*Article* **Interdependencies of Culture and Functions of Sustainability Governance at Higher Education Institutions**

#### **Mara Bauer 1,\*, Sebastian Niedlich 2, Marco Rieckmann 1, Inka Bormann <sup>2</sup> and Larissa Jaeger <sup>1</sup>**


Received: 28 February 2020; Accepted: 31 March 2020; Published: 1 April 2020

**Abstract:** Sustainable development practices in higher education institutions are diverse, with regard not only to the types of challenges that have to be addressed, but also to the forms of sustainability governance adopted by individual higher education institutions. This paper aims to reflect on the aspects of organizational culture that are particularly crucial for the implementation of sustainable practices at higher education institutions. Specifically, it addresses the research question: how do different organizational cultures affect approaches to sustainability governance at higher education institutions (HEIs)? It reflects on data from multi-case studies at eleven German higher education institutions. Four of the cases are analyzed in this paper to draw out the insights they offer on how organizational culture shapes the institutions' approach to sustainable development. A governance equalizer is used as a functional framework for evaluating and discussing the influence of different cultural orientations on sustainability governance. In addition to providing many insights and findings in relation to specific cases, comparison of the different institutions, their governance structures and their cultures of sustainable development helps to emphasize that there is no single cultural factor that can be identified as directly promoting particular governance structures. Rather, there is an active interplay between cultural orientations, which influence, and are also influenced by, the measures deployed. Such influence is not instantly apparent but needs time to develop, and it evolves in a variety of ways as illustrated by the case studies.

**Keywords:** sustainability governance; higher education; organizational culture; governance equalizer; Germany

#### **1. Introduction**

The aspiration of integrating sustainable development (SD) into the structures and processes of higher education institutions (HEIs) while taking account of all their different fields of activity, such as research, teaching, outreach, and operations, has been recognized in practice and research alike as a complex and highly context-dependent task [1–4]. The definitions of sustainable development in the context of higher education institutions remain as rhetorically malleable and as fluid as those in public and political discourse [5]. As a result, SD practices in HEIs have been diverse, not only with regard to the types of challenges that have been addressed, but also in respect of the forms of governance that have been established to coordinate the approach to such challenges (e.g., [6]). Attempts to classify SD implementation structures within HEIs (e.g., [7,8]) have, along with other literature, highlighted the need for a shared commitment to sustainability goals, structures and processes amongst HEI staff, covering teaching, research and operations—in other words, the need for holistic governance [9].

Following that line of argument, HEI governance for sustainability aims to promote and support the changes institutions need to put in place to embed SD in their organizations. It is concerned with all the circumstances, pathways and methods by which sustainability reaches and permeates HEIs. At the core of these processes are the people that make up HEIs. The HEI and its sustainability pathway are essentially comprised of their ideals, vision and engagement, and the ways they communicate and consult [10–12]. This deserves special attention.

Since sustainable development is a complex concept, and HEIs are complex organizations, it is important to be aware of the implications and requirements of a thorough and comprehensive approach to the introduction of SD. For many HEIs, it will presumably mean making a number of fundamental changes within the institution. In this context, the word 'transformation' is not an exaggeration but a prerequisite [13,14]. Cameron and Quinn [15] stress the notion that the best way of implementing such major organizational changes is to take the organizational culture into account and shape it in a way that supports such change. "Although the tools and techniques may be present and the change strategy implemented with vigour, many efforts to improve organizational performance fail because the fundamental culture of the organization – values, ways of thinking, managerial styles, paradigms, approaches to problem solving – remains the same" [15] (p. 11). The failure to achieve organizational change often has ramifications for members of organizations, and could mean that their response to future change initiatives might be even less cooperative [15].

While Cameron and Quinn are concerned with organizational change in general, other research supports their findings in the particular context of sustainable development in HEIs [16,17]. HEIs need to find ways to embed SD into their specific norms and values and into the shared goals of their members, and to create common ground so as to enable their organizations to learn sustainability, learning being essential to the achievement of a paradigm shift [18]. Even though HEIs might be considered experts in learning, this does not necessarily apply to their capacity to learn for and about themselves [17].

As Adams et al. clearly state, "the failure to embed sustainability in HEIs suggests it has failed to become part of the culture" [16] (p. 2). We, therefore, seek to investigate whether this suggestion is supported by the experiences of HEIs, and, more specifically, which kinds of cultural variables feed into which governance structures. Organizational culture in general can be considered an integral part of sustainability governance, since each HEI has a specific mode of engagement with SD depending on its prior experiences, its code of communication, its resources in terms of expertise and time, its recognition of SD as an opportunity for profiling, its perception of public pressure on the HEI, etc. It is, therefore, appropriate to discuss the functions and cultures of sustainability governance at HEIs in greater detail.

Accordingly, this paper explains and brings together two different perspectives on sustainability governance at HEIs: culture and functions. Special attention is paid to the impact that certain organizational cultures have on the development of aspects of functional governance at HEIs, i.e., the structures, processes and environment that are created there. The corresponding research question is: how do different organizational cultures affect approaches to sustainability governance at HEIs?

Against this backdrop, we aim to investigate distinct aspects of organizational culture that are particularly crucial to the implementation of SD at HEIs. In this context, we are taking, as our basis, our earlier work in which we prepared two major frameworks—one on culture [19] and one on functions [2]—and which we will bring together in this paper. We identified two types of cultural orientation that are usually prevalent in HEIs in relation to the attitudes, assumptions and practices that they bring to SD implementation [19]. These are summarized in Section 2.1 and followed in Section 2.2 by an introduction to the governance equalizer, an HEI sustainability governance concept that we used in this paper as a functional framework for evaluating and discussing the significance of the cultural orientations in question. Section 2 thus provides an overview of the frameworks deployed in the analysis that follows.

The foundation for evaluating the various aspects of HEIs' approaches to implementing SD was guided and supplemented by desk research but consisted primarily of extensive empirical research on sustainability governance at eleven German HEIs, which resulted in eleven different case studies. The methodology and research process that eventually led to this paper are described in Section 3. Having laid the groundwork for a combined analysis of the cultural and functional aspects of SD governance in HEIs, Section 4 introduces four of the eleven case studies and investigates how the HEIs' organizational cultures are interlinked with their processes and structures for SD implementation. The subsequent discussion and conclusion highlight the main learning points, merits, limitations, and outstanding or emerging questions.

#### **2. Frameworks on Culture and Functions of Sustainability Governance at HEIs**

#### *2.1. Cultural Orientations*

Initially, basing ourselves on qualitative content analysis, we derived four cultural dimensions from our interview material, which were then conflated into two overarching cultural orientations that distinguish the way in which HEIs face the challenges of SD: *holistic orientation* and *organizational learning orientation* [19].

#### • Holistic orientation

This category combines the two dimensions *conception of sustainability* and *relevance and scope of organizational change*. Both dimensions emphasize the need to consider different elements simultaneously, and to link them in an integrated approach. Thus, we use the term *holistic* not as a philosophical concept, but to refer to the comprehensiveness of the HEI's orientation towards SD.

*Conception of sustainability* refers to the understanding that an HEI has of the comprehensiveness of SD. Does the HEI include ecological viability, social justice and economic capacity alongside each other in its long-term responsibilities? A variety of professional perspectives at an HEI might come with a variety of conceptions of sustainability that often focus almost exclusively on one of these dimensions of sustainability instead of taking an integrated approach [20]. The HEI's willingness to combine these perspectives and find common ground to start from can open up new spaces and options for SD that can be discovered and seized [21].

*Relevance and scope of organizational change* refers to an HEI's idea of where SD should be implemented. Viewing the HEI as a single system whose subsystems such as teaching, research, operations and outreach are given equal footing as fields of activity for SD (whole-institution approach) is deemed crucial [22,23]. As with the *conception of sustainability*, this dimension deals with the question of comprehensiveness. While the first is concerned with the content of SD, the latter considers the context. Taken together, the two dimensions, therefore, represent the holistic ideal inherent in the concept of sustainable development.

#### • Organizational learning orientation

This category combines the dimensions attribution of responsibility and purpose of the higher education institution.

The focus is on the degree to which SD is seen as an issue of organizational development and learning which, firstly, can be represented by the *attribution of responsibility* for SD. In this context, the call for collaborative and co-creative processes receives broad support [10,21,22,24,25]. SD should not be reserved to the institution's elite, but based on the approval and engagement of many [22] and, therefore, handled by means of shared responsibilities and co-determination. This also entails the institution's leadership taking an open-minded approach to the emergence of innovative ideas and unexpected developments in relation to SD from different members of the HEI and to taking SD ideas and goals seriously by fostering discussions [26].

Another aspect of organizational learning derives from the way an HEI perceives itself and its role in the societal context: the *purpose of the higher education institution*. Trencher et al. [27] have coined the term "fourth mission" as a description of the sustainable HEI's role in society: a debater, a networker, and a transformer. HEIs can actively promote co-creation of societal transformation that goes far beyond technology transfer and other economic contributions, which is mostly what the third mission concept has been requesting and seeking to pursue. The idea of a "fourth mission" takes HEIs' role in society further towards active engagement and mutual learning. If an HEI takes on this role, its chances of transforming itself as an institution and achieving a higher level of SD improve. This is especially true when active engagement and mutual learning are paired with participatory processes, since this creates an environment that promotes critical, systemic and future-oriented thinking.

On the basis of our findings, we had assumed that the two orientations had a linear relationship and tended to mutually reinforce each other [19], but, so far, we have not taken a closer look at their implications for the structures, procedures and measures of sustainability governance at HEIs. How are HEIs' sustainability governance set-ups influenced by different cultural orientations? The next section will introduce a functional framework that forms the basis of the subsequent analysis of this question.

#### *2.2. Depicting the Functions of Sustainability Governance through a Governance Equalizer*

In order to illustrate governance structures within institutions, de Boer et al. [28] use the image of a piece of audio engineering equipment, known as an equalizer. Instead of base, reverberation or volume, this particular equalizer is equipped with slide controls that display different dimensions of institutional governance and the performance of the institution against each dimension, or functional requirement. In analyzing sustainability governance at HEIs, we draw on Franz and Brüsemeister [29], and have chosen five dimensions for our equalizer: politics, profession, organization, knowledge, and public [2].

The following overview gives a brief outline of the equalizer dimensions which are the result of combining the original heuristic with its representation within our case studies.

#### 1. Politics: How is sustainability implemented and legitimized within and outside the HEI?

This equalizer dimension deals with the question of how sustainability activities are not only selectively supported, but form part of an HEI's long-term development goals. The term politics should not be misunderstood: it does not refer to the state-level measures that set the overall framework for higher education institutions, but to the actions of the HEI members themselves. In order to embed SD, formal and informal decisions and resolutions are required that are binding on as many actors at the HEI as possible. Such definitions give legitimacy to those who are pursuing SD, providing a basis for their actions. They provide goals and standards that act as guidance for sustainability-related activities, and can serve as a basis for reviewing the success of such activities. Collectively binding decisions can be taken both by the hierarchy and as part of participatory processes.

#### 2. Profession: How are professional perspectives and competencies linked?

The dimension of profession is about the gradual development of an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral understanding of sustainability at an HEI. The different areas of activity at HEIs—teaching, research, and campus management (administration, technology, etc.)—have very different requirements, processes and framework conditions, demand different competencies and specialist knowledge, and have their own standards and 'cultures'. The scientific disciplines also differ considerably in this regard, as do the external actors HEIs are involved with. However, SD requires that internal and external actors work closely together. This facilitates exchanges of views on what SD should include, what principles and standards should be taken into account, and how SD can be integrated into the day-to-day practices of different activities and disciplines.

3. Organization: How are collaborative work and task processing made possible?

In order to encourage SD in HEIs, it is necessary to specify goals and activities that facilitate implementation. This involves providing resources and creating structures and processes that ensure continuous and reliable work. In the context of SD, it is important to ensure long-term action across existing organizational boundaries—between different areas of activity as well as with non-academic actors. To do so, it is necessary to network actors and to coordinate their activities.

4. Knowledge: How is the required knowledge developed and used competently?

SD in higher education requires consideration of the complex issue of *knowledge*. The actors in HEIs have to develop shared ideas about what the problems are and what has caused them (analysis), they have to agree on how the situation is to be evaluated and what the aims will be in the future (goals). It is also important to clarify which measures will be used to solve problems (action). Alongside technical and professional expertise, knowledge of different actors' responsibilities, structures and processes at an HEI plays an important role in clarifying how measures can be best implemented. At the same time, each solution usually entails specific advantages and disadvantages. This means that deciding which measures to implement involves a normative judgment. It is not sufficient, therefore, for the sustainability governance at HEIs to access knowledge only in times of need. Instead, ways must be established to identify, disseminate, and use the relevant knowledge on a continuous basis in order to be able to react flexibly when problems arise and to facilitate longer-term learning processes. This requires more than technical solutions—it also involves collaboration and networking with the aim of supporting exchange and joint knowledge work.

5. Visibility: How is awareness of the need for sustainable development in HEIs created?

Making an HEI's sustainability efforts visible to the internal and external public plays an important role in SD governance, as it provides the opportunity for all the institution's stakeholders to observe and respond to issues and positions as well as activities and their outcomes. Public attention can thus contribute to greater participation in and awareness of SD, such as identifying the need for action, communicating and justifying goals and actions, and reporting on progress. Last but not least, in this way, the importance of sustainability for the HEI can be demonstrated and sustainability can become an important element of an HEI's profile and thus help to attract students or external partners.

We will consider the specific interplay of organizational culture and the implementation of SD at different HEIs against this framework. This paper will, therefore, analyze four cases relating to the ways in which cultural orientation trickles down and can influence the structures and processes that are being established to promote SD, and that then become visible in the governance equalizer. The general assumption that can be made at this point is that a strong cultural orientation towards SD leads to better and more coherent SD governance. How this can take place in different real-world contexts is shown in detail in Section 4.

#### **3. Methodology**

This paper is based on the findings of two earlier papers [2,19] that stem from the same research. The first [2] sought to validate the governance equalizer through ten expert interviews; this was then used as a theoretical basis for the evaluation of 61 stakeholder interviews. The second [19] focused on the evolution of categories from this extensive interview material, namely the development of an empirically-based categorization of the characteristics of sustainability governance in HEIs, and further condensation into two cultural orientations. Both the governance equalizer and the two categories of cultural orientations are explained above.

In order to answer the research question for this paper, "How do different organizational cultures affect approaches to sustainability governance at HEIs?", four exemplary HEIs were selected for the purpose of analyzing and illustrating the effect of organizational cultures on governance structures and processes. The selected cases (described in Section 3.3) are divided into two pairs of HEIs that appeared to offer promising insights into the effect of cultural orientations on sustainability governance after being categorized in Niedlich et al. [19].

The following description of the research process gives an overview of the whole process, and then focuses on the measures that were taken in order to achieve insight into the interplay of cultural orientation and the governance equalizer. By combining the perspectives of culture and functions from the two earlier papers and the frameworks that these established, and feeding them with the four case studies, our aim is to deepen understanding of the significance of organizational culture for SD at HEIs in general, but also with respect to specific functions within HEI SD governance.

#### *3.1. Data Collection*

The study that provided the insights outlined above on sustainability governance and organizational culture for SD at HEIs looked at the experiences of, and observations from, eleven German HEIs. These HEIs are all members of the joint research project "Sustainability at Higher Education Institutions: develop-network-report" (HOCHN) which, in addition to sustainability governance, focuses on research, teaching and operations as well as on the transfer of SD-related knowledge and approaches (see https://hoch-n.org/en).

The research design consisted of face-to-face interviews with different actors at the eleven HEIs. Interview partners were chosen on the basis of selective sampling. In order to gain an in-depth understanding and to incorporate different views and perspectives on sustainability governance, 61 stakeholders from the following groups were interviewed:


In addition to time and willingness to participate, selection criteria included knowledge and first-hand experience of their institution's sustainability process (cf. [30]). The interviewees were identified and recruited in collaboration with our partners within the HOCH<sup>N</sup> network as well as through desktop research. The sample is thus limited by the number of project partners. These provided an interesting sample, as they all were willing to participate in the interviews, had sufficient range of stakeholders involved in the sustainability process at their institutions and hence could provide a variety of perspectives. Although the sample is not representative of all HEIs in Germany, as the participation in the HOCHN project already implies a bias towards a stronger commitment to sustainability, it shows interesting cases, with very different approaches to the organization of sustainability.

The interviews were conducted using an interview guide consisting of five sections, each containing one key question and supplementary questions. The five sections were:


Of the 61 interviewees, 30 were female and 31 were male. As the study was designed on a cross-sectional basis, all individuals were interviewed only once. The average duration of an interview was 47 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed using a simplified approach [31].

#### *3.2. Data Analysis*

The material was analyzed in several successive phases. As an initial step, data from the eleven case studies were analyzed using qualitative content analysis [32]. To ensure that data were adequately analyzed and interpreted, all phases of the analysis involved a minimum of two researchers and data analysis and interpretation was validated between researchers using a communicative process (cf. [33]).

