ecocentrism, are hidden. In the material analysed, Sweden is highlighted as a role model in comparison to the rest of the world, which risks consolidating a nationalistic, Eurocentric view c.f. [53] of one’s own country as superior when it comes to sustainable development.
Our results must, however, be understood in relation to different limitations. We have only studied a specific case of free teaching material. We have not studied how the free teaching materials are used and interpreted by teachers and pupils in actual education. Furthermore, we have employed a critical approach that have made us notice certain aspects, which a consensus oriented or ecomodernist study would not. We acknowledge that we politicise education for sustainable development by raising questions about developing agency of learners to act and critically engage with teaching materials [30,47]. Since curricula tend to differ across national contexts, we only focus on the situation and previous literature in Sweden, which can be considered a limitation as we draw conclusions about nationalistic and Eurocentric traits.

5. Conclusions and Implications

In summary, the message in the analysed material can be interpreted as that the stakeholders already take responsibility regarding sustainable development. They illustrate how they do this by applying certifications and formulating visions. Thus, they signal that there is no reason to worry about the future, since the challenges humanity faces can be solved with various technical solutions. An implicit message is that no lifestyle changes are needed, nor does our view of nature need to change.
The implications for ESD when using free teaching materials is that pupils and students are encouraged to have hope for the future by learning about progress, rather than learning about how to deal with wicked sustainability problems and risks or feelings of guilt [21]. By presenting a homogenised human “we”, injustices in the world can be hidden, and the playing field appears to be level for everyone c.f., [54]. Thereby, it becomes a crucial task for the teacher who uses the materials to engage the pupils in critical thinking [19,30,40].
Further research on materials used in teaching sustainable development could benefit from problematising the question of whose perspective is shown—i.e., when the meat and dairy industry gets to define sustainable development and that which is “environmentally friendly” without taking up questions related to animal rights. Analyses on teaching material could for example be carried out from ecocentric or postcolonial perspectives on sustainable development. Research could also study how university students learn about how to teach pupils about wicked sustainability problems and engage in critical ways with free teaching materials.

Author Contributions

Each author has made substantial contributions to the work (conceptualization, methodology, investigation, analysis, writing, review and editing) and has approved the submitted version. P.G. has been responsible to the project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the many constructive comments given by the two anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Laurie, R.; Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y.; McKeown, R.; Hopkins, C. Contributions of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) to Quality Education. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 10, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ammert, N. (Ed.) Att Spegla Världen: Läromedelsstudier i Teori Och Praktik; Studentlitteratur: Lund, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jimenez, J.D.; Lerch, J.; Bromley, P. Education for Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development in Social Science Textbooks. Eur. J. Educ. 2017, 52, 460–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Johnsson Harrie, A. Staten Och Läromedlen. En Studie av den Svenska Statliga Förhandsgranskningen av Läromedel 1938–1991. Ph.D. Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. SOU 2021:70. Läromedelsutredningen—Böckernas Betydelse Och Elevernas Tillgång Till Kunskap; Swedish Government Official Report; Slutbetänkande av Utredningen om Stärkta Skolbibliotek Och Läromedel: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  6. Calderon, A. Hur Väljs Och Kvalitetsgranskas Läromedel? The Swedish National Agency for Education: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012; Available online: http://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/forskning/didaktik/tema-laromedel/hur-valjs-och-kvalitetssakras-laromedel-1.181769 (accessed on 29 January 2014).
  7. Kornhall, P. En läromedelsfientlig inställning i Sverige. In Den Nya Läromedelsdebatten; Vinde, R., Ed.; Grafisk Form Och Original, Nimbus Communication: Stockholm, Sweden; Svenska Läromedel: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018; pp. 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  8. Läromedelsförfattarna. Rätten Till Kunskap—En Rapport om Läromedelssituationen i Sverige. 2020. Available online: https://www.laromedelsforfattarna.se/globalassets/dokument/paverkan-opion/laromedelsrapport.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2022).
  9. Johnsson Harrie, A. Sponsrade läromedel i samhällskunskap. In Samhällsdidaktik: Sju Aspekter på Samhällsundervisning i Skola och Lärarutbildning; Forum for Subject-Based Teaching and Learning; Författarna: Linköping, Sweden, 2012; pp. 83–104. [Google Scholar]
  10. Swedish Schools Inspectorate. Kvalitetssäkring Och val av Läromedel. Fokus på Samhällsorienterande Ämnen i Årskurs 7–9; Skolinspektionen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhatt, I.; MacKenzie, A. Just Google it! Digital literacy and the epistemology of ignorance. Teach. High. Educ. 2019, 24, 302–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nygren, T. Fakta, Fejk, Fiktion: Källkritik, Ämnesdidaktik, Digital Kompetens; Natur & Kultur: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sjögren, H.; Gyberg, P.; Henriksson, M. Human-Animal Relations beyond the Zoo: The Quest for a More Inclusive Sustainability Education. Pedag. Cult. Soc. 2015, 23, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Swedish National Agency for Education. 2022. Available online: https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2022/laroplan-for-grundskolan-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet---lgr22 (accessed on 9 September 2022).
  15. Swedish Government. Pressmeddelande: Stärkt Digital Kompetens i Läroplaner Och Kursplaner. 2017. Available online: https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2017/03/starkt-digital-kompetens-i-laroplaner-och-kursplaner/ (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  16. Freire, P. Pedagogy of Indignation; Paradigm Publishers: Boulder, CO, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  17. Roberts, P. Teaching as an ethical and political process: A Freirean perspective. In Ngā Kaupapa Here: Connections and Contradictions in Education; Carpenter, V., Jesson, J., Roberts, P., Stephenson, M., Eds.; Cengage: Melbourne, Australia, 2008; pp. 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rieckmann. Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in education for sustainable development. In Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 39–59. [Google Scholar]
  19. Biström, E.; Lundström, R. Textbooks and action competence for sustainable development: An analysis of Swedish lower secondary level textbooks in geography and biology. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021, 27, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fredriksson, U.; N. Kusanagi, K.; Gougoulakis, P.; Matsuda, Y.; Kitamura, Y. A Comparative Study of Curriculums for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Sweden and Japan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ideland, M.C. Malmberg Governing ‘eco-certified children’ through pastoral power: Critical perspectives on education for sustainable development. Environ. Educ. Res. 2015, 21, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Robinson, J. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kronlid, D.O.; Öhman, J. Klimatdidaktik: Att Undervisa för Framtiden; Liber: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hasslöf, H. The Educational Change in Education for Sustainable Development. Qualification, Social Change and the Political. Ph.D. Thesis, Malmö Studies in Educational Sciences, Malmö, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Middleton, H. Problem-Solving in Technology Education as an Approach to Education for Sustainable Development. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2009, 19, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pavlova, M. Teaching and Learning for Sustainable Development: ESD Research in Technology Education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2013, 23, 733–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rose, M.A. EnviroTech: Enhancing Environmental Literacy and Technology Assessment Skills. J. Technol. Educ. 2010, 22, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Skogh, I.-B.; Gumaelius, L.; Geschwind, L. Education for Sustainable Development in Compulsory School Technology Education: A problem inventory. In Technology Education for the Future: A Play on Sustainability; Williams, P.J., Ed.; University of Waikato: Hamilton, New Zealand, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. Spiropoulou, D.; Antonakaki, T.; Kontaxaki, S.; Bouras, S. Primary Teachers’ Literacy and Attitudes on Education for Sustainable Development. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wals, A.; Benavot, A. Can we meet the sustainability challenges? The role of education and lifelong learning. Eur. J. Educ. 2017, 52, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Corren. Miljöpartiet Kritiserar Sponsrad Klimatlärobok. Är det Lämpligt att Elever i Linköpings Skolor Undervisas i Klimatfrågor Med Läromedel Från Svenskt Näringsliv? Sweden. 