First, a qualitative thematic text analysis was conducted, using primary categories derived from the interview guide. After coding data in line with these and other deductive categories from three HEIs, additional categories and subcategories were created. The data from all eleven cases were coded using the revised categories and category-based analysis was undertaken, creating thematic summaries for all coded text segments.

On this basis, case profiles were produced, which, in addition to a timeline for SD processes, included findings on the state of SD activities, initiatives and actors, motives and objectives, views on the societal role of HEIs, influencing factors (structural/institutional, process related, personnel, HEI size, external), and factors of particular interest in relation to specific cases. The case profiles were used to carry out thematic cross-case analysis with the aim of identifying differences and similarities (Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** Original analysis (focus on sustainability initiatives and governance equalizers) [19].

This led to the identification of four major cultural dimensions of sustainability governance at HEIs [19] characterizing HEIs' conceptions of themselves as institutions as well as their attitudes towards SD (implementation). Each of these cultural dimensions (described briefly in Section 2.1) was then conceptualized as a continuum, ranging from an ideal type of slightest expression to an ideal type of strongest expression. Once every HEI had been located on each of the continuums by means of qualitative content analysis, the results suggested the condensation of the four continuums into two overarching orientations, each comprised of two of the former dimensions (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Subsequent analysis (recoding with a focus on the culture of sustainability governance) [19].

At the end of these two analytical phases, two different perspectives on sustainability governance at HEIs emerged: the governance equalizer, with its requirements relating to the functions of sustainability governance, and the organizational orientations crucial to sustainability governance on a cultural level. In order to probe the interrelation of these perspectives, further examination of the case studies appeared necessary and became the aim of this paper.

For that purpose, two pairs of cases were chosen, and their general sustainability processes were compared within each pair; more importantly, the governance structures that the institutions had set up in light of their organizational cultures were also compared. To facilitate this, the case profiles were first examined individually for signs in the equalizer dimensions that allowed aspects of the HEIs' cultural orientations to become evident. We then compared the elements that we had identified within each pair to determine the extent to which the different cultures of HEIs had an impact on the design of individual aspects of governance. This acted as the basis for the formulation and discussion of more general assumptions about the interaction of cultures and functions (Figure 3). The reasoning behind the selection of cases is below and is followed by a retracing of the analytical process.

**Figure 3.** Combined analysis of the cultural orientations and governance equalizer dimensions.

#### *3.3. Selection of Cases for a Comparative Analysis*

Cases were selected on the basis of Niedlich et al. [19] and the classification of the cultural orientations at the eleven HEIs presented there. From this standpoint, two pairs of HEIs were identified as particularly interesting. They all stemmed from the center ground of the HEIs under consideration, with one pair showing diverging orientations and the other converging orientations in relation to the regression line (Figure 4) that was established for the complete sample of eleven HEIs. It revealed a clear tendency towards a linear relationship between *holistic* and *learning orientation*.

Cases VI and VIII were chosen here, for they were the ones that deviated the most from the assumption that *holistic orientation* and *organizational learning orientation* are in a linear relationship, but the nature of their divergence was different (note: the numbers of the cases correspond to their use in [19]). Case VI was found to have a more advanced *holistic orientation* than *learning orientation*, while case VIII had a culture that was more inclined to promote mutual and inclusive learning and was less focused on having a comprehensive concept of sustainability and all-pervasive processes [19]. We concluded that comparison of the two cases might reveal how the different orientations affected governance structures.

Cases III and IX both supported our assumption of a mutually reinforcing relationship between *holistic* and *organizational learning orientations* (Figure 4), but they diverged considerably in their expression of this. In fact, they were the two institutions at the opposite ends of a spectrum of HEIs in the center ground of the sample when cultural orientation was analyzed [19]. The cultural orientation of HEI III towards sustainable development was much less evolved than in HEI IX. It was deemed interesting to compare features of the governance equalizer dimensions for each institution as they related to different stages of development in governance.

Figure 4 situates the four HEIs in a matrix between holistic orientation and learning orientation. Since all four cases demonstrated mid-level performance as far as their cultural orientation towards SD was concerned (compared with the other cases in the sample), the field only ranges from relatively low to relatively high. Together, the four cases represent all of the possible combinations of the two orientations in the matrix (HEI VI = high + low; HEI VIII = low + high; HEI III = low + low;

HEI IX = high + high). A practical but somewhat coincidental area of common ground between each pair of HEIs is that their current sustainability processes started at similar times and in similar ways. Additionally, all four of the institutions are financed by the state and not privately funded, which also supports their comparability.

**Figure 4.** Matrix of selected cases between holistic and learning orientation.

#### **4. Results**

A comparative analysis of the two pairs of HEIs provides the following insights in respect of the effects of cultural orientation (*holistic* and *learning orientation*) on the functional requirements of sustainability governance, as illustrated by the sustainability governance equalizer. The two cases constituting each pair are first described separately and then compared with each other.

#### *4.1. Cases VI and VIII: Strong Holistic Orientation and Pronounced Learning Orientation vs. Low Holistic and Distinct Learning Orientation*

Cases VI and VIII were used to gain an impression of the extent to which a difference in the degree of the two cultural orientations impacts on governance structures. Case VI had a stronger focus on *holistic orientation* and case VIII had a more pronounced focus on *learning orientation*. While the SD structures and processes that were set up at the two HEIs appear quite similar from the outside, significant differentiation was found. The case descriptions and analyses below explore and draw out, in particular, the differences relating to the manner of structures' outreach into their institution, how autonomous they are and what their conceptual focus is.

#### 4.1.1. Case VI: Strong Holistic and Low Learning Orientation

HEI case no. VI has between 5000 and 10,000 employees and between 25,000 and 50,000 students in 100–200 different study programs with a broad spectrum, and is located in an urban environment. The beginning of its sustainability process can be traced back almost 30 years to the early 1990s when concerns about the scarcity of global resource were raised by campus operations staff. Energy efficiency has been on the construction department's agenda ever since, with other environmental issues

being discussed in a working group specially established for this purpose. From there, sustainability as a concept evolved in HEI VI and was recognized by senior management in recent years as a guiding principle for the whole institution, with the potential to promote and underline its reputation for scientific excellence. A center of expertise was established as the central SD governance body, mediating between senior management and the rest of the HEI. It is comprised of five strategic working groups covering the whole institution and with participation by academic staff, administrative staff and students.

Many activities aimed at creating a sustainable HEI were initiated, including the preparation of a sustainability report and the development of a mission statement. Nevertheless, the HEI's overall SD process is said to be lacking in terms of oversight of the various activities, the transfer of principles into day-to-day practices and broad participation.

Further descriptions of the case are given in Figure 5, which sets the HEI's cultural orientation next to its governance equalizer dimensions. It creates a more comprehensive picture of the HEI's relatively highly developed *holistic orientation* and relatively underdeveloped *learning orientation* in relation to SD. Taking all these aspects into consideration, in what ways they might have influenced each other in the particular context of HEI VI can then be discussed.


**Figure 5.** Overview of the cultural orientations and the governance dimensions of higher education institution (HEI) VI.

In light of the cultural orientation, some of the governance equalizer values do not come as a surprise. The HEI's low *learning orientation*, and in particular the fact that responsibility for SD is mainly assigned to senior management can facilitate and accelerate processes such as embedding SD in the mission statement (→ *politics*), especially when it is paired with a whole-institution approach (→ *organization, profession*). However, in terms of long-term prospects, the success of such a top–down process depends on whether HEI members are willing and able to commit to a mission statement that they were not involved in developing. In order to bring a top–down strategy to life (→ *politics, organization, public*), it may be necessary either to allocate additional personnel specific responsibility for achieving the objectives or to re-organize responsibilities, because it is unlikely that staff will have

too much time for unexpected tasks. Otherwise, a low *learning orientation* combined with a high *holistic orientation* towards SD might come in handy when it comes to announcing SD principles for the HEI as a whole, but it does not guarantee that such principles will be eagerly adopted.

As described above, the center of expertise has begun to promote an institution-wide conversation on SD (→ *profession, knowledge*) because of its belief in holistic transformation, but the power to make real changes to fundamental processes still lies with senior management, which does not take things quite so far. The thoughtfully constructed and broadly established center of expertise, which is striving to coordinate a diligent and coherent process (→ *organization*), may be in danger of becoming a toothless tiger. This might lead to problems for all the equalizer dimensions, since their development seems to depend on that very structure.

#### 4.1.2. Case VIII: Low Holistic and Profound Learning Orientation

HEI VIII is also located in an urban environment. It also has 25,000–50,000 students across 100–200 different study programs and employs up to 5000 people. Sustainability became an issue at this HEI at the beginning of the 1990s, sparked by employees in the administration who demanded that the institution take meaningful steps to reduce its energy consumption, much like case VI. At HEI VIII, this led to a long process of ISO certification and ultimately resulted in the introduction of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). Several small sustainability teams were entrusted with the development of energy saving measures at the departmental level; these had a great impact and helped the whole process to evolve.

Nowadays, there is a staff unit for sustainability and energy with approximately ten employees, who are recognized as important drivers of the sustainability process. The concept of sustainability has broadened over time. Through, inter alia, the engagement of a student initiative, the focus has been shifted from campus management resource concerns towards a comprehensive approach including research, teaching and outreach. A research center acted as the key catalyst for sustainable development in research, generally accessible courses were established with a clear relevance for sustainability, and participation in sustainability networks was increased.

As stated above, HEI VIII is an institution with a relatively low *holistic orientation* and a relatively high *learning orientation* towards SD. Therefore, to some extent, it represents the reverse set-up of HEI VI. A closer look at the governance equalizer dimensions for HEI VIII, as summarized in Figure 6, might help to pinpoint the possible effects of the different cultural environment that is indicated on the left side of the figure.

Throughout the five dimensions, the high *learning orientation* seems to have had an impact that is manifested in a collaboratively developed mission statement (→ *politics*, *organization*, *profession*, *public*) and also in the way the staff unit has been arranged (→ *organization, knowledge*). It has close links with senior management but is also working with sustainability teams in the HEI's different areas (→ *profession*). Responsibility for SD is spread between them and not completely centralized, which certainly increases public attention for the topic (→ *public*). The HEI's *learning orientation*, and specifically its conception of its own role in society as an SD educator, has enabled the development of new concepts of knowledge transfer (→ *knowledge, public*).

The main gap highlighted by the governance equalizer is insufficient coherence and shared understanding amongst HEI members with regard to SD (→ *profession*). Against the backdrop of a long tradition of ecological optimization and the ongoing focus on energy and resources in the staff unit, it seems logical that, despite collaborative processes, HEI members are irritated by aspects of the institution's concept of sustainability because the *holistic orientation* is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, the HEI has been able to establish solid overarching governance structures.


**Figure 6.** Overview of the cultural orientations and governance dimensions of HEI VIII.

#### 4.1.3. Comparison of HEIs VI and VIII

The strongest equalizer dimensions for HEIs VI and VIII are *politics* and *organization*. *Profession*, *knowledge* and *public* are all developed to a medium level at both HEIs. At first sight, the different organizational cultures do not appear to have had a particular impact on HEI sustainability governance. However, as the individual case descriptions have shown, the HEIs' SD structures vary with regard to some important details. This is most prominently expressed in the relations identified between the main SD actors and the potential for these relations to be shaped by the culture of the organization (especially its *learning orientation*).

HEI VI with its center of expertise and HEI VIII with its staff unit have set up structures that aim to introduce SD measures into all fields of activity. They both have close links with senior management and are equipped with roughly the same number of staff. However, there are differences in their strategic alignment and integration, i.e., the way functions are organized as shown in the equalizer. These relate to three major aspects, which seem to go hand in hand with the HEIs' cultural orientations: the manner of their outreach into the institution, their degree of autonomy and their conceptual focus.

By 'manner of outreach', we mean the strategies adopted by the two bodies that might help them to gain acceptance for (common) SD activities in the HEI's community. The idea that responsibility for SD should be spread across several pairs of shoulders (→ *attribution of responsibility,* as part of the *learning orientation*), and that these shoulders need to have some level of autonomy, seems to have driven HEI VIII towards more open and extensive structures. Certainly, the staff unit is the team with primary responsibility; it is also dependent on senior management decisions. But through the sustainability teams in different departments, a unifying steering committee and a good connection with the biggest and highly active student and staff sustainability initiative, they have the potential to shape a coherent and collaborative process that receives a broad welcome. The institution's *learning orientation* has thus enabled reasonable structures in terms of *profession*, *organization*, and potentially *public*.

This is seemingly less the case in HEI VI, where the working groups are an integral part of the center of expertise, are made up of appointed members and, therefore, act less independently. The structure is not bad per se, but it could be argued that greater awareness of and trust in a broader range of perspectives could help with implementation. This is evident at HEI VI in certain situations where senior management demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the achievements of extensive student engagement. The center of expertise, however, is working on overcoming this problem and is already considered a good contact point for SD issues by other HEI members. These efforts might eventually lead to changes in the HEI's cultural orientations. This would provide an example of how governance structures can influence an HEI's cultural orientation over time.

The conceptual focus refers to the aspects of SD that are being addressed by the staff unit or the center of expertise and their underlying *conceptions of sustainability*. Even though both HEIs originally focused on improving ecological rather than other aspects of sustainability, as the cultural orientations show, HEI VI is now applying a multi-dimensional approach more consistently than HEI VIII. This can be linked to the different staff configurations that are responsible for SD, and their backgrounds. On the one hand, the staff unit at HEI VIII has evolved from a staff unit for energy to a staff unit for sustainability and energy and was, therefore, built around—and still is dominated by—an expertise in energy and resource issues. The center of expertise in HEI VI, on the other hand, was conceived as an interdisciplinary team from the beginning and hence has been better able to identify with a multi-dimensional concept of sustainability.

When looking at overall SD governance at both HEIs, however, this head start has not resulted in a long-term advantage or disadvantage for HEI VI. This is doubtless due to a number of factors. It is suspected, though, that the *conception of sustainability,* which is only one part of the *holistic orientation,* might have less influence on SD governance than the second part, the *relevance and scope of organizational change*. At least regarding the initiation of the process, it seems to be more important for an HEI's SD governance to take an institution-wide approach than have a comprehensive conception of sustainability when structures are created, which can happen at any level and in any part of the institution. After all, the whole-institution approach is an aspect that these two HEIs have in common and that so far seems to have guided them in relation to structures. However, comparison of the two cases shows that the learning orientation needs to be factored in when designing the whole-institution approach and that a holistic orientation alone does not lead to all-encompassing structures and processes.

This last aspect suggests that the discrepancies between the two cultural assumptions, which were found only in HEIs VI and VIII out of the sample of eleven, are not only uncommon, but also, to some extent, counterproductive. A more linear evolution in orientation appears more desirable, although it does not necessarily mean an easy route of SD implementation as the comparison of the next two cases will illustrate.

#### *4.2. Cases III and IX: Low Holistic and Learning Orientation vs. Distinct Learning and Holistic Orientation*

Cases III and IX are intended to provide insight into how very different stages of cultural orientation affected governance structures at the HEIs in question. Case III had one of the lowest *learning* and *holistic orientations* and case IX one of the highest. Since they both represented cases where the relationship between *holistic* and *learning orientation* was linear, it was deemed of particular interest to investigate how these individual HEIs at the opposite ends of the proposed cultural orientation spectrum translate their cultures into governance measures. Many differences were identified between the two HEIs, but the most distinctive aspect arising from the comparison was their different approaches towards knowledge work in the context of SD as the following outlines illustrate.

#### 4.2.1. Case III: Low Holistic and Low Learning Orientation

HEI III is an urban HEI with 25,000–50,000 students in 100–200 study programs and employs between 5000 and 10,000 people. The sustainability process was only begun in 2013 with a senior management decision to appoint a sustainability commissioner. Prior to that, a very active student initiative had been the only driver of sustainability-related change at an institutional level. The sustainability commissioner, who is a professor and, therefore, does not have extra time resources, has been given the support of a research assistant and the task of supervising a 5 year sustainability reporting process with the aim of proposing appropriate measures. By the time the interviews took place, the team had almost finished its inventory and was about to start using it to derive strategies. One central idea is the establishment of a Green Office for process stabilization and continuity.

Apart from this central process, different individual activities are taking place. The abovementioned student initiative and the general student committee organize SD events, promote sustainable consumption on campus and search for innovative mobility solutions. A mixed group of HEI members is focused on making the campus bike friendly. As regards teaching, practical interdisciplinary sustainability courses are being offered.

This description of HEI III paints the picture of an HEI that has set a sustainability process in motion with a comparatively low *learning orientation* towards SD and an initially rather one-dimensional and top–down approach. Figure 7 reflects on some further insights into the HEI's cultural orientation and outlines the governance equalizer dimensions.


**Figure 7.** Overview of the cultural orientations and governance dimensions of HEI III.

HEI III finds itself at a point in its sustainability process that can easily be traced back to its cultural orientation. The *learning orientation* in particular seems to be clearly reflected in the current governance. Senior management and the sustainability commissioner and his team preferred to learn about their institution before they learned with the institution when they decided that a sustainability report should be produced before any other centralized sustainability activities were pursued so that the latter could be based on reliable information (→ *profession*, *organization, knowledge*). It is arguable whether this was a wise or even necessary decision, and, in the long run, this will be illustrated by what the HEI eventually makes of the process that it has started, which it has mostly kept in the presidential office. For now, the activities taking place in addition to that official top–down process such as the sustainability certificate that students can gain—organized by some teaching staff, or other student or professional or technical staff-based initiatives—are trying in vain to find allies in their HEI.

Instead of supporting the building of an SD network within the HEI and starting to share responsibilities, senior management prefers to join external sustainability networks and seek alliances with elite representatives from other HEIs. Both are a potential source of valuable knowledge on SD implementation, but the exclusive involvement of senior management underlines once more the HEI's low *organizational learning orientation*. The establishment of a Green Office (a student-led sustainability bureau with HEI funding) may succeed in breaking with this pattern (→ *organization*). So long as it is not primarily an extension of the senior management but has some autonomy, it could be a good way to open up the process to the whole HEI community (→*profession, public*).

Taking the HEI's holistic orientation into consideration, it has certainly had an impact on the ongoing process. The HEI does intend to apply a multi-dimensional approach to sustainability and to integrate it into its different fields of activity, but this concept was formulated only relatively recently. Besides the commissioner and his team, who are responsible for SD across the whole institution (→ organization), there are hardly any activities that indicate a comprehensive approach is being taken (→ politics). Due to his area of expertise, the sustainability commissioner mainly takes content-based responsibility for ecological topics. In this case, this has hardly any effect on the process within the HEI as a whole, as there has thus far been virtually no contact with the technical staff of the HEI (→profession). The relatively low learning orientation is, therefore, preventing the equally low holistic orientation at HEI III from having an impact on procedures.

#### 4.2.2. Case IX: High Holistic and High Learning Orientation

HEI IX is the only rural HEI in the selection. It has less than 1000 employees, between 5000 and 10,000 students and offers study programs in a narrow course spectrum. In 2013, some committed individuals at HEI IX started submitting requests to senior management for the HEI to promote sustainability. Some responsibility for SD was created in the form of target agreements between the HEI and the federal state. Institution-wide workshops in 2015 introduced further ideas about a sustainable HEI and were followed by the appointment of a sustainability commissioner, also a professor, who was provided with some personnel resources. The sustainability commissioner coordinates a SD working group that has prepared sustainability guidelines that were discussed in another institution-wide workshop including senior management and are being processed by the HEI senate.

The working group, which has a good mix of HEI members, and a student initiative host small events and participate in national sustainability action days. On the administrative side, sustainability considerations have impacted on a number of procurement decisions, and connections have been made between SD and the HEI's policies (e.g., gender equality, family friendliness, inclusion).

HEI IX has the most concise orientation of the four towards sustainability. Figure 8 provides more detailed information on both the cultural orientation and the governance equalizer. The interrelationship between the two is discussed below.

Interestingly, the governance equalizer does not actually portray HEI IX as having advanced sustainability structures and processes, as the organization's culture has suggested. However, that does not necessarily mean that the cultural orientations did not have an impact. Closer examination reveals that the structures and processes that have been implemented or are about to be implemented, especially in relation to *politics* and *organization*, do reflect a relatively high *holistic* and *learning orientation*.

The understanding that actors from all the different groups of stakeholders and fields of activity should have the opportunity to participate in the HEI's sustainability process is clearly expressed in the way the overall process has been executed so far. Several institution-wide workshops were held, which, among other things, resulted in common sustainability guidelines (→ *politics, profession, public*). The sustainability commissioner coordinates an open SD working group (→ *organization*), and student involvement is much appreciated, albeit difficult to maintain. From the very beginning, sustainability was considered to be a multi-dimensional concept, and this is well reflected in the guidelines. The steps may be small, but they set the tone for further development of the HEI's sustainability governance. This is especially true for the *knowledge* dimension, the least prominent equalizer dimension at HEI

IX. This case indicates that participatory processes not only take time, but also require staff resources, with which HEI IX is the least equipped out of the four cases presented here. Apart from that, this HEI certainly has some advantages—shorter distances, a smaller range of disciplines—which facilitate some processes, since it is by far the smallest of the four HEIs.


**Figure 8.** Overview of the cultural orientations and governance dimensions of HEI IX.

#### 4.2.3. Comparison of HEIs III and IX

At first sight, there are some commonalities in the two institutions' sustainability processes. They started around the same time after small groups or individual HEI members became engaged with sustainability. Once they had been successful in putting sustainability on the HEI's agenda, the senior management team in question decided to appoint a sustainability commissioner to be responsible for coordinating and overseeing the whole process. What appears to be quite different, though, is the conception of how best to set up the process. This is where the cultural orientations divide the two HEIs.

Although in the case of both HEIs, it has been a similarly short time since they initiated their sustainability processes, they have already adopted very different positions. It can be assumed that their cultural orientations have played a role in organizational development towards sustainability. HEI III went straight to action with a clear vision and introduced structures that should form the basis for a well-founded process. From an operational perspective, this makes sense, but the essence of sustainability seems to have been neglected or not fully internalized yet. This means that sustainable development, with its various substantive and methodological components, has either not been fully explored or has been reduced to distinct individual aspects. Even though the will to implement a multi-dimensional understanding of sustainability in all areas of the institution (→ *holistic orientation*) is generally present, the HEI is still faced with the challenge of transferring this will to the current elite and discrete structures and thus developing them further to make them more accessible. As was the case at HEI IX, the HEI's *organization* and *profession* dimensions would certainly benefit from such a concept.

HEI IX started with somewhat less concrete activity, but active stakeholder participation ensured that there was broad agreement with the central decision by senior management to appoint a sustainability commissioner. This openness signals to the members of the HEI that their engagement is wanted and that it can shape important aspects of SD. This also makes it easier to replicate the organizational culture amongst HEI members and encourage it to evolve collectively. The working group has promoted regular interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration (→ *organizational learning orientation*). Nonetheless, there is one equalizer dimension that has been developed notably further at HEI III than HEI IX: *knowledge*.

Maybe unexpectedly, this is also where the differences between the ways the HEIs' governance has been shaped by their cultural orientations are most obvious. The HEIs seem to apply quite different approaches towards knowledge and knowledge work in the context of SD. HEI III, with its focus on knowledge generation, has introduced a structure, namely the sustainability reporting team, which is efficient at gathering data and identifying important contributors for the report. Their knowledge work is a highly centralized and isolated process that does not open up to the potential for common exploration with diverse stakeholders on diverse topics, which is the approach taken by HEI IX. The combination of low holistic orientation and low learning orientation leads HEI III to a very target-oriented, and in that sense efficient, *knowledge* dimension that, however, will inevitably reach its limits when all information has been gathered. High *holistic* and *learning orientations* have helped HEI IX to lay groundwork that gives knowledge the chance to expand at a variety of levels. The downside of this approach is certainly that it takes much more effort in relation to proactive stakeholder engagement and coordination and, therefore, has not yet resulted in a strong *knowledge* dimension for HEI IX. This comparison of knowledge work captures the distinct styles of SD implementation at both HEIs and corresponds well with the aforementioned aspects. It also highlights the different qualities that can be found within a single equalizer dimension and encourages an integrative approach towards the governance equalizer when introducing governance measures.

Overall, neither of the two HEIs has addressed any of the equalizer dimensions in an all-encompassing way. They have made approximately the same amount of progress, if that is even comparable, and are now at a point where the implementation of concrete and significant measures is required. Their SD processes are relatively young and will need some more time to unfold. It remains to be seen whether they will manage to either seize or change their current functions and culture.

#### **5. Discussion and Conclusions**

The comparisons between HEIs VI and VIII and HEIs III and IX have revealed various ways in which the cultural orientations of HEIs are expressed in the functionalities of their SD governance. In each of the individual cases, it was in principle possible to understand the relationship between these two factors. But what general conclusions can be drawn from these observations?

It is certainly a central finding that the cases not only demonstrate an interplay between cultures and functions, but also that the individual cultural orientations interlock during the implementation of structures, etc., and usually produce a common result. It is unlikely to be possible to cite single cultural orientations, be they *holistic* or *learning*, that have clearly and directly affected and shaped individual governance dimensions. This is not least due to the fact that neither cultures nor governance dimensions can always be clearly separated, nor should they be during the consideration of governance measures. Ultimately, HEI sustainability processes are no 'optimized production lines'; they are instead complex social processes that are both, resulting from and leading to social innovations (e.g., [16,27,34]). This is precisely why consideration of organizational cultures is so relevant and why it is worth attempting to identify patterns hampering or supporting fundamental change.

Another essential aspect that emerges from the comparative case analysis is the observation that cultural orientations do not become visible instantaneously and simultaneously in all corners of an HEI. This is in line with approaches of organizational research according to which HEIs may be considered as what is labelled "loosely coupled systems" in which autonomy and cohesion apply at the same time

which allows for testing novel solutions without reaching out to the whole institution right from the beginning [35]. Particularly in large HEIs, there may be "communities within communities" that do not interact as intensely with each other [36] so that a cultural change in one sector does not immediately apply for another one. Apart from this theoretical consideration, the challenge of grasping the cultural orientation of HEIs is partly due to the underlying methodology and material used. For the study reported here, we subjected existing interview material, i.e., material collected for a different purpose, to secondary analysis. Therefore, we did not have access to all the information that would have been desirable to enable the cases to be explored in greater depth. The cultural orientations described here need time to develop and to influence governance structures. This also brings into play what has already been suggested by some of the four cases, namely the possibility that structures and processes implemented may in turn have an impact on cultural orientations, thus giving rise to a feedback loop as part of a living process, as Disterheft et al. [10] have also pointed out with regards to participatory processes in particular.

The analysis has shown, in some cases, that the most direct path from cultures to functions was via the elements assigned to *politics* and/or *organization*. For at least three of the HEIs considered (III, VI and VIII), these governance equalizer dimensions were initially in the foreground. It is quite possible that this reflects a pattern that also appears in other cases from the overall sample. However, there are certainly other ways for SD to get into the HEIs' bloodstreams. For instance, informal and unofficial but significant and profound engagement for SD by a group of actors might favor the development of a collaborative network of HEI members before it seeks to become institutionalized [37]. It, therefore, remains to be seen how successful the approaches will prove to be in the long run and what advantages and disadvantages they each offer. A broader examination of the whole study sample, ideally in combination with a second survey at the same HEIs, could provide insight into this.

This exploratory study, based on a secondary analysis of existing interviews, has identified interesting starting points for further research and, building on Adams et al. [16] and Baker-Shelley et al. [17], has also expanded the understanding of the importance of organizational cultures for sustainable development in HEIs. Real-life examples were used to illustrate potential interdependencies and to draw some general conclusions about how the cultures and functions of HEI governance relate to each other. In particular, it has increased the awareness of the diversity of HEIs' SD processes. No matter how similar some structures may appear, it is not uncommon for details that initially appear inconspicuous to have a significant impact on their success. Both comparisons have made this clear. What was also implied at some points was the need to recognize further factors that influence an HEI's sustainability governance beyond its cultural orientation. Aspects such as the size of the HEI or regional (political, legal and socio-economic) circumstances certainly also need to be factored in and might show some of the SD processes discussed in another light. Some of these aspects are also very likely to have shaped the depicted organizational cultures. However, this opens a new discussion that requires further investigation and exceeds the material of this study.

Overall, the frameworks taken from Bauer et al. [2] and Niedlich et al. [19] have proven themselves to be useful analytical tools. The categories developed provided valuable guidance in the midst of the complexities of HEI SD governance. This combined analysis, enriched by the four case studies, identified some fine mechanisms that can take place at the interplay of culture and functions. At the same time, it enabled a new reflection on the original frameworks themselves. Future research can take this into consideration and also explore other ways of applying them.

In view of the small selection of cases, which is also limited to German HEIs involved in a joint project, the limits of generalizability are quickly reached. The interpretative methodology also imposes certain limitations on the results here. Further investigation on the basis of a larger sample is required in order to verify the findings. Nevertheless, the approach adopted in this paper contributes to the development of instruments that can be applied in practice, e.g., for self-reflection and self-assessment by HEIs (see [38]). It could also serve to further differentiate and operationalize the cultural dimensions for the purpose of standardized surveys or be applied to the development of counselling concepts.

Bearing the initial research question of this paper in mind, it can be stated that an HEI's organizational culture is highly likely to affect its approach to SD governance in crucial ways. The case studies demonstrated essential connections between cultural orientations and the governance approaches of HEIs, as illustrated by the governance equalizer. Many of these connections relate to the specific circumstances of the HEIs in question, i.e., with regard to the individuals involved. Although there will be no other HEI that functions in exactly the same way as one of these four, the perspective offered by this combined analysis of cultures and functions of SD governance at HEIs offers should make it easier to identify trends.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.B., S.N., M.R., I.B. and L.J.; methodology, M.B., S.N., M.R. and I.B.; validation, M.B., S.N., M.R., I.B. and L.J.; formal analysis, M.B., S.N., M.R., I.B. and L.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.B., S.N., M.R., I.B. and L.J.; visualization, M.B., S.N., M.R. and I.B.; supervision, M.R. and I.B.; project administration, S.N., M.B. and M.R.; funding acquisition, M.R. and I.B. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Grant/Award Number: 13NKE007A.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank four anonymous reviewers for their feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **The Whole-Institution Approach at the University of Tübingen: Sustainable Development Set in Practice**

**Kerstin Schopp 1,\*, Matthias Bornemann 1,\* and Thomas Potthast 1,2**


Received: 17 December 2019; Accepted: 21 January 2020; Published: 23 January 2020

**Abstract:** In the following paper, we scrutinize understandings and values behind Sustainable Development (SD) in a case study of the University of Tübingen, Germany. In so doing, we adopt the perspective of the whole-institution approach of SD. We do not only analyze documents, but combine our investigations with empirical research on key actors' understandings and values of SD, as well as the competencies and the knowledge to set SD in practice. First, we demonstrate that actors' understandings and the values behind them at the University of Tübingen are in accord with the United Nations' understanding of SD ('Brundtland Report'). Second, we show that at the University of Tübingen, many actors already work in line with the whole-institution approach; this shall be further fostered and strengthened by the Competence Centre for SD. Finally, we demonstrate that both knowledge and competencies are fundamental to act for SD. It is suggested that the University of Tübingen should explicitly adopt the general understanding of SD in the above-mentioned sense, and develop a sustainability strategy, not least in order to support the actors to acquire specific knowledge to reach SD for the whole university. Finally, we discuss the potential and limits of transferring the findings to other Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and the challenges of necessary global perspectives.

**Keywords:** whole-institution approach; sustainable development; higher education institutions; competencies; knowledge; values; case study

#### **1. Introduction: Topic and Structure of the Article**

"Why should I be studying for a future that soon may be no more, when no one is doing anything to save that future?"

(Greta Thunberg, climate activist) [1]

Already in 2009, the German University Presidents' Conference (HRK) decided to implement Sustainable Development (SD) in the fields of research and knowledge transfer, education and teaching and the institution, and to foster Education for SD [2] (p. III). In the same year, mainly initiated by a student initiative, measures for establishing SD at the University of Tübingen, Germany were initiated, e.g., a study program for SD and preparations for an EMAS-certificate (European Management and Audit Scheme). In 2013, the University set up activities aiming at establishing a Competence Centre for Sustainable Development. From its outset, the Competence Centre's main goal is to address SD in a whole-institution approach (see Section 2.2).

The Competence Centre organizes and realizes a wide range of activities across the university, such as network meetings with university staff, and students interested in and working on topics of SD. The Competence Centre's staff regularly evaluates these activities. Therefore, we, as members of the

Centre, already experienced that members of the University of Tübingen have different understandings of what SD is, as well as of how exactly it should be implemented. The Competence Centre is a network node which enables actors to act for SD and, therefore, needs to know the actors' different expectations and needs. Only then will the Centre be able to provide them with the various resources adapted to their needs. Since the different understandings of SD, as well as the knowledge and the competencies of actors at the University of Tübingen differ, it is obviously difficult to plan and implement further activities in the field of SD for the Centre.

Hence, as a reaction to this situation, we have started the research project "SD@UT" which pursued the following research questions:


In the following, we will present the findings of this research project, structured as follows: First, we will briefly introduce different understandings of SD typically found in the scientific discourse. We will then outline the concept of the whole-institution approach and link it to the German research project HOCH-N, which identifies governance, sustainability reporting, teaching and education, research, operations, and transfer as relevant fields of a Higher Education Institution (HEI) [3]. Thereby, we also consider the Competence Centre's role at the University of Tübingen, its goals as well as its past and future work endeavors.

In the second step, we dive into the Competence Centre's research project that we have briefly introduced above, by considering its starting point.

In the final section, we will discuss options and opportunities to transfer our research results to other (inter)national universities. We will also discuss the need to integrate perspectives of the Global South into these conceptions and explain further research possibilities and needs.

#### **2. State of the Art**

In this chapter, we first present several levels and understandings of SD, followed by an overview of the whole-institution approach, as well as the research project HOCH-N's fields of actions [3]. Both form a basis for the Competence Centre's whole-institution approach, which we present in the final part of this chapter.

#### *2.1. Understandings of Sustainable Development*

The idea and concept of SD is present in different contexts and on several levels [4] (p. 27). We distinguished four levels and categories, which are, however, only a first classification. These are (i) the political level, (ii) the philosophical level as well as (iii) the personal level. Additionally, there are (iv) models, concepts, and guidelines. We do not want the reader of this paper to understand them separately from each other or to think that they are always redundant, since they smoothly merge into each other. In particular, the boundaries between models, concepts, and guidelines are fluid.

On the political level, the Brundtland Report [5], which was published after four years of work by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), defined SD for the first time in UN history. According to this report, SD "*meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs*" [5] (p. 16). Another important political event was the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, which is known as the Earth Summit [6]. It aimed at setting the course for a worldwide SD while taking into account the dependency of human beings on their environment. For this reason, one core element of the Brundtland Report was elaborated: Since SD has to happen within the frame of finite natural resources, the UN brought together environmental and development issues and politics. Out of this idea, finally the eight Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) [7] were born and adopted in 2000 during the Millennium Summit, and then replaced by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8] in 2015.

The philosophical level of SD is connected to the justice-based idea of "the good life", which goes back to the ethics of Aristotle. He argued for the aim of all humans to strive for eudaimonia—happiness or well-being—which requires a good character and, therefore, a sense of responsibility. The philosopher, Hans Jonas, took Aristotle's Eudaimonia, as well as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, as basis for his ecological imperative: "*Act in a way that the e*ff*ects of your action are compatible with the permanence of real human life on earth!*" [9] (p. 36, translated by the authors). These ideas, together with John Rawls' institutional theory of justice [10], surely influenced the Brundtland Report, which deals with interand intragenerational justice—the "good life" for everyone at any time.

The personal level is another crucial aspect of SD. However, even though politics often emphasize the importance of people's individual contribution to efforts such as the energy transformation, which shall contribute to SD, the personal level of SD is not yet highlighted in science. Parodi and Tamm state that "*one half of the sustainability universe is still mainly unrecognized and unexplored*" [11] (p. 1). In times like ours, when pupils demonstrate for their and the world's future, it seems crucial not to forget this dimension of SD, and what an individual can and wants to contribute, as well as how this individual is involved emotionally, culturally or psychologically. Our questionnaires' results demonstrate this level's importance as well (see Section 4.2).

One, albeit inappropriate, model of SD, which is probably best known in German-speaking contexts, is the three-pillar model. According to this model, the economic, environmental, and social domains constitute three equal pillars, which carry the roof of sustainability [12] (p. 13). As mentioned above, models of SD are closely interrelated to concepts and guidelines of SD. These include, for instance, Kopfmüller et al. [13], who developed an integrative concept of SD including its elements, rules, and indicators; Ott & Döring [14], who discussed the concept of a "Strong Sustainability"; Grunwald [15] on the comparison of these concepts; and Ott [16] who strove for embedding the, also in his view, inadequate three-pillar concept of SD into guidelines of Strong Sustainability. Mainly, all of the authors mentioned above, relate their concepts and guidelines to the three-pillar model of SD to improve it further or give it a suitable framework. Nevertheless, we join in the critics of this model with our own critique (see Section 4.2.1).

We point out that the understandings of SD on the different levels can vary within a certain domain. Many actors share some of these understandings; others exist only on an individual level and contradict the well-known ones. Additionally, scholars are divided considering these different meanings. The philosophical level, for instance, has a normative understanding, whereas models are developed to depict something soberly, to make it visible and easy to understand. These multiple understandings build the crucial backdrop against which our research project "SD@UT" (see Section 3) has been conducted. Taking the general inter- and intragenerational justice basis seriously, there are still different understandings and justification levels of SD.

#### *2.2. Understandings of SD of Stakeholders at HEIs*

As shown above, there are differing understandings and conceptions of SD in the scientific discourse. When we now focus on a certain group of actors, the question arises, in how far these conceptions are reflected within these groups and which aspects of SD are relevant. There are some international studies asking these questions and concentrating on SD understandings of actors at HEIs [17–23]. Unfortunately, such studies are hard to find in the landscape of German HEIs, and moreover, "*there is a shortage of research approaching how faculty and sta*ff *perceive their role in relation to sustainability*" [22] (p. 46). Almost all of these studies set their focus, more or less, on academic staff or even on teaching staff only. Rarely, other university members, e.g., facilities management directors [20] or university presidents [19] are being interviewed. Almost all of the studies hitherto have been conducted in the context of Education for SD and, therefore, it "*is crucial that university faculty and sta*ff *have the necessary conditions and competences to provide key SD skills to the students*" [22] (p. 46). Some of these studies also have a focus on evaluation, as they scrutinize the effects of measures (e.g., trainings and workshops) to implement and teach SD within the academic staff [18,21,23].

However, there are similiar findings in these different research approaches. In general, one clear definition of SD does not exist amongst staff members [17] (p. 121), [22] (p. 53). Nevertheless, almost all actors refer to (natural/ecological/environmental) resources and some to (inter- and intragenerational) justice when asked for the meaning(s) of SD [17] (p. 116f.), [18] (p. 229), [19,20] (p. 119f.), [22] (p. 50f.). When first measures of implementing SD at the HEI took place, more reflective aspects, e.g., the values and norms behind SD, are present [21] (p. 34). Consequently, without those measures, some actors have a more superficial understanding of SD, "*to keep the concept at a distance and avoid engagement with it*" [17] (p. 116).

As we will illustrate later (see Section 3.2.), our study has another approach. It examines understandings of SD within the whole of the university and not only amongst lecturers or teaching staff, due to following the idea of the whole-institution approach.

#### *2.3. The Whole-Institution Approach and HOCH-N's Fields of Action*

As indicated above, different and complex understandings of SD exist. This complexity is particularly increasing when it comes to applying SD in concrete measures, e.g., in organizations or institutions, as such institutions can themselves already act as societies on a micro-level. At the same time, according to Sibbel, "*it is essential to acknowledge the individual as a part of many social and cultural groups, so this calls for a whole systems approach*" [24] (p. 74) to reach a sustainable society. This whole systems approach combines insights from theories of organizational change as well as livings systems theory [25] (p. 202ff). The idea of organic institutions and structures, of structures facing radical changes while at the same time being highly connected with their surroundings (such as other societal or political actors), is easy to apply to institutions facing SD. This is particularly the case compared to concepts focusing on top-down structures.

Consequently, in 2014, the UNESCO proposed that whole-institution approaches are a method to foster sustainability in learning contexts, because all aspects of the context come in focus and sustainability is implied in all of them [26] (p. 30). The idea of a holistic view on SD in certain institutions is highly linked to Education for SD, which is why this approach is often applied to schools, thereby referred to as a "*whole-school approach*" [26–28]. The process of teaching pupils SD is detached from strict lessons at school and broadened to the school as a whole institution. Therefore, it includes areas such as operations and governance.

In this conception, HEIs function primarily as a place where the educators are educated. A more specialized conception is the "*whole-of-university approach*" [29]. In transferring the whole-school approach to HEIs, the idea is, again, that a HEI in all its areas has to participate in applying SD. This idea takes into account that the sole education of SD in lectures and seminars is not enough. In contrast to school institutions, the whole-of-university approach adds research as another dimension and stresses the possible links between the different areas: "*A whole-of-university approach, however, recognizes that all functions of the institution can benefit from sharing knowledge and that each influences the student learning experience*" [29] (p. 57). Notwithstanding, the quote also illustrates some shortcomings in this approach, as the focus point rests on students and their learning of SD.

Authors taking into account the whole-institution approach at the university level equally put their focus on Education for SD (e.g., [30,31]). Our findings are supported by Lozano et al. (2015), who noted a clear focus on topics of education in the scientific literature on "sustainable universities" [32] (p. 4). The same study revealed that members of universities refer to campus operations when asked for SD implementation [32] (p. 9–10). Considering the fact that these respondents know the structures of HEIs, stresses the importance of widening the perspective beyond Education of SD. Therefore, "[f]*uture research could explore in more detail di*ff*erences between stakeholder groups in HEIs (i.e., students, teaching and non-teaching sta*ff*, and relevant external groups)*" [31] (p. 763).

Consequently, the research project HOCH-N follows a different understanding of the whole-institution approach. The research network, which consists of different partner universities in Germany, identified six fields of action where SD can and has to be realized in HEIs. These are sustainability reporting, governance, teaching and education, research, operations, and transfer. These fields of action are highly interconnected and sometimes overlap. Therefore, actors in each field can provide relevant knowledge, experiences, and competencies, and at the same time, profit from relevant knowledge, experiences and competencies of actors from the other fields. For this reason, the focus lies not only on educating students in SD, but on addressing all members of the university as key actors for SD at HEIs. However, implementing a whole-institution approach with its demands of interconnection and holistic outlook is difficult to achieve in practice, even within universities that can be seen as forerunners of implementing SD at HEIs [33] (p. 94). Notwithstanding first trials of pursuing the goal of a sustainable HEI on the systems level via the whole-institution approach [34], there is still a lack of accompanying research studies on preconditions, challenges and outcomes. In our case, at the University of Tübingen, the Competence Centre is working on an implementation of the whole-institution approach and, therefore, has a central role in establishing and fostering this whole-institution approach within the university. We will illustrate the structure and activities of the Competence Centre in the following chapter.

#### *2.4. Knowledge and Competencies to Implement SD at HEIs*

When it comes to knowledge resources, which are necessary to implement SD, the Conference of the Swiss Scientific Academies (CASS) [35] refers to the three forms of (i) system knowledge, (ii) target knowledge, and (iii) transformation knowledge. Knowledge on the current situation is referred to as system knowledge. Target knowledge provides information on the condition, which is to be achieved or prevented. Finally, the understanding of transformation knowledge refers to knowledge stocks that indicate the path to the goal [35] (p. 15). Of course, these forms of knowledge are mutually dependent upon another and, at times, are not clearly distinguishable. However, it is obvious that they indicate a possible pathway from the (undesirable) present to the (desirable) future.

With information on the unsatisfying current situation, on how this situation should be, and on how one could reach the goal, system and target knowledge alone will not change the status quo. This is why another resource necessary to act for SD are action-related competencies. We understand "*competencies*" as "*dispositions which individuals need in this environment for acting and self-organisation in various complex contexts and situations*" [36] (p. 129). Accordingly, competencies for SD are competencies which individuals need to, for instance, implement measures to foster SD [37] (p. 205). In order to move from knowledge to application, the actors need competencies to transfer this knowledge into practical actions. In the field of Education for SD, de Haan identifies twelve different competencies and summarizes them under the general term of "*'Gestaltungskompetenz', or 'shaping competence',* [which] *means the specific capacity to act and solve problems*" [38] (p. 22). De Haan is one of the main contributors to discourse around Education for SD [39]. However, his approach focuses almost exclusively on the function of HEIs as 'educating the educators'. He does not consider tasks, such as research for SD, which are crucial to HEIs as well.

Authors who also address competencies, but focus on students and (university) courses are Wiek et al. [37], Rieckmann [36], and Lozano et al. [40]. However, with their distinctive perspective, they all remain in the field of Education for SD, even though Wiek et al., as well as Rieckmann, go beyond the 'shaping competence', and Lozano et al. bring together competencies and pedagogical methods. Since HEIs do not solely focus on Education for SD, but do conduct research, follow administrative tasks, and disseminate research results into society—just to name a few of their different tasks—university staff working in these areas might need other competencies than those needed in the field of Education for SD. Rieckmann mentions SD challenges for HEIs which concern all their fields of action [36] (p. 129), but does not link his findings to competencies actors would need to solve these problems.

Consequently, HEIs have additional obligations, when it comes to knowledge on and competencies for SD. According to the CASS [35] (p. 21), science is often seen as the 'authority' that is supposed to compile these, the above-mentioned knowledge stocks, and to communicate them into society. Furthermore, it is research for SD that should provide the competencies to engage in implementing SD [41] (p. 2). However, two points are neglected in this analysis. First, this understanding clashes with the transdisciplinary understanding of research for SD [42]. We emphasize that the creation and accumulation of knowledge, as well as the teaching of competencies, are not tasks of science alone. Non-university actors, who represent different societal needs and behalves, are important influencers and shapers of such stocks of knowledge and competencies as well. Since we do not perceive the communication of knowledge and competencies for SD as a purely top-down process, it is crucial to equally engage these actors. Second, science—which, in our case, is represented by the University of Tübingen as HEI—is never isolated from society. All members of a university are citizens as well, who are in direct contact and exchange with their societal environment. Additionally, there is a constant fluctuation of knowledge between science and society, e.g., in the form of scientific reports or discussions.

For this reason, universities have to take their role seriously. They are not only providers for certified knowledge, but also key actors in society. They have to be aware of their political and societal relevance and, therefore, have to act as role models and pioneers on behalf of SD. As much as "*knowledge of people involved and their needs and interests at stake have to be taken into account* ... ] *sustainable development is a socio-political model for societal changes*" [42] (p. 120). Thus, we wanted to understand what kind of knowledge, skills, and competencies are present and especially needed amongst key actors for SD at the University of Tübingen. Additionally, it is crucial to reveal the university's members further expectations and needs. Only if we know them we are able to plan and conceptualize future activities of the Competence Centre in cooperation with other actors of the university. For this reason, we conducted interviews in order to get insights into the university's different fields of action. Hence, we now turn the tables and want to know which knowledge and skills are needed to act for SD in the frame of a university.

#### **3. The Tübingen Case: The Competence Centre and its Research Project**

#### *3.1. One University, One Centre, Many Activities and Partners—The Competence Center for Sustainable Development*

In 2013, the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the State of Baden-Württemberg decided to fund the concept development and installation of a Competence Centre for Sustainable Development at the University of Tübingen as part of a program "Science for Sustainable Development". The Competence Centre is associated with the International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities (IZEW) as one major player for SD, and its main tasks are to bring together all activities in the field of SD at the University of Tübingen, as well as to integrate Education for SD into teaching activities of all curricula. The above-mentioned whole-institution approach (see Section 2.3) provided the starting point for creating the Competence Centre, which addresses researchers, teachers, employees, students, and governance structures at the same time (see Figure 1). The major aim is to combine different actions and measures, which all members of the university carry out and/or implement at all university levels. Additionally, the Competence Centre is the core of an overarching network—not only in the University of Tübingen but also beyond. This approach is based on the idea that a university has a societal responsibility and serves as a role model and blueprint for other societal actors and stakeholders. For this reason, practitioners, for instance from NGOs, are sometimes cooperating in the Centre's activities. Transdisciplinary approaches are fostered but they are still in their early stages. To strengthen its SD networking activities in the university and beyond, the Competence Centre organizes regular network meetings and provides funding for small SD projects, which are initiated and realized by students.

**Figure 1.** The Competence Centre in the University's Sustainable Development (SD) structure.

The establishment of the Competence Centre is a result of various bottom-up efforts at the University of Tübingen, especially by student initiatives as well as researchers and teachers [43] (p. 210). The efforts and claims of the student initiative "Greening the University e.V." led to the installation of the Board for Sustainable Development [44] in 2010. The Board's work is now coordinated by the Competence Centre. The Board for SD is the main consultant of the president's office of the University of Tübingen concerning all questions on SD. Furthermore, the student initiative's efforts gave way to implementing the EMAS audit at the university in 2011 [45]. The University's Environment and Energy Management section, which is in close contact to the Competence Centre, is responsible for the regularly conducted EMAS audits.

Today, the Competence Centre is active in every field of the University of Tübingen and cooperates with many members of the university. The Centre uses its position to create awareness for topics of SD—within the university as well as for the broader public. The Centre's employees organize public events such as sustainability slams, clothes-trading events or vernissages, as well as workshops for pupils to transfer ideas of and awareness for SD to practical action. Since students and young scientists are driving forces for change and take things into their own hands [46] (p. 6), the Competence Centre aims at enabling students to take over responsibility, to empower themselves, and to foster SD according to their own interests. For this reason, the Centre mentors students who are planning SD projects or want to write their thesis in a field of SD. However, the most important point in this field are the SD network meetings ("*nachhaltig@UniTübingen*" [47]) for all university members to create the room they need for developing new bottom-up ideas. One of the last meetings was organized in cooperation with the Competence Centre and the student representatives in the Board for SD [48].

In summary, the Competence Centre is the university's network nexus point, which brings together people, knowledge, and competencies under the umbrella of SD. It provides contexts and structures to realize SD projects on all university levels and makes people's ideas shine for a better future.

#### *3.2. The Research Project "SD@UT"*

Whether a HEI moves forward to implement measures which lead to SD depends on several conditions. On the one hand, one of those characteristics is its understanding of SD, which is the basis for all activities a HEI carries out in the frame of SD [49] (p. 322). For this reason, it may be considered as crucially important for a HEI to develop a common understanding of SD, if it is keen to contributing its part to a sustainable society. On the other hand, "*it is impossible to come up with the right definition*" [50], since so many actors and their various perspectives are involved in the discussion on working for SD in a large institution like a university. It shall be noted that apart from different details in understanding SD, there are also members of the university who would reject the immediate necessity of considerable transformations for SD in the first place.

This sensitive and controversial field is where the activities of the Competence Centre are located. From its starting point in 2013 until now, the Competence Centre has set up, experienced, and analyzed a broad range of different activities. It turned out that members of the University of Tübingen have different understandings of what SD is and of how exactly it should be implemented. Even though "*Sustainable Development is not an externally defined goal, but an open searching process with heterogeneous target components*" [51] (pp. 16–17, translated by the authors), it is obviously difficult to plan and implement further activities in the field of SD. This problematic situation led to the birth of the Competence Centre's research project, "Sustainable Development at the University of Tübingen (SD@UT)". With this project, we want to shed light on the following research questions already mentioned above:


#### *3.3. Methods*

Since our goal was to include as many actors and their perspectives, insights, and knowledge as possible, a research approach, which is based on a well-differentiated and balanced methodology is appropriate. According to Mikkelsen, "*a wealth of information* [is] *hidden in a variety of sources*" [52] (p. 87). For this reason, we based our methodology on three columns (see Figure 2). These are desktop research, questionnaires, and interviews.


**Figure 2.** SD@UT—Research methodology and research questions.

#### 3.3.1. Desktop Research

One important part of the desktop research was a stakeholder analysis of the actors who are involved in topics of SD at the university, which we did at the beginning of the research project. Whether "stakeholder" is or should be a proper category for individuals of different groups at HEIs shall not be discussed here. We use it as a technical term in a generic sense of social science research, which, in this case, comprises persons active for SD at our university. We identified all members of the university who have already taken part in any activities of the Competence Centre or with whom the Centre has already cooperated. Additionally, we identified individuals who are involved in certain fields of action, for example, research or administration. However, it was also important to include

university members who work in overlapping fields, such as the University Library, science didactics, or the Foreign Language Centre. Finally, we equally set a focus on student groups who want to foster SD at the university. It was our goal to depict not only the HOCH-N fields of action in our work but equally to include 'representatives' for every SDG. With the help of the stakeholder analysis, we could identify university members whose opinions and experiences qualified them to be part of our questionnaire survey. Additionally, a broad literature research and content analysis of these documents supports and informs the discussions and topics revealed in this article.

#### 3.3.2. Questionnaires

In April and May 2019, the Competence Centre identified 76 stakeholders in the field of SD at the University of Tübingen. Student initiatives, professionally active persons, and committed individuals, as well as political groups and representatives of committees were included. Then, the Competence Centre conducted a survey on the understandings and values of SD amongst this wide range of stakeholders. The questionnaire has been developed to obtain an insight on actors' understandings of and values behind SD. For this reason, we framed two types of questions: First, we directly asked about understandings of and values behind SD. Second, we had the idea to ask, in an indirect way, about both of these issues to obtain even more information. We operationalized "values behind SD" through the reasons to act for SD and "understandings of SD" through activities for SD. In our last question, we additionally wanted to learn how we, as members of the Competence Centre, could support the stakeholders with our own further activities. We sent the questionnaire to 76 members of initiatives and university groups, including students, as well as university employees from the fields of research, teaching and education, sustainability reporting, transfer, governance, and operations, who are all working on SD issues. 30 questionnaires were completed and sent back to the Centre, which corresponds to a return rate of 39.5%. Hence, the Competence Centre is able to provide an overview of the actors' understandings of SD and the values behind them. For the analysis of our data, we extracted the core statements of the questionnaires' responses, clustered them, and assigned them to appropriate keywords. We present the results in Section 4.2.

#### 3.3.3. Interviews

In August and September 2019, we conducted six open-guideline face-to-face interviews with representatives of all six HEI areas introduced by the project HOCH-N: sustainability reporting, governance, research, teaching and education, transfer, and operations. We chose our interview partners due to their professional tasks and their personal commitment, as well as their experiences in the field of SD. The interviews consisted of five open questions and gave much room for the interviewees' own perspectives. They were all recorded and transcribed, and took around 10 to 30 min. Our guideline included questions on the importance and necessity of specific knowledge and competencies for SD for the interviewees themselves, other university stakeholders involved in actions for SD, as well as stakeholders who are not active in any area of SD.

We analyzed our data conducting a qualitative content analysis. Our analysis was summarized in categories which we supported by extracted quotes of our interviewees. With the help of our categories and the quotes, we were able to learn in detail about the interviewees' perspectives on their own knowledge and competencies, as well as on knowledge and competencies they wished others to have, who (do not yet) act for SD. We present the interviews' results in Section 4.3.

#### **4. Results**

In the following chapter, we first present the status quo of SD actions and institutionalization at the University of Tübingen. Second, we present the questionnaires' findings and demonstrate how they are connected to the Brundtland understanding of SD. Finally, we explain which knowledge and competencies actors need, who are involved in fostering SD at the University of Tübingen, according to our interviewees.

However, before we do so, we present some results of the stakeholder analysis of the actors who are involved in topics of SD at the University of Tübingen.

#### *4.1. Stakeholder Analysis: Actors Involved in Topics of Sustainable Development*

Since the University of Tübingen is one of the eleven HEIs, which are involved in the research project HOCH-N and, at the same time, the Competence Centre is set up to implement SD in all parts of the university—striving for a whole-institution approach—we analyzed the measures, which many stakeholders take at the University of Tübingen, to foster SD. Then, we closely considered future potentials in each field of action for the realization of SD at the University of Tübingen.

An analysis of all the fields of action and activities, which stakeholders carry out on behalf of SD at the University of Tübingen, is a challenge in itself and necessarily demands an own research project. For this reason, our analysis is not exhausted and only represents exemplary activities. Table 1 lists some results of our analysis.


**Table 1.** SD activities at the University of Tübingen.

In summary, different measures to realize SD on the different levels of the university are set in practice. Some are already institutionalized to a high degree (e.g., the university's EMAS certification or the Advisory Board for SD) others are project-based activities (e.g., GLOBUS), which will come to an end. All in all, we found that many activities are carried out due to the personal commitment of individual university members. However, to successfully anchor SD on all levels of the university, this commitment has to spill over and every stakeholder of the university has to be committed to SD.

According to Niedlich et al. [72] (p. 3), a HEI needs to change its institutional culture if SD shall be put in practice because SD affects the whole HEI as an organization. They identified four categories of organizational culture as key areas for SD governance at a HEI. We emphasize the fourth, highlighting the importance of a "*holistic governance covering all core areas of higher education institutions—teaching, research, operations and outreach*" [72] (p. 4). With our findings, we are able to support this argument since it is crucially important for a HEI that the goal to realize SD at the whole university level is commonly pursued bottom-up and top-down.

#### *4.2. The Understanding of Sustainable Development at the University of Tübingen, the Values Behind it, and the Interconnection to the Brundtland Report*

#### 4.2.1. Understandings of Sustainable Development at the University of Tübingen

As mentioned above, the Competence Centre has assembled the first university-wide understandings of SD according to the questionnaires' results. Of course, this understanding needs to be reworked and discussed continuously, since foci could change and perspectives are renewed due to new stakeholders, who will join the area of SD at the university. In its mission statement, the University of Tübingen affirms the "*maxim of sustainable development*" and "*regards sustainability as an integral part of research and teaching*" [73] (translated by the authors). Provided with this framework, it is essential for all members of the university to understand what SD means.

The Competence Centre's understanding of SD is based on the Brundtland Report of 1987, which also was mentioned several times in the questionnaires. For this reason, we will use it as the core meaning. As outlined above, SD means a development, which "*meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs*" [5] (p. 16). At the same time, this development has to and can only happen within the scope of limited technical possibilities and finite natural resources [5]. The three-pillar model of SD is very common and well-known (see Section 2.1), and reasonably criticized by many scholars [13,16,74,75]. As well, in our perspective, it is not suitable for several reasons: (i) It does not depict the complexity of the SD understanding mentioned above, (ii) it ignores exactly those interdependencies between the three pillars of economy, ecology, and society, causing most of the problems and difficulties related with SD, and (iii) it is a static model, which does not demonstrate the process-oriented nature of SD. This theoretical frame of SD has been communicated by the Competence Centre on many occasions, e.g., the networking days "*nachhaltig@UniTuebingen*".

During the questionnaires' analysis, we assigned the core statements of the SD understandings to the key words, which are illustrated in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Understandings of SD at the University of Tübingen.

In the following, we summarize, categorize, and reproduce the questionnaires' answers on the understandings of SD.

In the questionnaires, stakeholders mentioned several levels of SD; one of them is the personal dimension. At this level, we have the opportunity to change our own lifestyle and influence SD. The societal dimension connects individual and collective actions and brings forward society as well as its processes. Additionally, SD is to be realized on the professional, the institutional, and the political levels where aspects of development politics have to be integrated as well. At the global level, inequalities between humans should be reduced to make the world a better place. Overall, the world should become more just, and inter- and intragenerational interests have to be considered, as well as distributive justice and equality of opportunities. If people pay attention to the environment and all living creatures around them, the highest well-being and the best quality of life for every living being will be achieved.

SD can be realized if people are educated for and sensitive to, as well as conscious of, aspects of SD. These statements are important for HEIs and their research, education, and teaching spheres.

Another important aspect which contributes to SD is the conservation and protection of natural resources. Especially the responsible use of resources, the reduction of pollutant emissions, recycling, and the consequences of livestock farming for the use of resources and human health are important points to consider. The continuous protection of biodiversity and the diversity of species result in resistant ecosystems, which will contribute to the protection of our climate. According to the questionnaires, it is equally important to reduce climate change and to consider the interests of all non-human animals to avoid damages for the environment and nature.

Another aspect is the role of companies, which strive for the common good, and of managers, who use their scope of action for responsible decisions. Furthermore, it is urgent for the economic sector to take its responsibility seriously and to implement CSR strategies such as people, planet & profit (see John Elkington, who introduced the term "*triple bottom line*" in 1994. Further information on what he thinks today are accessible online [76]). The optimization of processes and the consideration of consequences on other regions of the world and future generations contribute to SD, too.

The last aspect, continuously mentioned in the questionnaires, evolves around the individual. Everyone can be a role model, who critically reflects on topics of SD, and thinks of consequences for his/her everyday life, acts responsibly, as well as motivates others. Part of it is certainly to question our own consumption of food and all other products, to live sufficiently, and to avoid a large ecological footprint. Finally, mobility needs to shift from the individual to the public level to create and establish an infrastructure for sustainable actions—not only in the sense of mobility.

#### 4.2.2. Values behind Sustainable Development

The answers, which dealt with the values people associate with SD, were as various as the answers which were given to explain the understandings of SD. Figure 2 gives an overview of the statements on SD values. Some of the values are not values in the classical, philosophical and sociological understandings. For this reason, the key words we assigned them to are not values in this sense. From our perspective, it was crucial not to understand the answers too conceptually because we want every member of the university to find her/his opinion at least partly reflected.

The core value is a "*good life for everybody*". It is the basis for all other values and, at the same time, refers to the Brundtland Report's moral background of SD (see Figure 3). Values, which we assigned to the key word justice, seem to be an important contribution to such a good life. They rank from social justice, to generational and environmental justice, up to global justice and solidarity.

**Figure 3.** Values behind SD; results of the questionnaires.

The key word fairness summarizes values, such as equality and equal rights for men and women. These values show an overlapping in terms of content with justice and structures, especially social security. Other values we assigned to structures are structural change, processuality, movement, and dynamics. In addition to these values, which are based on change, there were also answers pointing to resilience and consistency.

There is a strong relation between the key concepts justice, structures, and esteem. However, values, assigned to esteem have a broader meaning and include respect for all forms of life and nature. Cultural openness can be attributed to these values as well.

We differentiated values assigned to the key concepts structures, esteem, and future. Here, we include durability, the inclusion of long-term consequences and potential, as well as a future-orientation. Future generations play an important role in this cluster, as do challenges, with regard to the future.

There are also values, which are closer related to social action: solidarity, reciprocity, fraternity, compassion, and peace which show the importance of own behavior towards fellow humans (global, current, and in the future).

Closely related to these values are the ones we assigned to responsibility. The scope of responsibility includes nature, environment, as well as future generations, and equally focusses on the present and the future.

The key word ethical practice summarizes answers which are strongly directed towards reflexive actions and which emphasize specific ethical and moral components of SD. Part of these are truthfulness, the ability to criticize oneself, and reflection, as well as ethics as the capability to include the others' needs and to act ethically. The value "*not live beyond our means*" is equally part of ethical practice and, at the same time, is the link to sufficiency. Here, we included satisfaction, modesty, as well as slowing down. The cluster of sufficiency is closely related to values we assigned to the key word economy. Those emphasize economic aspects and include profitability, public welfare or a full cost accounting for every product. A minimum wage for all employees, as well as fair pricing of loans, link to fairness and justice.

Equally, the concept of "buen vivir" [77] has been mentioned several times. "Buen vivir" originates in Latin America and is a concept for development, giving nature an intrinsic value and highlighting the importance of togetherness of all living beings. We summarized this life in balance with nature and society, and added the Western notion "*humankind as part of the ecosystem*" as well as the sustainable protection of all living creatures, due to their own value of life (for their own sake). This value shows the interconnection to the key words of protection.

Answers we assigned to protection include health, the environment, as well as the protection of nature and climate. The preservation of an environment, which is worthwhile to live in and is capable to live for itself, is closely connected to the protection of resources and resource neutrality. These are part of the key word resources.

We summarized other crucial values to the key word knowledge. These values deal with prudence, care, and mindfulness, as well as consciousness of and education for a careful use of natural resources, for instance. In our opinion, key words as ethical practice, resources, and protection can only be rationalized and then realized, if people know the necessary facts. To take a step further and turn this knowledge to action, everybody needs fun and a personal vocation, which we listed with the key word motivation.

4.2.3. What about the Brundtland Concept of SD?

In summary, there are three key words amongst the answers on understanding of SD, which are, as well, reflected in the values behind SD. These red threads are justice, (preservation of) resources and protection (avoidance of damages, preservation). We summarized them in Table 3.


#### **Table 3.** Results of the questionnaires, red threads of SD.

The statements, which we assigned to these key words, show a high divergence in numbers between understandings of and values behind SD. In the category 'understandings of SD', justice, preservation of resources, and protection (avoidance of damages, preservation) include the most (resources) and third most mentioned statements (others). The category 'values behind SD' includes the third most mentioned statements on protection. However, justice and resources show the second and third lowest numbers. In the case of 'justice', this is due to the fact that we assigned slightly different statements to the key words 'fairness' and 'ethical practice'. Nevertheless, these keywords cover similar statements. If we summed them up to the statements of 'justice', this conceptual cloud would include the highest number of statements (17). The same applies to 'resources', which have often been associated with 'future'. If we summed up both numbers of statements, we had the number of 14, which, would be the second highest after the 'justice cloud'.

Since these keywords are represented in the Brundtland understanding of SD as well, we shortly demonstrate how the UN linked justice, resources, and protection to SD. For instance, humanity shall ensure that development is sustainable to meet "*the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs*" [5] (p. 16). Hence, SD is based on the values of inter- and intragenerational justice. Furthermore, the world's poor should "*get their fair share of resources*" [5] (p. 16), which clearly links justice to the distribution of resources. Additionally, according to Brundtland, injustice and environmental degradation as well as poverty and conflict "*interact in complex and potent ways*" [5] (p. 240), which illustrates again the importance to protect and preserve nature and environment. Only if both are not exploited to a non-renewable degree can intragenerational justice be realized. Additionally, the normative claim of justice does not go hand in hand with the three-pillar model of SD but demands an integrative understanding of SD, which we want to realize with the whole-institution approach.

#### *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 861

For this reason, our research confirms the suggestion to explicitly use the Brundtland understanding of SD for the whole University of Tübingen.

#### *4.3. Which Knowledge and Competencies are Needed to Realize SD in the University of Tübingen? Transfer of Knowledge—Results of the Interviews*

The project SD@UT does not merely analyze the status quo of differing understandings (see Section 4.2.1) and the institutionalization of SD in the University (see Section 4.1). The main goal is to identify concrete measures of how SD comes into practice and how these measures can be optimized. One of the core elements in the understanding of Sustainable Development in the scientific and political discourse is the idea that—besides society and politics—each individual can and should take action to change "unsustainable" conditions and behaviors [11,78]. This requirement was also mentioned in our questionnaires on understandings and values of SD. However, from our point of view, it could be a challenge for each individual to actively involve in practicing SD. It is our hypothesis that actors need appropriate knowledge and necessary skills and competencies to act for SD. For this reason, it might be difficult for those who do not possess—or at least think they do not possess—adequate knowledge or competencies to engage in these activities. To learn if our hypothesis was right or wrong and to obtain insights in knowledge and competencies, stakeholders needed to act for SD working in the six different fields of action at the University of Tübingen, where we carried out six interviews, each with one representative of one field of action.

#### 4.3.1. Proof of the Hypothesis

With the help of the interviews, we wanted to gain more and deeper insights into competencies and knowledge, which are needed to actively foster SD in the context of a university.

All six interviewees agreed on our assumption that specific knowledge and competencies are needed to set SD in practice at all levels of a university. Two of them explained that this particular knowledge can be learnt and accumulates over time. One said that a certain (scientific) background would help and ease this learning process. This knowledge depends, on the one hand, on the field of action the person is fostering measures to act for SD. On the other hand, it depends on the goals which are to be achieved.

#### 4.3.2. Knowledge and Competencies for Each Field of Action

There is specific knowledge, which all representatives have, and competencies they need in their individual field of action.

In the area of sustainability reporting, it is important to know the organizational structures of the university to detect connecting and, maybe, leverage points. Another essential competence is communication with different players at the university and networking with local groups and other HEIs, which implies not only psychological but also strategic competencies. Additionally, it is crucial to strengthen the intrinsic motivation of the university's members and to always keep on maintaining their interest in processes connected to SD. The interviewee feels that these points are important "*that something happens here in the form of concrete projects*" (interview sustainability reporting, min. 04:04, translated by the authors).

The interviewee from the field of governance laid emphasis on the competence to transfer knowledge and to network. It is important to know how to communicate with different stakeholders of the university and to keep on bringing SD topics to the table, which needs courage and diplomatic skills.

In the context of teaching and education, knowledge on topics of SD is essential. For scientific teachers, it is important to be open and to accumulate new knowledge on SD. Another point the interviewee mentioned is to integrate knowledge of the teacher's own research into the seminars. The interaction with scientific colleagues, who are working on similar topics, is an important aspect as well.

The representative person of the field of operations said it is important to learn from scientific disciplines, especially psychology and empirical cultural studies, how to motivate all members of the university to feel responsible and to not forget the bigger picture. For this field of action, it is important to have the competencies to initiate bottom-up processes and to be involved with student representatives. They are the ones who are able to influence their fellow students and confront them with their own actions' consequences. For this reason, it is essential to network and see synergies, and especially to cooperate with other stakeholders, who are interested in similar topics: "*Those people are everywhere, and if you join them and you work together you really can achieve something*" (interview operations, min. 16:35, translated by the authors). Another crucial point is to be ambitious and set high goals.

In the field of research, the interviewee told us that it is important to develop an own understanding of SD and to gain knowledge on the planetary boundaries of the earth. Then, there are thematic foci an SD scientist can carry out research for, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity or nuclear disarmament. These topics all have practical implications and have to be worked on since they are crucial for the survival of humanity. For this reason, a researcher has to prioritize to actively work on them and not solely discuss them theoretically.

Finally, the representative of the field of transfer laid emphasis on the knowledge of what SD is, and how structures and contexts of SD work in a university. For transfer, it is important to listen to each other carefully and to bring together different ideas as well as to integrate them into concrete projects. Additionally, there is the point of courage to foster topics, which may not be valued by many other actors in society, and to show an intrinsic motivation for change. In the end, for transfer, it is essential to be able to renounce decent things in life and to enjoy challenging oneself, and trying things out.

All interviewees agreed that the knowledge and the competencies they mentioned are finally not specific for the field of SD. On the contrary, people who own these competencies are able to work more productively because "*these are basic things you need and they are not necessarily related to Sustainable Development. They are connected to SD*, *but actually these are human and social competencies you have to own in general*" (interview sustainability reporting, min. 06:14, translated by the authors). Another interviewee added that these competencies fit into her desired ideal conception of humans and do not depend on SD.

#### 4.3.3. Knowledge and Competencies to Foster SD in General at a HEI—What Do We Have, What Do We Need?

When we asked the interviewees about the specific knowledge and competencies members of the university involved in fostering SD should have, we received numerous and varying responses.

The person from the field of sustainability reporting emphasized that, on the one hand, a person's interest in support processes is more important than the competencies s/he owns. Especially students need—and do have—motivation to change things. On the other hand, expert knowledge is needed to successfully carry out specific projects.

In the field of governance, it is crucial to find suitable arguments and to know that topics of SD are a red thread, which runs through the whole university. Additional essential competencies are the awareness of other people's needs and interests, as well as the ability to (empathically) deal with other people.

The representative of teaching and education told us that transdisciplinarity is a key aspect of education for SD. People need a sense of responsibility to see and understand the damages their actions are causing: "*People need to understand that it is their business!*" (interview teaching and education, min. 09:07, translated by the authors). On all levels of the university where people make important decisions, they need to understand the financial consequences of non-sustainable management. Additionally, decision-makers need to perceive and understand the responsibility of a university.

In the field of operations, this sense of responsibility is a crucial point as well. However, it is not only the responsibility of the institution university but also a responsibility for the university. For instance, teaching staff should feel positive about being able to use the university's infrastructure, such as rooms, and should have an interest for their students to leave these rooms clean. Then, all members of the university should feel the task to foster SD in society and to act as key agents for SD.

For the area of research, expert knowledge on topics concerning the environment or ecology is essential. Another crucial point is to include non-scientific actors in the sense of transdisciplinary practice and research.

The representative for the field transfer appreciates the ability to first think in a utopic way and, in a second step, think realistically. All university members should be courageous and think big to not restrict themselves during the search for new ideas and solutions. In discussions, the abilities to focus on the topic and to set back one's own questions and interests are very important. This point is related to the competence of being neutral, having self-regulatory skills, and being disciplined.

The last question dealt with the competencies our interviewees have themselves and wished for others, who are not involved in SD activities (yet).

In the area of sustainability reporting, clearly the competence to network and bring knowledge together is key. The representative of governance mentioned characteristics such as motivation, perseverance, the ability to network, and being open-minded. In the area of teaching and education, others should be able to think things together, to broaden their own horizon, and not to remain in rigid structures. She wishes for every member of the university to know and understand "*that every action* [they take] *here may have a consequence somewhere else*" (interview teaching and education, min. 16:49, translated by the authors). The interviewee of the field of operations said that she would like all members of the university to get in touch with others to network and to learn continuously. Another wish she had was to recognize the enrichment of the whole process and to experience moments of happiness when they go through this transformation: "*I really wish people that they can integrate this* [SD] *into their lives and experience what I experience, how nice it can be!*" (interview operations, min. 23:50, translated by the authors). The representative of the area of research mentioned a cooperative and friendly attitude, fairness, as well as the will to work together. He appreciates the exchange with colleagues in order to learn from each other. Finally, the interviewee from the field of transfer wishes everybody to recognize their own privileges and to reflect on the consequences their actions have for planet earth. No member of the university should stay alone and think of how it will be possible to pass on his or her knowledge to others. In closing, she wishes that everybody had the willpower to change something in every area of his or her own life.

#### 4.3.4. Knowledge and Competencies to Foster SD at a HEI—What Do We Learn?

In summary, all interviewees agreed to our assumption that specific knowledge and competencies are needed to set SD in practice at all levels of a university. There is specific knowledge all representatives have and there are competencies they all need in their individual field of action: networking, keeping sight of the big picture, interaction, and cooperation are the red threads through all the fields of action. This finding is supported by Rieckmann [36] (p. 133), who identified a set of twelve key competencies for SD which include (i) the "competency for cooperation in (heterogeneous) groups", (ii) the "competency for systemic thinking and handling complexity", and (iii) the "competency for empathy and change of perspective".

Hence, on the one hand there are basic competencies, which are needed in all areas of a university as well as specific knowledge and abilities. On the other hand, all interviewees agreed on the fact that the knowledge and competencies, which they need for their own field of action, are not specific SD competencies but facilitate work in general and social abilities people need.

As we view it, this is not as surprising as it seems at first sight. First, the goal in SD every interviewee is striving for is a very broad one. The field of governance did not define it (yet) and the University of Tübingen does not own an explicit sustainability strategy. Consequently, all actors, who are involved in the field of SD, follow their own SD understanding. This is not necessarily 'good' or 'bad'—on the one hand, one could easily lose the big picture; on the other hand, every individual has the freedom to engage actively in his or her favorite topic. Since SD is a process of societal transformation, the interviewees mentioned knowledge and competencies, which "*are somehow helpful for transformation of any kind*, *or for structural change of any kind*" (interview transfer, min. 15:33, translated by the authors). Recently, Niedlich et al. [72] found out that there are significant differences in the conception of SD at the eleven German HEIs they examined. This is due to the lack or existence of a common understanding of SD and an SD mission statement, the way SD discussions are handled and communicated into a HEI, as well as the focus of the SD definition and the targeted SD dimensions [72] (p. 9). For most HEIs Niedlich et al. studied, it is a major challenge to establish a whole-institution approach to SD governance [72] (p. 10). Therefore, it is not surprising that the University of Tübingen, as one of the HOCH-N collaboration partners, provides an example for a HEI which holds no commonly shared conception of SD, and which seems to struggle to find its way to SD governance.

Additionally, the goals are to connect actors and to think of the big picture, as well as to understand the university structures demand for the necessary system, target, and transformation knowledge. According to our interviewees, they have the necessary system and transformation knowledge, or they know with whom they could collaborate to incorporate it. The necessary target knowledge for the specific actions of individuals or groups is also largely available. What is lacking is the target and, even more so, transformative action knowledge to jointly achieve the big picture—a more sustainable university. It is obviously difficult for all members of the university to acquire this kind of knowledge, if there is no sustainability strategy, which leads to a common goal and roadmap, and no statement to explain the university's understanding of SD. Hence, the actors cannot acquire the lacking target knowledge. For this reason, it is even more difficult for them to define necessary competencies they would need. Again, especially for HEIs, it is of utmost importance to understand that knowledge alone will not lead to successful action. Consequently, they mention broader transformation competencies, acting within their own scope, and planning their own actions and activities.

It would be the university's next task to set up an SD-strategy which is (i) explicitly based on the SD understanding following the Brundtland Commission [5], and (ii) will be specified in a participatory process to be organized by the Competence Centre. Then, the university could profit even more from its motivated members, who have the willpower to change something.

#### **5. Discussions and Outlook**

We have shown that the understandings of and values behind SD in the scientific and political discourse, as well as at the University of Tübingen, are diverse. However, we were able to demonstrate how actors' understandings and the values behind them at the University of Tübingen are in accordance with the Brundtland understanding of SD. We also showed that at the University of Tübingen many actors already fill the fields of action to foster SD. Nevertheless, there is much room to strengthen and improve activities and their output, as well as to give actors the support and freedom they need to strengthen SD at the University of Tübingen. Finally, we were able to demonstrate that both knowledge and competencies are fundamental to act for SD. Since the University of Tübingen has not yet made an explicit statement on its understanding of SD, it appears to be difficult for the actors to acquire specific knowledge to reach SD for the whole university. For this reason, they possess broad knowledge and competencies, which are crucial to any process of transformation.

Even though existing scientific studies put their focus on teaching staff and not the whole HEI as a unity fostering SD (see Section 2.2), some of our findings on the understandings of SD match these studies' results. Two important issues that were raised repeatedly in the literature [17–20,22] were '(natural/ecological/environmental) resources' and '(inter- and intragenerational) justice'. In our questionnaires' responses, these keywords were raised as well. However, the understandings of SD at the University of Tübingen are far more distinct and nuanced. We assume this is firstly due to the fact that we concentrated on stakeholders who are already involved in thematic fields of SD, and secondly, because we included university members of all fields of action carrying out a research based on the whole-institution approach (see Section 2.3).

In general, we are able to assign the understandings of and values behind SD of stakeholders at Tübingen University to the different contexts and levels of politics, philosophy, and personality, as well as to existing models (see Section 2.1). For instance, they refer to the Brundtland Report (political level), the three pillars model (models), responsible behavior (personal level), and thematic issues related to the 'good life' (philosophical level).

Existing research on university members' competencies for SD equally sets a focus on the field of Education for SD (see Section 2.4). Literature on research for SD competencies at the whole HEI, including different fields of action, does not seem to exist yet. With our results, we demonstrate existing similarities in the perceptions of university members of (i) competencies being key in Education for SD and ii) competencies our interviewees mentioned to be important for setting SD in practice at the whole university level (see Section 4.3.4). As we have outlined, we started from the perspective of a whole-institution approach at the University of Tübingen and combined it with a research project that searches for key actors' understandings and values of SD, as well as the competencies and the knowledge to set SD in practice. With this particular approach, we aimed at looking at the University of Tübingen as a whole. Therefore, our perspective was broad enough to consider all relevant fields of action. At the same time, our perspective was narrow, as we concentrated only on one HEI. For this reason, we cannot simply transfer our results and the approach we chose to other HEIs, although many of our findings resonate very much with shared experiences at other HEIs, e.g., in the HOCH-N network. This is, firstly, because we only asked and interviewed actors at the university that already had a relation to SD. It will be more representative to widen this perspective and include actors who are not yet involved in SD activities. However, this could be the next step for further research.

Secondly, our approach is a special one since, as of now, the University of Tübingen practices SD within ongoing research, education and teaching, and management. Other HEIs emphasize establishing a specific sustainability science or focus on transfer. This means that they act in different contexts with, surely, other settings, opportunities, and results. Thirdly, the German landscape of HEIs is diverse and ranges from comprehensive universities (as Tübingen) and Technical Universities to application-oriented Applied Sciences Universities (Fachhochschulen) and Universities of Teaching (Pädagogische Hochschulen). Following Niedlich et al. [72] (p. 13), and Wals [23] (p. 11) we clearly expect that different orientations of HEIs manifest in different structures. This may result in different foci of knowledge and competencies that the actors at different HEIs have and need, as the relations of the different fields of action may also differ. Further research and comparison of the findings might be very helpful in identifying such differences. As we considered above, the idea of the whole-institution approach is that actors in different areas of an institution can learn from each other. In broadening this approach to a, as we want to call it, 'whole-institutions approach', different institutions can learn, likewise, from each other and adopt fruitful measures in fostering SD.

It is also important to point out that not only our research topic is settled on a certain discourse, but also that the whole discourse itself is a rather Western- or even Germany-centered discourse. However, there are, of course, other concepts, which emerged in the Global South that could improve this discourse. Interestingly, even in our questionnaires, some actors referred to such concepts, e.g., "buen vivir", and integrated these concepts into their own understandings and values of SD. Since SD is a global task, it requires international dialogue [36] (p. 130). Including other concepts broadens the perspective and prevents the danger of a Westernized, or even neo-colonial, point of view, which may include more individual-oriented and technocratic aspects than counter-concepts developed in countries of the Global South. Therefore, these concepts have to be taken into account and the German and Western scientific discourse on SD still lacks a systematic consideration of them.

In the original outline of our research project, we planned to equally integrate perspectives from the Global South and, therefore, sent questionnaires to members of the University of Ghana and the Valley View University in Ghana. Unfortunately, the response rate was very low, so that we could not take these answers into account. However, we managed to get in contact with the "Clean Africa e.V.", an organization that regularly holds summer schools in the Global South, and is right now planning a summer school in Ghana with a focus on the whole-institution approach and SD at Ghanaian universities in summer 2020. We plan the Competence Centre's participation in this summer school to get in contact with key actors of universities in Ghana.

Furthermore, the Competence Centre could profit very much from an intense exchange with key actors at Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia, especially in the person of Professor Workineh Golga Kelbessa. He has already visited the International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities several times. In October 2018, the Competence Centre and the research project "Energielabor" have organized a workshop on SD and Environmental Ethics, presenting exemplary perspectives from Africa and Europe, where Professor Kelbessa was one of the keynote speakers.

Additionally, the Competence Centre was involved in a small research project at Lake Kivu, Rwanda, in the summer of 2019 [79]. Together with scientists from the Universities of Heidelberg and Karlsruhe, the Competence Centre examined opportunities to mine methane in Lake Kivu and talked to involved actors on their understandings of SD, and why this form of energy supply was important from their perspective.

Following these different measures, which should just serve as illustrations of how to proceed, we are optimistic that we will manage to integrate perspectives from actors of the Global South in our findings, also in order to broaden the scope of a sustainable University of Tübingen.

**Author Contributions:** All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript. Conceptualization, M.B., K.S. and T.P.; methodology, K.S., M.B.; validation, K.S., M.B. and T.P.; formal analysis, K.S. and M.B.; investigation, M.B. and K.S.; data curation, K.S. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, K.S. and M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.B., K.S. and T.P.; visualization, K.S.; supervision, T.P.; project administration, M.B. and K.S.; funding acquisition, T.P. and K.S.

**Funding:** This research was supported by the Institutional Strategy of the University of Tübingen (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, ZUK 63).

**Acknowledgments:** We want to thank Katharina Wezel, who did an excellent job in analyzing and summarizing SD activities in each field of action at the University of Tübingen. Thanks to Margarita Berg for very helpful language editing. Our deepest gratitude goes to our interview partners and all those who were willing to fill in our questionnaires. We acknowledge support by Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Tübingen. We thank the editors of this special issue, Inka Bormann and Marco Rieckmann, as well as the reviewers for their valuable critique and comments.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **The Role of Environmental Management Performance in Higher Education Institutions**

#### **Nicolas Roos 1,\*, Xaver Heinicke 2,\*, Edeltraud Guenther <sup>3</sup> and Thomas W. Guenther <sup>2</sup>**


Received: 28 November 2019; Accepted: 11 January 2020; Published: 16 January 2020

**Abstract:** Higher education institutions (HEIs) are influential social institutions which educate future decision-makers and shape society as a whole. Motivated by new public management, the proliferation of business tools, and a rising awareness for responsible acting, environmental management has also become a matter for HEIs. Focusing on performance outcomes and improvement based mechanisms leads to a professionalization through the active management of environmental issues. Therefore, the support of management structures is an essential prerequisite when implementing environmental efforts. Thus far, little attention has been dedicated to environmental management performance and steering processes of environmental issues in HEIs, which marks the research gap of this study. This article presents results of a survey on the concept of environmental management performance (EMP) based on Trumpp et al. (2015) aiming to answer the research question of how HEIs conduct environmental management along the dimensions of EMP, which includes environmental policy, environmental objectives, environmental processes, organizational structures, and monitoring. The results show that, as of now, HEIs pursue no common practice when approaching EMP. Nevertheless, two thirds of the respondents show an orientation towards sustainability with particularly high values regarding issues of environmental policy.

**Keywords:** higher education institutions; sustainability assessment; environmental management performance; German-speaking countries; survey

#### **1. Introduction**

Higher education institutions (HEIs), as important societal pillars, play a key role in shaping future generations and paving the way for sustainable development [1,2]. In their role as educational institutions, the creation of knowledge and the promotion of ideas for society are their major undertakings. Besides the core tasks of teaching and research, environmental efforts concerning the institutions' operational performance have gradually emerged. With the conservation of resources, saving energy, or the reduction of waste [3], an integrated understanding of taking responsibility for their own actions has spread within many organizations, including HEIs.

With increased awareness of one's own social responsibility, the wish to fulfill it and to set a good example also rises [1]. As a result, practices dedicated to the systematic management of these tasks, such as environmental management systems, have been established and promoted.

Despite these instruments originally being designed for the business context, they quickly became useful in public organizations such as HEIs. Over time, these became increasingly common as a tool for managing environmental responsibility on campuses of various European countries [4]. The associated thinking of improvement-based mechanisms and performance enhancement instigates a general professionalization of organizational processes, including the handling of organizational responsibility with regard to sustainable action [1]. This occurred in the context of a general transfer of business practices to public administration, resulting in a more holistic approach and professionalization of the organizations [4].

In order to meet these growing challenges, and to meet the requirements of a whole-institution approach, the role of management is becoming increasingly important for the professionalization and control of organizational activities.

Management plays a core role in the allocation of resources, strategic alignment, and the planning, implementation, and evaluation of activities [5,6]. This gives HEIs a greater significance in dealing with ecological sustainability aspects by extending their responsibilities from a purely operational level to a more strategic one. Despite expanding to include management functions, the performance of HEIs regarding ecological aspects is largely excluded from management considerations. Concepts that examine environmental management performance (EMP) in the context of HE remain nonexistent thus far.

As the systematic literature review by Roos and Guenther [7] shows, an examination of EMP has so far played a minimal role in the assessment of (ecological) sustainability at HEIs. Although individual aspects of environmental management at HEIs can be assigned to the dimensions of the EMP according to Trumpp et al. [8], no systematic approach based on performance standards is pursued. For this purpose, a step-by-step integration of control mechanisms within the framework of a holistic institutional approach is suggested, which is oriented towards a growing integration of management capacities at HEIs. However, most of the research to date has been devoted to case studies of other topics, such as the investigation of success factors and obstacles or the implementation of sustainability in HEIs [1,8–10], while others examined the assessment of sustainability engagement [3,11,12]. While this research strand mainly draws on case studies, another research strand, which is represented in more recent research, uses surveys to investigate new insights into implementation efforts to generate sustainability. This research direction is increasingly turning to systematic approaches that examine the management of sustainability and environmental aspects at the management level. Although these approaches are aimed at managing sustainability at an executive level, this research is based on general practice-driven implementation efforts with the aim of initiating engagement. However, approaches examining environmental sustainability from a systematic management performance-driven perspective have not yet been investigated [13–15]. This represents a blind spot in the research on controlling sustainability at the management level and thus marks the research gap in the present work.

On the basis of these insights, the present survey study provides first evidence on the management of environmental sustainability in HEIs along the dimensions of EMP according to Trumpp et al. [8]. Trumpp et al. distinguish between environmental management performance (EMP) and environmental operational performance (EOP). We focused our survey on EMP. The associated research question is therefore dedicated to the following topic:

*How do HEIs conduct environmental management along the dimensions of EMP, including environmental policy, environmental objectives, environmental processes, organizational structures, and monitoring?*

In our view, this shows a major weakness in the efforts to adopt a whole-institution approach. Although the measurement of EMP is an important aspect, without an overall institutional view of the interrelationships in the network of effects with policies, objectives, structures and processes, their long-term significance and effects remain limited. A task will be to anticipate the growing need for forward-looking management and to perceive EMP as an overall institutional task. Thus, it is a management mission to address and combine the necessary tasks of sustainability management.

To answer this research question, the study investigates the present environmental sustainability efforts of HEIs to assess the application of environmental management. Therefore, the survey applied the dimensions of EMP [8] to identify relevant management structures and dimensions. Though the origin of the EMP construct is from the business context, the concept is also applicable for other organizations, such as HEIs [8].

The cross-sectional survey study addressed all public HEIs in German-speaking countries (i.e., Germany, Austria, and Switzerland).

Our study makes two contributions to the literature. First, survey-based research provides the opportunity to investigate relatively complex, multi-faceted phenomena which occur in their natural setting, and surveys are particularly suitable for gathering data on respondents' beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions that drive their behavior [16]. Thus, the survey method allows for mapping current practices in the field, providing insights into intriguing research topics that require further research or that have not yet been studied [16]. The survey study adds to the mostly qualitative research in this area [17,18] reporting on implementation approaches, value-driven behaviors, or discussing factors of success by exploring how HEIs incorporate environmental concerns in their management bodies.

Second, the study expands the existing literature on sustainability in public HEIs by investigating the managerial perspective of engagement. Since current studies on sustainability at HEIs mainly discuss possible pathways of implementation or the assessment of existing practices, the survey contributes to a holistic perspective by examining the management process along the different dimensions of EMP [16]. The study highlights the role of management functions, which enables new perspectives on the often-ignored aspects of systematical internal steering and processing by the top management. This produces a better understanding of objectives and conditions of the successful implementation of sustainability as a cross-cutting function within HEIs.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we describe the survey design and the measurement of the constructs. In Section 3, we present the descriptive results. Finally, we discuss our findings and present implications, suggestions for future research, and limitations of our study.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Data Collection and Sample*

The population comprises all public HEIs in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland with a total number of 339. The HE systems of these three countries are comparable in their composition with a strong state regulation in the HE sector [19]. A standardized questionnaire was developed based on the recommendations of Dillman, Smyth and Christian [20] and pretested with five experienced sustainability practitioners and five experts from the research field. The experts from the HE sustainability practice had recommended a subdivision into "measures" (e.g., energy efficiency) and "fields" of action (e.g., teaching and research). The survey was developed in English to adopt items that had been published in English and afterwards translated into German. The wording of selected items was adjusted to the HE context. In order to ensure consistency in the two languages, an independent translator was asked to back-translate the survey [21]. After revising the questionnaire, we sent it to the person responsible for environmental issues in the individual HEIs in December 2017. We have proceeded, as follows, to select the appropriate respondent. We first tried to contact the person responsible for sustainability. If this was not possible, we searched for a person responsible for environmental issues, then for a person responsible for occupational health and safety or, finally, for a person responsible for public relations with a request to forward the questionnaire to a person responsible for sustainability and environmental issues.

The survey implementation contained the following four steps: (i) initial e-mailing, (ii) first follow-up, (iii) second follow-up, and (iv) third follow-up. The first step involved an e-mail that was sent to every contact person, including a cover letter and the questionnaire as an interactive PDF form. The first follow-up was a replacement of the questionnaire and contained the same elements as described in the first step but was sent to those who had not answered, while the second and third follow-ups were phone calls.

In total, the survey generated a response of 33 (GER: 27; AUT: 4, CH: 2) usable questionnaires, which were sent exclusively to state HEIs, resulting in a response rate of 9.7%. The response rate is hardly comparable with other studies as surveys in HE on the topic of sustainability are scarce. However, the findings show that sample selection bias is not a major concern [22,23], following the suggestions of Armstrong and Overton [24]. First, in Table 1 we first match the HEI's characteristics of our sample with known attributes of the population (i.e., organizational size, country of origin, and type of HEI). HEIs with less than 7000 students are categorized as small, with at least 7000 and less than 24,000 students as medium, and with at least 24,000 students as large (similar to the classification of Burrell et al. [15]). Using a chi-square difference test, a significant difference in responses is only found for type of HEIs, which means that fewer universities of applied science and more universities responded than expected. Second, in Table 2 we compare latent variable scores between early and late respondents to test for non-response bias following the idea that "less readily" available responses (i.e., late respondents) are equivalent to non-responses. We define early respondents as those who answered at least with the first follow-up. No significant differences were found. For this reason, it is rather unlikely that there is a systemic bias on the basis of differences between early and late respondents. Nevertheless, we are aware of the relative low number of total responses as a limitation of our findings. Response rates around 10% can also be found in other recently published surveys (e.g., Guenther/Heinicke [22] with 11.26%, Bisbe and Malagueno [25] with 13.21%; de Geuser et al. [26] with 9.5%; Libby and Lindsay [27] with 13.6% and 1.5% response rate for two sub-samples). The decline in response rates is also reported in recent methodological papers (e.g., Hiebl and Richter [28]; van der Stede et al. [29]). Thus, we finally decided not to apply statistical tests in our Results section. For the Results section, we use boxplots to display the data of the survey more on an explorative level.


**Table 1.** Non-response test for organizational size, type of HEI (Higher Education Institution), and country of origin.

The Table reports the results of the chi-square statistics for the tests of regional distribution and of type of higher education institution (HEI). \* Significant at the 0.1 level. \*\* Significant at the 0.05 level. \*\*\* Significant at the 0.01 level; two-tailed tests.


**Table 2.** Non-response test for latent constructs.

The Table shows the construct means of the early and late respondents of our sample for the latent constructs of the structural model. \* Significant at the 0.1 level. \*\* Significant at the 0.05 level. \*\*\* Significant at the 0.01 level; two-tailed tests.

#### *2.2. Measures*

By addressing persons in charge of environmental management, we aimed to assess the performance of each institution compared to the average of public HEIs of similar size at the public level. Therefore, we refer to the work of Trumpp et al. [8], who define and conceptualize a measurement of environmental management performance that comprises the five dimensions of environmental policy, environmental objectives, environmental processes, organizational structure, and environmental monitoring to pursue a systematization of engagement in order to map the status quo of environmental management performance.

We use 12 items each to measure environmental policy, environmental objectives, and environmental processes; 13 items to measure environmental monitoring; and 2 items to measure organizational structure. All items are based on a seven-point Likert scale with midpoint and endpoints labeled as categories (1 = strongly disagree/not at all; 4 = neither nor; 7 = strongly agree/completely).

In close coordination and cooperation (dialogue, meetings and questionnaire pretest) with experts in operational environmental management at the TU Dresden, a total of four core areas of environmental management were identified in addition to the dimensions according to Trumpp et al., which are important for the investigation of EMP in the context of HEIs and were therefore also considered as independent fields in the questionnaire: (1) Energy efficiency, (2) fresh water consumption, (3) resource consumption, and (4) emission reduction. Furthermore, we developed certain domains within HEIs bearing key management responsibilities in terms of environmental performance. These responsibilities spread over the measures of (5) procurement, (6) facility management, (7) event management, (8) disposal, (9) research and education, (10) mobility, (11) human resource management (HRM), and (12) marketing. With this general structure, the questionnaire portrays the essential fields of action and measures to uncover environmental performance within the dimensions of EMP.

#### **3. Results**

For the visualization of our results, we use SPSS 25.0 and MS Excel software programs to create boxplots. Boxplot diagrams allow for a summarization of a dataset along the values of minimum, lower quartile, median, mean value, upper quartile, and maximum. This kind of illustration enables benchmarking and interpreting the results, especially for smaller sample sizes.

The box describes the lower and upper quartile, with the vertical line crossing it as the median. The whiskers connect the quartiles with the minimum (left) and maximum (right). The position of the triangle displays the mean value (see Figure 1). This shows if performance is below or above average. If a value is located within the light grey area or even above, the performance is between the median and the upper quartile. If a value is located in the dark grey area or even below, the opposite is true. The interquartile distance defines the range of the box, whereas the size of the whole boxplot represents the range of all answers given on the question.

**Figure 1.** Description of boxplot diagrams (own illustration).

For the analysis, we divided the questionnaire into different sections following the dimensions of EMP. For each question, within the sections, we generated a boxplot diagram. The following section describes the results based on the fields of action and measures proposed above.

The first boxplot addressing environmental policy (see Figure 2) shows that energy efficiency is, on average, the most elaborated field of action (mean = 4.64). Policies concerning the reduction of emissions show a slightly below average level. The examination of water consumption and resource utilization deliver average patterns (mean = 4.15 and 4.21, respectively). Turning to HEIs' environmental performance, policy issues concerning waste management show an above mean value (4.79). Considering also the median, disposal policy appears to be a well-elaborated topic. This may be due to legal requirements regulating such matters in German-speaking countries. Concerning mobility, the mean value is 4.21, which is below the median of 5, though the average performance is below average.

When it comes to environmental policies for the case of marketing or HRM, the results tend towards a lower level (1st quartile starts with a value of 1, which means strongly disagree), which is also confirmed by low mean values (3.03 and 3.25, respectively).

For the dimension of environmental objectives (see Figure 3), the measures of energy efficiency (3.94), water consumption (3.58), resource utilization (3.67), and emission reduction (3.48) show a level slightly below average. Consulting the median confirms the trend of a generally only medium adoption in practice. Finally, objectives on energy efficiency show the best average outcome, although the interquartile distance covers a broad range (values between 2 to 6). However, environmental objectives appear to be remarkably well-elaborated concerning disposal (mean = 4.36), as we can see the median reaching a high level (=5.00) compared to the other fields of action. Mobility objectives show a pattern similar to that of the policy dimension, since a mean value of 3.72 lies slightly below the median of 4.00. As was already observable for the dimension of environmental policy, marketing and HRM consistently show a low level of agreement (mean = 3.00 and 3.03, respectively). This becomes even clearer, since the lower quartile starts with the lowest value of 1 (=strongly disagree). Remarkably, event management shows almost similar values of agreement (mean = 3.13).

**Figure 2.** Results for the dimension environmental policy.

From the boxplot for environmental processes (see Figure 4), we can observe the highest approval rates for energy efficiency improvements (mean = 4.27), although only at a slightly better value. Processes improving the consumption of water (3.91), improving resource efficiency (3.85), or reducing emissions (3.79) show an average agreement. Looking at processes concerning environmental performance, they show a similar level of assessment. The mean values are located between 3.34 (event management) and 4.63 (disposal), which provide no considerable indications corresponding with our observations for the dimension of environmental objectives. The higher mean value and median for waste management again results from legal requirements which regulate mandatory waste disposal. The processes of mobility show a mean value of 4.03 corresponding to the median (value = 4.00). In terms of marketing and HRM, the low values (mean for both = 3.26) reveal a weak level of consent.

**Figure 3.** Results for the dimension environmental objectives.

The exploration of the organizational structure (Figure 5) follows an alternative design diverging from the interrogative form of the other dimensions. Since this section asks about implementation efforts of HEIs with the aim of revealing certain structures related to environmental topics, the standardized question pattern is unsuitable for providing appropriate results. Therefore, the dimension for organizational structures captures items on training and internal communication. The results show that trainings for employees on environmental topics are generally perceived below average (3.39). The application of adequate internal communication tools for an improved management of environmental topics centers around a mean value of 4.06. Remarkably, the interquartile distance covers a broad spectrum ranging from 2 (=disagree) to 6 (=agree).

**Figure 4.** Results for the dimension environmental processes.

**Figure 5.** Results for the dimension organizational structure.

The boxplot in Figure 6, for the dimension of monitoring systems for environmental management performance, indicates that HEIs mainly apply measurement tools for the case of energy efficiency (mean = 4.27). Here we can observe a slightly higher mean value than in other fields of action (water use: 3.67; resource use: 3.24; emission reduction: 3.09). The efficient use of resources, which includes tools for the reduction of emissions and the application of monitoring systems, appears to be slightly underrepresented. In both cases, the lower quartile starts with the value of 1 (=strongly disagree). Regarding the fields of action, HEIs, on average, perform best concerning disposal aspects. With a mean of 4.19 and a median of 5, again this appears to be the topic with the most emphasis, since regulatory requirements force HEIs to adopt certain disposal procedures. Interestingly, measurement tools for green procurement are obviously not in use, as the mean value of 3.00 indicates a general below average adoption. Similar to the low levels of agreement for the dimensions of policies and objectives, the assessment of monitoring for mobility issues is below average (mean = 3.45), which again is below the median of 4.00. Finally, event management (mean = 3.06), marketing (mean = 2.57), and HRM (mean = 2.65) consistently show the same below average performance as the other dimensions. In all these fields, the lower quartile begins with the value of 1 (strongly disagree) and ends with the value of 4 (partly agree). Especially for the case of marketing, the median shows a considerably low level (value = 2.00). The final question on environmental monitoring systems for other relevant fields of HEIs shows a low mean of 2.79.

**Figure 6.** Results for the dimension monitoring systems.

In summary, the analysis allows deeper insights into the performance dimensions of EMP for HEIs. In the next step, our study examines the mean scores over all items for each EMP dimension (Table 3), which allows for implications on the performance of each single EMP dimension for the HEIs.



Apparently, the dimension environmental policy shows the highest mean value of 4.00. This shows the general commitment of HEIs to proclaim sustainability engagement on an institutional level. A similar value can be found for the dimension environmental processes (mean = 3.9). This supports a certain anchoring of the environmental engagement within the institutions. The organizational structures with a mean of 3.7 are directly interrelated to these processes and objectives (mean = 3.6), consequently followed by monitoring systems (mean = 3.3). In sum, the relative moderate commitment for EMP of HEIs may be due to different emphasis of the HEI's top management for environmental issues in general over other issues at the HEI as well as individual commitment within the HEI's top management.

A further split of the results for the different EMP dimensions by size in Table 4 delivers an even more detailed picture of the performance of the HEIs.


**Table 4.** EMP mean scores and HEI Size.

Evidently, large institutions perform, on average, better than small or medium ones. Going from large to small, the study observes a slope of mean values in almost every dimension, whereas the gap between large and medium-sized institutions shows to be more considerable than between medium and small ones. Not surprisingly, the mean value of total EMP also reflects these size effects.

Furthermore, when dividing the sample into two groups of high and low performers, we examine what makes the difference between good and bad performance in terms of EMP. For this case, the mean EMP scores for each EMP dimension are taken and aggregated to one total EMP score of each HEI. We classify HEIs as high performers when the mean score value is greater than 5.00 and as low performers for mean score values of less than 3.00. Cases between 3.00 and 5.00 are categorized as medium [30].

In total, the study identified 7 high performers, 11 low performers, and 15 medium performers. Based on this categorization of HEIs, an additional in-depth analysis of each category was conducted.

Publicly available information on the integration of environmental topics in HEIs' policies, as well as objectives, structures, processes or monitoring on the websites of the HEIs, was examined for further information on environmentally relevant performance characteristics in order to enrich the existing data from the survey to find out more about further efforts on (environmental) sustainability within the curriculum, research projects or voluntary self-obligations. Furthermore, the study sought proof of institutional anchoring within management bodies or formal commitments in the published statements on mission, values, or strategy. In addition, this information was matched with a possible assignment within the EMAS register to see if an institution's performance is based on external validation.

For the case of high-performing HEIs, the study identified a continuous orientation towards sustainability in research and teaching programs. In approximately 70% of the cases, we could find evidence for institutionalization within the institution's structures, resulting in a mean value of 5.7 for this specific EMP dimension. The strongest mean value could be observed for the dimension environmental policy (6.3), followed by environmental processes (5.9) and environmental objectives (5.8). Interestingly, environmental monitoring appears to be an outlier, since the mean value of 5.1 lies noticeably below the other dimensions. Four of these seven institutions are also registered with EMAS. Differing from this pattern, two cases have high total EMP scores but no publicly available information on certain activities is provided. The mean value of high performers over all EMP dimensions is 5.8.

In the case of low-performing HEIs, the examination on the publicly available information delivered no further information on sustainability activities, neither in research and teaching, nor for the institutional context. Remarkably, almost two-thirds of the low performing HEIs are rather small, with only 10% of low-performing institutions being large. As was already observable within the high-performing HEIs, structures (2.2) show the highest adoption, followed by policy (2.0) and processes (1.9). Unlike the high-performer group, the mean monitoring performance (1.8) of low performers exceeds the performance on environmental objectives (1.7). Interestingly, we also found evidence for engagement in research or teaching or even both, which obviously did not result from an increased environmental management performance of the institution as such (cases 15 and 18). The mean value of low-performing institutions over all EMP dimensions is 1.6.

In the group of medium-performing HEIs, the results show a heterogeneous picture. Almost two-thirds of the medium-performers show an orientation towards sustainability, at least in research and teaching, in institutional bodies, or even both. The mean value for policy shows the highest value (4.4), followed by processes (4.4) and objectives (4.0). In contrast to the other performing groups, organizational structures (3.9) seem to be underdeveloped, while monitoring (3.6) appears to be relatively less common. Remarkably, in two cases, the study found no indication for actual engagement, which could explain the average results (cases 21 and 24). In contrast, the study also finds cases showing activities in research and teaching and in institutional anchoring (cases 1, 22 and 33). Surprisingly, none of the medium cases have undertaken EMAS registration. The mean value of medium performers is 4.0, congruent with the median value of our scale.

#### **4. Discussion**

This survey study examines the incorporation and operationalization of environmental issues in HEIs' management and answers the research question of how *HEIs conduct environmental management along the dimensions of EMP, including environmental policy, environmental objectives, environmental processes, organizational structures, and monitoring.* The empirical data provide insights into the status quo of adoption and examine HEIs' environmental performance along the EMP dimensions of policy, objectives, structures, processes, and monitoring. The results show that environmental sustainability issues in fact play a role within HEIs' management, though the distribution across the different dimensions differs noticeably. The difference in performance levels between environmental objectives and environmental policy indicates a gap in the translation of (voluntary) commitments into clearly defined environmental objectives. The decoupling of these two aspects shows that although there is a basic awareness of the need to take environmental concerns into account, this awareness remains stuck on an abstract level and thus calls into question the actual will to commit oneself more, which ultimately leaves the impression of lip service. When looking at a whole-institutional approach, it becomes clear that although there is a willingness to assume responsibility at management level, this does not appear to be perceived as a core task of HEI action. In this understanding, efforts to establish supporting structures, processes or control mechanisms, in an effort to improve EMP, seem less promising in the long term.

Including the low average performance in terms of monitoring systems, a possible misfit with regard to effective management becomes noticeable (You cannot manage what you do not measure), which might be due to mutual reinforcement in conjunction with weak goal setting.

Despite great efforts with a total of five rounds, only a relatively low response rate could be achieved among the HEIs surveyed. Although we exhausted all possibilities from a methodological point of view [28], we were not able to increase the response rate significantly. This may be due to the fact that there are no central contacts in the HEIs with regard to EMP. Since this survey was developed together with practical experts from the HE environmental management along the usual cascade of responsibilities for environmental issues in HEIs, the usual persons in charge seem only partially informed about the surveyed topics for the cross-section of HEIs. This leads to the conclusion that concrete contact persons, if any, are difficult to identify for the broad field of sustainability management. This may be due to a lack of consent on the managerial level, suggesting that holistic responsibility has not yet been regulated within the organization. This leads to the assumption that the spread of the cross-sectional function of sustainability management in HEIs has so far been low and a silo thinking (e.g., facility management, operations, focus on environmental or waste topics) according to defined responsibilities prevails.

With regard to the adoption of ecological sustainability in HEIs, another reason may be the lack of consent at the management level, which can be derived from a lack of relevance to the topic. There is some competitive pressure on HEIs with regard to integrating sustainability in research and teaching performance, but sustainability aspects, so far, are of minor relevance. Possible reasons could be that the public financing of HEIs through target agreements contains few or no sustainability targets. This means that the ministries do not tie any sustainability goals to the general budget of the public HEIs, thus the topic of sustainability plays a subordinate role. A similar result is reported in Heinicke and Guenther [31] for the implementation of management control systems. The authors argue that the fulfillment of political and legal requirements is of highest priority in order to secure funding for the HEI and it suppresses the adoption of management systems if not explicitly demanded or connected with funding.

Another reason for the relatively low and rather diverse adoption rates in our survey may be that sustainability management in HEIs is driven by the individual engagement of single players within the HEIs. This is confirmed by experiences of the authors in the research project HOCH-N. The HOCH-N project consists of a research network of 13 German universities as well as a number of committed institutions, organizations, and individuals from the academic environment who are dedicated to the question of sustainable development in the HE context. Respondents that are part of this network show a markedly sharper ecological sustainability profile in terms of policies, goals, structures, processes, and monitoring compared to HEIs that are not involved.

Our study *contributes* to the discussion of sustainability in HEIs in two ways. First, the study provides a survey-driven empirical approach for the systematization and relevance of environmental management aspects for determining the EMP of HEIs.

The vast majority of studies on environmental aspects of sustainability at HEIs, to date, have investigated success factors for the implementation of sustainability in the institution on a case-by-case basis. Due to the high contextual specifics, a generalization of the results has been possible only to a limited extent. The investigation of the introduction of sustainability from the ground up follows different development paths, mostly relating to the voluntary commitment of motivated actors. The present study allows to exceed the limitations of institutional specifics and to achieve a degree of generalizability. Furthermore, the study is oriented towards mechanisms of control as they are established in the corporate context as well as in new public management. Thus, the approach ties in with existing management structures and allows adopting a whole-institution approach from a management perspective. In addition to the examination of general success factors, the study shows where, from an organizational perspective, challenges for the implementation of sustainability can exist, and provides indications of how these can be mastered with the help of a performance-oriented approach.

The present study expands existing empirical research by investigating, by way of a broad survey, the occurrence of EMP in the context of HEIs. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no other survey studies which have assessed the EMP of management bodies for the case of HEIs. Based on our full sample of HEIs from German-speaking countries, with no major concerns of response bias, the study expands the relevant literature by clarifying the importance of environmental management performance as a holistic (management) approach across the dimensions of EMP and its relevance to the measurement and management of environmental aspects at HEIs. It is evident that an organization-wide approach to managing environmental performance cannot be viewed solely at management or operational level, but must be implemented as a bipolar flow, flanked by voluntary engagement and stakeholder participation bottom-up and top-down in the organization if it is to be successful.

In view of the results of the study, it may also be useful to include aspects of organizational culture in the consideration. As Niedlich et al. [32] have shown in their study, organizational culture plays a crucial role in HEI's governance for the implementation of sustainability aspects. Cultural orientations at management level can thus act as a stimulus or barrier to the success or failure of implementation. With regard to EMP, it might be useful to consider these aspects of organizational culture.

In summary, the analysis shows an average moderate level of EMP and an interrelation between an increased EMP and ambitions for sustainable research and/or teaching.

Environmental policy shows, on average, the strongest emphasis, whereas monitoring systems tend to have received lesser attention. Furthermore, according to our results, the study discloses an association between the environmental performance level for EMP and an institution's size. Analyzing distinct fields of action and measures of environmental performance shows a moderate performance on disposal topics (mean value 4.49), energy efficiency (4.10), and facility management (4.04) issues. On the downside, the results show weak performance for marketing (2.96), HRM (3.05), and event management (3.25) topics.

A stronger performance in the field of waste disposal topics might be caused by the presence of distinct legal requirements regulating the waste management of (public) organizations and firms.

High performance levels in both functions of energy efficiency and facility management might result from a remarkable overlap in their practical execution. Since energy efficiency may also be included in an environmentally sustainable facility management, their mutual affection under the lens of practical operations appears to be evident. Another reason for these results might be due to low thresholds for taking action. In both cases, the implementation and operation of optimization potentials requires relatively short decision-making processes or top management commitment, but mainly personal engagement and willingness to contribute from the person(s) in charge of the function.

Remarkably, there is a missing entanglement with procurement issues (3.67) since maintenance requires appropriate supplies of operating resources. This actually contrasts with the performance results in the dimension of environmental processes (see Figure 6). Interestingly, more than half of the responding institutions have staff in charge of environmental (sustainability) issues (regardless of their size). According to our results, it seems that those functions are predominantly assigned to the HEI's facility office, since the study measured a strong EMP centered on central functions (especially facility management and disposal). However, this shows that an institutionalization of engagement does not lead automatically to an increase of the HEI's overall environmental management performance, since distinct fields of action and measures appear to perform weaker than others. This might also arise from a general lack of comprehensive systems of sustainability objectives, which require a holistic approach that includes all EMP dimensions.

As a second contribution, the study expands the current literature on sustainability in public HEIs by exploring the role of management for the implementation of (environmental) sustainability efforts. The application of EMP enables a new perspective for the understanding of aims and conditions of the successful implementation of a holistic sustainability approach within HEIs.

With a moderate adoption of environmental policies, processes and organizational structures, and a low dissemination of monitoring systems, EMP does not seem to have supported the change of perspective from an output orientation (e.g., reduction of waste and energy) to an outcome orientation

for societal welfare (role model for students and researchers). With a general willingness to become active at the top management level, the operational practice (so far) is not sufficiently capable of fulfilling this commitment.

As the results show, environmental management is an emerging issue for HEIs in their endeavor to fulfill their social mission and reduce negative impacts of research and teaching. With the apparent willingness of management bodies to adapt environmental sustainability into their policies and structures, a first step towards the implementation of environmental management has already been made. However, the existing structures also must cover operational practices to pursue a holistic approach to implementing sustainability across the institution, thereby ensuring the lasting success of these efforts.

#### **5. Concluding Remarks**

Based on these findings, the study proposes distinct *implications* for both decision makers (e.g., administrators, environmental management officers, and the HEI's top management) and researchers. First, the pledge of engagement within the policy must be translated into certain goals guiding environmental officers and enabling the assessment of activities through monitoring systems, including the distribution of (financial) resources for the appropriate allocation of means to implement sustainability. Importantly, measuring the allocation and use of means is crucial for building long-term structures enabling continuous (improvement) processes. Applying monitoring systems in that context not only contributes to assessing the EMP, but also enhances transparency and broadcasts information on the progress of implementation and improvement, improving the social credibility needed to pursue the intended policies and objectives.

Second, the results suggest the charge of environmental sustainability within HEIs is complex. It seems that the success of certain efforts depends on the setting of the person(s) in charge of these issues. Apparently, environmental sustainability seems to be located within the facility division in most cases. This may be a logical consequence of the importance of this field of action, which, however, likewise neglects other fields. A possible solution might be the implementation of cross-sectional posts that can manage and control all relevant fields of action and measures of environmental sustainability simultaneously. Another option describes participatory approaches supporting existing structures to implement policies and objectives by voluntary engagement or shared governance. Since distinct stakeholder groups, such as students or staff members, are directly affected by HEIs and therefore have a legitimate claim to participate, their involvement on a voluntary basis could have the potential to foster environmental engagement and integrate relevant target groups into decision-making processes.

The aforementioned points to the third implication on continuity and impact. Since our study observes a weak anchoring of environmental objectives and an even weaker embedding of monitoring and control mechanisms, the measurement and assessment performance of environmental issues under the lens of EMP remains limited to short or mid-term effects. Generating impacts should actually be the standard for engagement, but appropriate indicators or measurement tools are still missing. Nevertheless, the fact that HEIs have established structures suggests a positive development and shows their willingness to contribute and shoulder responsibility. Turning to impact measurement, the question arises as to how HEIs can pursue purpose through their actions.

As many other surveys, our study also has *limitations* providing avenues for future research. One major limitation in the generalizability of the results lays in the fact that only German-speaking and state-run HEIs are taken into account. Public sponsorship and state funding are a decisive differentiating factor in comparison with other countries and also in contrast to private HEIs. Future research may assess whether our findings also hold for other regions and HEI settings. Another major limitation is the relatively low total number of responses which does not allow for statistical testing of our findings. Thus, interpretation of results has to be conducted carefully. In addition, the unit response tests indicate that the sample contains more universities than universities of applied science than expected, which could bias our findings. Therefore, future research could examine the EMP for other

countries or HEI cultures (e.g., UK or US). Furthermore, future researchers could draw a comparison between private and public institutions. A replication of our HE setting in other global regions, as well as a comparison with other educational systems (e.g., North America, Australia, and Asia) could also be an interesting endeavor. It is also conceivable to expand our survey to performance issues in teaching and research in relation to the operational performance of an HEI to assess the overall sustainability performance of an HEI.

Another future task will be to define an HEI's responsibilities to planet and people beyond the core business of teaching and research. This opens the field of whether the terms sustainability and responsibility can be regarded as complementary or as competing terms associated with different functions. Thus, a future research question could cover whether it is useful to introduce an overarching sustainability (performance) management on all dimensions of the triple bottom line or if treating each dimension (i.e., environmental and social sustainability) separately is more appropriate. Based on the results, HEIs are moving in the right direction, even though there is a considerable potential for institutions to improve further, and ensure this progress continues long into the future.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.R., X.H., E.G., and T.W.G.; methodology, X.H. and N.R.; software, X.H. and N.R.; validation, X.H. and N.R.; formal analysis, X.H. and N.R.; resources, E.G. and T.W.G.; data curation, N.R. and X.H.; writing—original draft preparation, N.R. and X.H.; writing—review and editing, N.R., X.H., E.G., and T.W.G.; visualization, X.H. and N.R.; supervision, E.G. and T.W.G.; project administration, N.R. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank the editor and reviewers for their valuable and helpful feedback on this publication. **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