2009. Available online: https://corren.se/nyheter/linkoping/miljopartiet-kritiserar-sponsrad-klimatlarobok-4853966.aspx (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  32. Lönngren, J.; Ingerman, Å.; Svanström, M. Avoid, Control, Succumb, or Balance: Engineering Students’ Approaches to a Wicked Sustainability Problem. Res. Sci. Educ. 2017, 47, 805–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. UN. Our Common Future; World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  34. UN. Arbetsbok Agenda 2030. 2020. Available online: https://fn.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Arbetsbok-Agenda2030-2020.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  35. UN. The Future We Want, Rio +20; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Swain, R.B. A Critical Analysis of the Sustainable Development Goals. In Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research; Leal Filho, W., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 341–355. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kopnina, H. Education for sustainable development (ESD): Exploring anthropocentric–ecocentric values in children through vignettes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2014, 41, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sandell, K.; Öhman, J. Educational potentials of encounters with nature—Reflections from a Swedish outdoor perspective. Environ. Educ. Res. 2010, 16, 95–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sörlin, S. Naturkontraktet: Om Naturumgängets Idéhistoria; Carlsson: Stockholm, Sweden, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sinakou, E.; Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Van Petegem, P. Exploring the concept of sustainable development within education for sustainable development: Implications for ESD research and practice. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pedersen, H. Education, Anthropocentrism, and Interspecies Sustainability: Confronting Institutional Anxieties in Omnicidal Times. Ethics Educ. 2021, 16, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Spannring, R. Animals in environmental education research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Oakley, J. What Can an Animal Liberation Perspective Contribute to Environmental Education? In Animals in Environmental Education: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Curriculum and Pedagogy; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 19–34. [Google Scholar]
  44. Magnu, G. Indigenous knowledge and implications for sustainable development agenda. Eur. J. Educ. 2017, 52, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Breidlid, A. Culture, indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable development: A critical view of education in an African context. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2009, 29, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Opstal, M.; Hugé, J. Knowledge for sustainable development: A worldviews perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 687–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wakefield, W.; Weinberg, A.E.; Pretti, E.; Merritt, E.G.; Trott, C. “When I act consciously, I can see a brighter world around me”: Preservice teacher readiness to support transformative sustainability learning. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 2022, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kronlid, D.O.; Öhman, J. An environmental ethical conceptual framework for research on sustainability and environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2013, 19, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mulà, I.; Cebrián, G.; Junyent, M. Lessons Learned and Future Research Directions in Educating for Sustainability Competencies. In Competences Education for Sustainable Development; Vare, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 185–194. [Google Scholar]
  50. Peterson, M.N.; Peterson, M.J.; T. Peterson, R. Conservation and the Myth of Consensus. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 762–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sterner, T.; Barbier, E.; Robinson, A. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hellberg, S.B. Knutsson. Sustaining the Life-Chance Divide? Education for Sustainable Development and the Global Biopolitical Regime. Crit. Stud. Educ. 2018, 59, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Svoboda, M. White Saviorism and American Imperialism: An Analysis of the Peace Corps. 2020. Available online: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ssd_posters/6/ (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  54. Malm, A.; Hornborg, A. The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. Anthropocene Rev. 2014, 1, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Said, E. Culture and Imperialism; Chatto & Windus: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ideland, M.; Malmberg, C. ‘Our common world’ belongs to ‘Us’: Constructions of otherness in education for sustainable development. Crit. Stud. Educ. 2014, 55, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Blewitt, J.; Cullingford, C. (Eds.) The Sustainability Curriculum. The Challenge for Higher Education; Earthscan: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jagers, S. Hållbar Utveckling Som Politik; Liber: Stockholm, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  59. Björneloo, I. Innebörder av Hållbar Utveckling: En Studie av Lärares Utsagor om Undervisning. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  60. Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Gericke, N.; Olsson, D.; Berglund, T. The Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15693–15717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Sandell, K.; Öhman, J.; Östman, L. Miljödidaktik: Naturen, Skolan Och Demokratin; Studentlitteratur: Lund, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  62. UN. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014; Resolution 57/254; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  63. Flyvberg, B. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Latour, B.; Woolgar, S. Laboratory of Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pinch, T.; Hughes, T.; Bijker, W. The Social Construction of Technology Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  66. Porter, T. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  67. Foucault, M. Sexualitetens Historia. Band 1. Viljan Att Veta; Daidalos: Stockholm, Sweden, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  68. Callon, M. Some elements of the sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and fishermen at St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge; Law, J., Ed.; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1986; pp. 196–223. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sismondo, S. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  70. Beck, U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  71. Blowers, A. Environmental Policy: Ecological Modernisation or the Risk Society? Urban Stud. 1997, 34, 845–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maynard, R. People or Polar Bears? Blog Ecologist. The Journal for the Post-Industrial Age. 2013. Available online: https://theecologist.org/2013/aug/30/people-or-polar-bears (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  73. Ehrlich, A.; Ehrlich, P. A Confused Statistician. Blog MAHB. 2013. Available online: https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/a-confused-statistician/ (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  74. Population Matters. Population “Factfulness”—Where Hans Rosling Goes Wrong. Blog. 2018. Available online: http://populationmatters.org/news/2018/04/09/population-factfulness-where-hans-rosling-goes-wrong (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  75. Erlingsson, C.; Brysiewicz, P. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. Afr. J. Emerg. Med. 2017, 7, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Attride-Stirling, J. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual. Res. 2001, 1, 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Foucault, M. Orders of Discourse. Soc. Sci. Inf. 1971, 10, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Blomgren, J. Atomen 2013—Lärarhandledning. 2012. Available online: https://www.utbudet.se/MediaBinaryLoader.axd?MediaArchive_FileID=40fbcf7b-afb3-4edb-b7e2-8633476616ca&FileName=L%C3%A4rarhandledning+till+Atomen.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  79. Harding, S. (Ed.) The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader; Duke University Press: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  80. Huitfeldt, B. Oberoende Eller Kompetens? En Fråga om Trovärdighet för Statistiker i Läkemedelsindustrin. Qvintensen 2011, 1, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  81. FAO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/online/ca9692en.html#chapter-Key_message (accessed on 14 November 2020).
  82. Kopnina, H. Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG): What Is Wrong with ESDGs, and What Can We Do Better? Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Free teaching materials that are studied, English title in square bracket.
Table 1. Free teaching materials that are studied, English title in square bracket.
Name of the MaterialPublisherYearAudience
Atomen (magazine) 2011 [The Atom]Swedish Centre for Nuclear Technology2011Upper secondary pupils
Atomen (magazine) 2012 [The Atom]Swedish Centre for Nuclear Technology2012Upper secondary pupils
Blir världen bättre? [Is the world getting better?]UNDPn.d.School pupils
Bolidens hållbarhetsrapport 2011 [Boliden’s sustainability report 2011]Boliden (Mining company)2012General public
Det har blivit bättre
(Ekonomifakta.se) [It has got better]		Confederation of Swedish Enterprise2012General public
Ekologiska fotavtryck. Vår påverkan på planeten [Ecological footprints. Our impact on the planet]WWFn.d.General public
Energifallet [The Energy Case]Söderenergi (Energy company) and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation2008Education, preschool to year 9
Ett lite mindre glassföretag med ett lite större perspektiv [A slightly smaller ice cream company with a slightly larger perspective]SIA Glass (Ice cream company)2009General public
Kyckling är klimatsmart [Chicken is climate smart]Svensk Fågel (Chicken producer)n.d.General public
Lika för alla [Equal for everyone]The hunger Project (non-profit organisation)n.d.Teaching, years 7–9
4 klimatsmarta skäl att välja kyckling [4 climate-smart reasons to choose chicken]Svensk Fågel (Chicken producer)2018General public
Klimatpimpa din livsstil [Climate-pimp your lifestyle]Environmental Department, Malmö City, with support from Klimat Malmö, KLIMP, EU2009/2013School pupils
Magasinet Skogsnära. Tema Hållbart skogsbruk [Skogsnära Magazine. Theme: Sustainable forestry]Stora Enso (Wood and paper producers)2019Forest owners
PECF Skogscertifiering—Vi tar ansvar [PECF Forest Certification—We take responsibility]Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification2015General public
Schyst resande [Ethical travel]Network for Unionen (a union network), Childhood, Fair Action, Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union, IOGT-NTO (temperance society), RealStars and Union to Union2019General public
Sveaskog Forum 1/2019 [Sveaskog Forum 1/2019]Sveaskog. Issue: The new silk road. The world’s largest infrastructure project2019Forest owners
Till dig som inte drömmer om betong [To you who does not dream of concrete]Svensk Betong (Association for concrete industry)n.d.Upper secondary pupils
Tillsammans för hållbar utveckling—Strategisk plan 2018–2021 [Together for sustainable development—Strategic plan 2018–2021]Swedish Committee for Afghanistan2018General public
Trä & möbelforum 1/2019 Tema: Global målbild [Wood & furniture forum 1/2019 Theme: Global target]TMF Swedish Federation of Wood and Furniture Industry (employer’s organisation for wood processing industry)2019General public
Vad händer sen? [What happens later?]Returpack pantamera.nu (campaign for recycling of cans and bottles)n.d.General public
Var växte dina byxor? Tillverkning av tyg och miljömärkning av kläder [Where did your pants grow? Production of fabric and environmental certification of clothes]Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, with support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency2008General public
Verksamhetsberättelse: Naturen, människorna, tekniken. [Activity report: Nature, people, technology]Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU)2011General public
Varför handlar vi med omvärlden? [Why do we trade with the world around us?]National Board of Trade2019General public
Table
Table 2. Themes identified in the free materials.
Table 2. Themes identified in the free materials.
What Is PresentedIdentified Themes
What is presented?Figures and facts
Certifications
Technical fixes
How is the information presented?Scientific concepts
Enrolling researchers
One-sided perspectives
Whose perspective is presented?Companies
Homogenised human “we”
Anthropocentrism
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Skill, K.; Axell, C.; Gyberg, P. Facts, Values and Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Free Teaching Materials in Sweden. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912290

AMA Style

Skill K, Axell C, Gyberg P. Facts, Values and Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Free Teaching Materials in Sweden. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skill, Karin, Cecilia Axell, and Per Gyberg. 2022. "Facts, Values and Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Free Teaching Materials in Sweden" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912290

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop