Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:


breaking through barriers to change
Rodrigo Lozano*
B.R.A.S.S. Centre, Cardiff University, 55 Park Place, Cardiff, Wales CF10 3AT, United Kingdom
Received 1 August 2005; accepted 26 December 2005
Available online 3 March 2006

Abstract

Many years have passed since sustainable development (SD) became world famous in the Brundtland Commission publication, ‘‘Our
Common Future’’; however, still many universities are unaware of it or confuse it with environmental sustainability. The SD concept contrasts
with existing teaching methods, mainly focused into resource depletion. This paper focuses on SD incorporation and institutionalization into
universities. This process is bound to face resistance from inside and outside stakeholders. Several approaches and strategies are presented
to overcome this resistance. The paper also presents the types of conflicts that might arise and the role of the campus SD champion in preventing
or solving them.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Universities; Sustainable development; Barriers to change; University system; University stakeholders

1. Introduction culture and creates a multiplier effect within the institution


and in society, in the short- and long-term?
Subsequent to its publication in ‘‘Our Common Future’’ [1] This document seeks to address these two questions and
in 1987, the concept of sustainable development (SD) became analyses the causes why SD has not really been incorporated
world famous. SD and its principles have been adopted by and implemented throughout most universities of the world,
some higher education institutions, amongst them Monterrey and among the different stakeholders of each university. It
Tec (Mexico), Delft University of Technology (Netherlands), also addresses ways to overcome the resistance and barriers
the University of Michigan (USA), and Dartmouth College to incorporation of SD throughout the entire academic system.
(USA); regretfully, on a worldwide basis, a large percentage Since its appearance in 1987 there have been many defini-
of university leaders and faculty members are unaware of tions and interpretations of SD; some believe it to be a catch
SD and its principles or if they are aware of them, they have phrase, a fad or fashion, while others confuse it with solely en-
done little or nothing to incorporate them into their courses, vironmental aspects. However, this author disagrees with such
curricula, research and outreach. positions since the three SD key aspects, economic, environ-
From this the following questions that university leaders mental and social are part of everyday life. Thus SD, in this
should ask themselves arise: (1) How to effectively and effi- paper, is understood to be: ‘‘. a change process, in which
ciently incorporate SD into the university’s policies, educa- the societies improve their quality of life, reaching dynamic
tion, research, outreach, and campus operations? (2) How to equilibrium between the economic and social aspects, while
ensure that SD becomes an integral part of the university protecting, caring for and improving the natural environment.
This integration and equilibrium among these three aspects
must be taught and transferred from this generation to the
* Tel.: þ44 29 20 876562; mobile: þ44 7981900984; fax: þ44 29 20 876061.
next and the next’’ [2].
E-mail address: lozanorosr@cardiff.ac.uk After clarifying the meaning of SD, it is necessary to review
URL: http://www.brass.cardiff.ac.uk the university system and its stakeholders before addressing

0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010
788 R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796

the incorporation of SD. The following section addresses these consequences their actions may have in other fields, such as
issues. society and nature, in both the short- and long-term future.
Changes towards a more integrated system of knowledge
development have been proposed by authors such as Roorda
2. The university system: dimensions and stakeholders
[7] who indicates that the university system should change
from the current highly specialized focus to integrated multi-
The future leaders, decision-makers and intellectuals of the
disciplinary approaches and then onto interdisciplinary. He
social, political, economic and academic sectors are created,
emphasizes that the last stage includes trans-disciplinary ap-
formed and shaped within the world’s higher education insti-
proaches (see Box 1 for clarification of these phases). In addi-
tutions. Even though each university is unique, all of them
tion to the adopter categories, Rogers [5] proposes the
have the same basic system.
following five stage process for the adoption of an innovation:
This system, according to Cortese [3], has four dimensions:
Each approach offers the administrators, faculty and students
(a) Education (referring to courses and curricula), (b) Re-
a progressively more holistic view of the world, helping
search, both basic and applied, (c) Campus operations, and
them to understand that their decisions whether economic or
(d) Community outreach. These dimensions must also be
political have repercussions upon society and nature. This ho-
assessed and reported on in an on-going manner which leads
listic approach is in accordance with SD.
to a fifth dimension: (e) Assessment and reporting [2]. It
Making such changes in a university is not an easy task. As
should be noted that these dimensions are interdependent.
with any other new idea the incorporation of SD is bound to
This author considers the main actors in universities to be
face resistance from at least some of its stakeholders. This re-
as follows: (a) the academic directors, (b) the professors and
sistance can be explained by the fact that normally individuals
(c) the students. Ideally the concepts of SD should be inte-
are happy with the status quo and are not willing to change
grated into the policies, approaches and learning of all mem-
their attitudes and routines. Rogers [5] remarks that individ-
bers of these stakeholders; in practice this is almost
uals can be divided into the following five categories (refer
impossible in the first stages of SD incorporation into the uni-
to Fig. 1):
versity’s system.
1. Innovators, comprising 2.5%, those who are willing to try
3. SD as an innovation in universities new ideas, risk their capital and time, and cope with high
degrees of uncertainty. Innovators are venturesome and
Even though universities should be institutions that foster play the role of gatekeepers in the flow of new ideas
change, traditions usually play an important role; this, together into a system.
with the interactions of thousands of individuals on campuses 2. Early adopters, comprising 13.5%, have the greatest de-
present a challenge, where positive and negative reactions are gree of opinion in most systems. They are looked upon
bound to arise for incorporation of SD into all facets of the by potential adopters, serving as reference individuals.
university’s system, structure and activities [2,4]. They are speeding agents on the diffusion of the
As stated earlier, SD is still a relatively new, innovative idea innovation.
in most universities; the process of incorporation and diffusion
of SD within them can be explained with the help of innova-
tion theory. Rogers [5] considers an innovation to be anything Box 1. New approaches for the university system
that is new to a person, which can also be extrapolated to to incorporate SD into all facets of its activities
institutions. Innovations are usually divided into three cate-
gories: (a) product, (b) process and (c) idea. The incorporation  Multidisciplinary education: ‘‘. [the] co-
of SD into universities falls into the idea category, this even operation between various disciplines, keep-
though it usually carries with it new products, processes, pol- ing intact every separate set of theoretical
icies and values. concepts and methodology.’’
Afuah [6] complements Rogers’ [5] categorization by indi-  Interdisciplinary education: ‘‘. [the] co-
cating that innovations can be incremental or radical. The for- operation between various disciplines, where
mer when the idea builds upon existing knowledge; while the a common methodological approach and the-
latter is when the idea is fundamentally different from existing oretical fundament is looked for, as a synthesis
knowledge. The case of SD in universities falls into the radical of the participating disciplines. Participants try
category, the reason of this is that existing universities’ teach- to speak ‘one language’.’’
ing methods are mainly focused at societal depletion of the  Trans-disciplinary education: ‘‘. not only co-
natural and human resources; this connected with the fact operation takes place between specialists of
that the areas of knowledge are highly specialized, for exam- various disciplines, but also others are directly
ple in-depth 3 to 5 years of studies on topics such as econom- involved: users, problem owners, clients,
ics, law, engineering, medicine, ecology, history, philosophy, stakeholders, etc. (trans-disciplinary ¼ (literally:)
amongst others, therefore, the graduating students having beyond the disciplines.)’’ [7]
much knowledge in their field have little awareness of the
R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796 789

incorporation of the innovation to take place, it is necessary


that the individual reaches the adoption stage.
The five stages can also be used to explain the adoption of
innovations within institutions. In respect to SD, some univer-
sities can be considered to be in the awareness category, like
Lund University (Sweden) [2], while others are at the interest
stage, Monterrey Tec (Mexico) [2]. Within the same university
it is possible to find different stakeholders at different stages,
for example, the innovators might have already adopted SD
while the laggards might still be in the early awareness stage.
If an innovation, such as SD, is adopted and put into prac-
Fig. 1. Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness and relative of tice long enough and increasingly by different members of the
adoption of new ideas, concepts, tools or products. Source: Ref. [5].
institution until widespread implementation and stabilization,
it ceases to be an innovation and becomes part of the institu-
3. Early majority, comprising 34%, adopt new ideas before tion’s culture [5], thereby becoming institutionalized. The pro-
the average members. They provide interconnectedness cess from innovation to stabilization is explained by Sherry
in the system’s interpersonal networks. [8], who highlights that an innovation usually has three
4. Late majority, comprising 34%, adopt new ideas after the stages: (a) initiation (or diffusion), (b) implementation, and
average member. They might have an economic rational to (c) institutionalization.
adopt the idea, approaching it carefully. The pressure of
peers is needed to motivate the adoption.
4. Towards the institutionalization of SD in universities
5. Laggards, comprising 16%, are the last to adopt an inno-
vation. They tend to be suspicious about the idea and the
The institutionalization of an idea, such as SD, refers to the
change agents. Resistance to the idea is perceived as ratio-
process in which the idea passes from individual efforts and
nal. They have a strong bias to keep the status quo [5].
attitudes to changes in the system, in the case of the universi-
ties the stakeholders and five dimensions. Institutionalization
It should be noted that innovators usually bear the burden
is achieved when the idea is accepted and incorporated into
of mistakes at the first stages and the problems and disappoint-
the system’s culture and its ‘‘day-to-day’’ operations.
ments of test-trials, but this is compensated by the satisfaction
The institutionalization process proceeds from the indi-
of being the developers of the idea.
vidual to the system, Dobes [9] divides it into four steps
The combination of the innovators and early adopters
(presented in Fig. 2): (I) Intuition, (II) Interpretation, (III)
provides an idea of the proportion of individuals who could
Integration and (IV) Institutionalization.
be active in change for the innovation and can serve as SD
In the intuition step, particular skills are created or modified
multipliers, creating the momentum needed to convince the
on the individual basis, e.g. the necessary SD information and
other adopter categories. The late majority and the laggards
education is provided to each individual. In the interpretation
have the highest levels of change resistance, but might eventu-
step the individual internalizes the skills and modifies his/her
ally adopt the innovation. The resistance to change of the in-
way of thinking, i.e. the mindsets, values, attitudes, behaviors
dividuals creates a system inertia which in many cases
and thoughts. When more and more individuals acquire the
makes change difficult.
necessary SD skills and work together, they form the organi-
In addition to the adopter categories, Rogers [5] proposes
zational skills, thus passing to the integration step. This, in
the following five stage process for the adoption of an
turn, can serve to achieve the last step, institutionalization,
innovation:

1. Awareness: When the individuals are exposed to the idea.


2. Interest: When the individuals become motivated towards
the idea.
3. Evaluation: When the individuals try the idea and judge its
future potential.
4. Trial: When the idea is implemented in a ‘‘micro’’
approach.
5. Adoption: When the individuals are satisfied with the re-
sults of the idea trial and put the practice into operation.

An individual can pass through different stages, e.g. reach


the trial stage, but then reject the innovation on the grounds
such as the innovation is impractical or with little or no bene- Fig. 2. Mental structures flow, from the individual to the organization. Source:
fit. If this occurs the innovation is not incorporated. For the Ref. [9].
790 R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796

making the innovation become part of the culture of the orga- The basic needs are also important because, if unmet, they can
nization, i.e. getting SD institutionalized into the university. increase the resistance to change, given by the barriers to change,
When an innovation is institutionalized it becomes difficult in any organization, such as a university. The barriers to change
to root out, even with a change of top-management (in the case can be divided into three levels, proposed by Maurer [11], which
of the university, with a change of academic directors). In are complemented by two aspects, proposed by Lozano-Ros [2]:
cases where an innovation, such as SD, is still not part of
the culture, it is easily possible to force it from the top to Level 1. Resistance to the idea itself: This level is generally
the bottom through power-coercive strategies, detailed in sub- produced by a lack of information, disagreement
sequent paragraphs. This, however, generates conflicts and the with the idea, lack of exposition and confusion.
innovation is bound to lose strength with a change of author- Level 2. Resistance involving deeper issues: This level is usu-
ities, thereby slowing the institutionalization and sometimes ally produced by feelings of loss of control or power,
even resulting in the disappearance of the innovation from status loss, respect or separation of the individual
the organization. from the others. It usually causes feelings of incom-
Usually, an innovation is institutionalized only after a long petence, of feelings of being deserted, of feelings of
period of time. To achieve institutionalization, it is necessary high levels of pressure and stress, and that change
that all the stakeholders receive the proper SD skills and that is too difficult, so resistance is strong.
these are supported by the university’s policies and mission. Level 3. Deeply embedded resistance: This level makes a seri-
Universities are a special type of organizations, where every ous contrast with the organization; the individual
year thousands of individuals start and finish their studies. might be in accordance with the idea of change, but
This requires continuous SD skill formation by the newcomers nevertheless takes the situation to a personal dimen-
and reinforcement of those skills and attitudes of current stu- sion. This includes factors such as cultural differences,
dents. Other stakeholders, i.e. academic directors, professors, race, religion, sex, amongst others. It is generally pro-
staff and alumni, amongst others, can help to promote the duced by: history or lack of trust, differences of sex,
SD institutionalization process by enforcing it with their atti- race, culture or ethnic background and significant dis-
tudes and behaviors until SD permeates through all the stake- agreement towards the values being encountered [11].
holders and their activities, becoming part of the system’s
culture. Of the three levels, the lowest level and the easiest to over-
A radical innovation, such as SD, will undoubtedly face re- come is Level 1 which can be done by providing clear, neces-
sistance when being incorporated and institutionalized. This sary and complete information. On the other hand, the highest
resistance is affected by the individuals’ barriers to change. and the most difficult to overcome is Level 3, since the idea or
The following paragraphs amplify upon this. its incorporation contrasts with personal convictions.
It is possible to find two complementing aspects that can
appear together with any level and limit the incorporation of
5. Barriers to change while incorporating SD into SD into the university system:
university systems
Aspect 1. Procrastination: This refers to the fact that the indi-
The barriers to change are influenced by the individual’s vidual is aware of the innovation but believes that its
basic needs. Maslow [10] identifies five levels in the hierarchy incorporation is too complicated; therefore, s/he
of basic needs: finds ways to delay action upon the new idea. It
can also be due to inherent laziness and in some
1. Physiological needs: The most basic level. It generally cases due to negligence.
corresponds to primary needs such as hunger, thirst, sleep Aspect 2. Power: The struggle for power between people with
and sex. opposing views or the desire for a more public po-
2. Safety needs: This is equivalent to security need. It is both sition often consumes precious abilities, energy
emotional as well as physical safety. and time that otherwise could be used positively,
3. Love needs: This corresponds to the affection and affilia- as in the case of the implementation of SD. Another
tion needs. effect of the power struggle is the creation of sides
4. Esteem needs: It represents the higher needs of humans. or groups that seek to grab the resources and elimi-
The needs for power, achievement and status. It contains nate the competition of other groups [2].
both self-esteem and esteem for others.
5. Needs for self-actualization: This is the culmination of the Some of the reasons why barriers to change appear in any
needs. Self-actualization is the person’s motivation to level and aspect are offered by Spence [12]:
transform perception of self into reality [10].
1. ‘‘to protect social status or prerogative;
These levels help one to understand the behavior of individ- 2. to protect an existing way of life;
uals and to help us to take the necessary approaches in order to 3. to prevent devaluation of capital invested in an existing
improve the individual’s quality of life, and quality of working life. facility or in a supporting facility or service;
R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796 791

4. to prevent a reduction of livelihood because the innovation be able to reduce or overcome them. The following paragraphs
would devalue the knowledge or skill presently required; present some approaches and strategies that can be used for
5. to prevent the elimination of a job or profession; these purposes.
6. to avoid expenditures such as the cost of replacing existing
equipment, and of renovating and modifying systems al- 6. Overcoming barriers to change
ready in operation to accommodate or to compete with
the innovation; It is neither interesting nor constructive to present a problem
7. because the innovation opposes social customs, fashions without offering solutions. In the case of the incorporation of
and tastes and the habits of everyday life; SD in universities, it is clear that a radical innovation will face stiff
8. because the innovation conflicts with existing laws; resistance. Subsequent paragraphs present different approaches
9. because of rigidity inherent in large or bureaucratic and strategies to help overcome the barriers to change.
organizations; Luthans [13] proposes five approaches to overcome resis-
10. because of personality, habit, fear, equilibrium between in- tance to change:
dividuals or institutions, status and similar social and psy-
chological considerations; 1. Providing new information: By providing new informa-
11. because of the tendency of organized groups to force tion, the person will change his or her attitudes towards
conformity; that innovation.
12. because of the reluctance of an individual or group to 2. Use of fear: Fear can be used to change people’s attitudes;
disturb the equilibrium of society or the business the degree used is highly important, low levels tend to be
atmosphere’’ [12]. ignored while high levels tend to be rejected.
3. Resolving discrepancies: Change can be obtained by solv-
Some of the reasons that Spence [12] presents are directly ing the discrepancies between attitudes and behaviors.
connected with Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs and barriers 4. Influence of friends or peers: Persuasion of friends or peers
to change levels and aspects. For example, the protection of can also accelerate change.
social status which is in direct relation with the esteem needs 5. Co-opting approach: Change is achieved by involving the
while the prevention of a job loss by the safety needs and the people dissatisfied in the process and helping them to
devaluation of knowledge or skills by the needs for self-actu- realize the benefits of making changes.
alization. Reasons such as the costs of replacing equipment or
modifying systems are linked to economic factors. Others Each approach offers a different perspective to help solve
refer to political factors, such as the institutional laws and the barriers to change. Some offer a better solution to a certain
culture. Yet, others refer to the individual and institutional level or aspect than others. The approach or approaches that
willingness to maintain the status quo. best suit each level or aspect of the barriers to change is ex-
An example of a Level 3 reason can be found in number 7, plained in the subsequent paragraphs.
where the innovation opposes social customs, fashions and Depending on the situation, some approaches can be used
tastes and the habits of everyday life. in conjunction with others. For example, the use of fear and
An important point is stated in reason number 8, it conflicts the influence of friends or peers can help to convince individ-
with existing laws. This implies that the institutional policies uals in the late majority and laggard categories. The influence
should incorporate the innovation so as to avoid conflicts. of friends or peers could come from the combined pressure of
The types of conflicts are addressed in subsequent paragraphs. innovators, early adopters and early majority, while the use of
While some of the foregoing barriers apply to many situa- fear could come from the top-levels and be backed up by an
tions and organizations, the following are especially relevant institutional policy framework. Thus, the individuals will be
for universities: pressed to change by their colleagues, the authorities and the
organization’s rules and laws.
- ‘‘Conservationism or unwillingness to change; Quinn et al. [14] complement Luthans’ [13] approaches
- change creates extra work in addition to the ‘‘day-to-day’’ with three strategies (detailed in Box 2): (a) Empiricaleratio-
activities; nal (making logical arguments for change), (b) Power-coercive
- lack of relevant and complete SD information, and how to (using forms of leverage to force change), and (c) Normative-
incorporate it into the individual activities’’ [2]. re-educative (using participation and pursuing winewin
strategies).
As can be observed from the preceding lists, some of the The five approaches of Luthans [13] and the three strategies
barriers to change arise from unfulfilled basic needs. For of Quinn et al. [14] can be utilized to overcome the barriers
example, the protection of social status or prerogative, which to change in the different levels and aspects. For example,
relates to esteem needs. While other barriers to change are Level 1 (Based upon the lack of information) can be overcome
clearly explained by the levels and aspects, e.g. the lack of by using the ‘‘Providing new information’’ approach, and the
relevant SD information as an example of Level 1. ‘‘Empiricalerational strategy’’ which can help the rational
The appearance of barriers to change is inevitable. It is im- individuals make changes by gaining an understanding of
portant to recognize their existence and their level or aspect to the potential benefits of making the change.
792 R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796

institutionalization in the university. This is addressed in the


Box 2. Strategies to overcome change following paragraphs.
Level 3 (Higher than actual change) is the highest level of the
‘‘The empiricalerational assumes that people are barriers to change. When this level appears the individuals are
guided by reason and will calculate whether it is not willing to cooperate to make changes. This involves the per-
in their best interest to change. It assumes that sonal dimensions, such as lack of trust and values differences. To
if people understand the logic for change and help overcome this level the ‘‘Use of fear’’ or ‘‘Influence of peers
see themselves as benefiting from the change, and friends’’ approaches can be used. The Use of fear approach
they will be more likely to change. Resistance can help to reduce the fear that the individual feels towards SD,
comes primarily from ignorance and superstition. while the influence of peers and friends can serve as a social
To counter this resistance, individuals must be pressure towards those individuals who are considered to be
educated about the logic and benefits of change. Laggards (Fig. 1). Any of the three strategies can be used to over-
The power-coercive strategy focuses on forcing come this level, but this author believes that the Normative-
people to change through the use of external re-educative strategy can provide the best results for reducing
sanctions. This strategy emphasizes political and friction and conflicts by involving the individual. The Power-
economic power. The power-coercive change coercive strategy should be used as a last resort but should be
strategy also has limited use in adaptive situa- kept in mind in case the other two fail.
tions. In adaptive change, people must commit Aspect 1 (Procrastination) refers to the situation when the
themselves to the collective purpose. The power- individual is lazy or considers the change too difficult, for
coercive strategy usually evokes anger, resistance, this the approaches of Co-opting and Influence of peers and
and damage to the fundamental relationships of friends can be used and the Normative-re-educative strategy.
those involved in the change. Thus, it is not likely Aspect 2 (Power) is always present in any human being
to result in the kind of voluntary commitment system. None of the approaches or strategies presented can
that is necessary in most adaptive solutions. be used to reduce or eliminate it. The power struggle drains
The normative-re-educative strategy involves a resources and energy from individuals and from the system.
more collaborative change progress. Individuals Table 1 presents, in a condensed form, the strategies and
are still guided by a rational calculus; however, approaches proposed to be used for each of the levels and as-
this calculus extends beyond self-interest to pects of resistance to change.
incorporate the meanings, norms, and institu- The interactions of large numbers of individuals in universi-
tional policies that contribute to the formation of ties present a challenge for the SD incorporation and institution-
human culture. Using this strategy, the leader of alization process. In this process some, or all, of the levels and
change welcomes the input of others as equals aspects of the barriers to change are bound to appear. Conflicts
into the change process. Change does not come will appear even if the individuals’ needs are understood
by simply providing information, as in the and taken into consideration and the appropriate strategy or ap-
empiricalerational strategy. Rather, it requires proach is used to overcome the barriers to change. The follow-
the leader to focus on the clarification and recon- ing paragraphs explain the types of conflicts that may appear.
struction of values. In this mode, the leader
attempts to identify all values and works collec-
tively through conflict. The emphasis is on com- 7. Conflicts that may arise while seeking to
munication with the followers rather than their incorporate SD into university systems
manipulation’’ [14].
‘‘Conflict between organizations is an inevitable result of
functional interdependence and scarcity of resources’’ [15].
This statement highlights why individuals in institutions
To overcome Level 2 barriers (Based upon psycholo-
gical and emotional reactions towards change) two of the Table 1
approaches could be used: ‘‘Resolving discrepancies’’ or Matrix of the approaches and strategies to overcome barriers to change
‘‘Co-opting approach’’. Both of these approaches can help Change barrier Approach Strategy
individuals to better understand the problems and help solve Level 1 Providing new information Empiricalerational
them by active involvement. The strategies that can help solve Level 2 Resolving discrepancies; Normative-re-educative
this level are the ‘‘Power-coercive’’ and ‘‘Normative-re-educa- co-opting approach
tive’’. The former is a type of command and control that Level 3 Use of fear; Normative-re-educative;
influence of peers power-coercive
should be used only as a last resort, since, by nature, it creates and friends
friction and dissatisfaction. The Normative-re-educative strat- Aspect 1 Co-opting approach; Normative-re-educative
egy requires that the participants are provided the opportunity influence of peers
to give their opinions in a collaborative manner, about their in- and friends
volvement in the incorporation of SD in the process of Source: The author.
R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796 793

protect their resources and ideas, which are frequently incom- While incorporating and institutionalizing SD the following
patible with those of others, thus creating conflicts. There are points should be considered:
two types of conflicts that could arise:
1. ‘‘Small groups of people should begin and, if successful,
1. unnecessary but easily manageable; build up [SD] momentum throughout the entire university.
2. genuine, inevitable and difficult to avoid [15]. 2. Both pressure and support e i.e. both sticks and carrots e
are necessary for success.
According to Carley and Christie [15] the first type arises 3. The relationship between changes in behavior and changes
due to: in belief requires careful consideration, support and
monitoring.
1. Misperceptions or stereotypes, miscommunication or ha- 4. The role of ownership. True ownership is not something
bitual negative behaviors. that emerges magically at the beginning, but emerges dur-
2. Data conflicts from lack of information, misinformation, ing a successful change process’’ [4].
disagreement over data relevance or misinterpretation.
3. Value conflicts from incompatibility belief systems. Taking these statements into consideration, the steps to take
to incorporate SD into the university system should be, but are
The second type arises from: not restricted, to:

1. Structural conflicts from oppressive patterns of human  Engaging and obtaining top-level support.
relationships.  Providing the necessary institutional framework for the SD
2. Interest conflicts over substantive issues, procedural issues efforts to ensure continuity.
and psychological issues.  Setting goals, objectives, timetables, and monitoring and
reporting of the efforts. There are many reporting tools
It is important for the leaders, or SD champions1, to be available, some examples the Auditing Instrument for
aware and to understand the barriers to change and conflicts Sustainable Higher Education (AISHE) by Roorda [7],
that could arise in order to take the necessary steps to prevent and the Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Univer-
or to solve them. Some of the conflicts can be solved by taking sities (GASU) by Lozano-Ros (also presented in this
a proactive instead of a reactive approach, this is the duty of special edition of the JCP), some others are presented by
the SD champion; the importance of this individual in the in- Lozano-Ros [2].
corporation of SD is presented in the following section.  Providing the necessary information and skills to all the
stakeholders through different media (such as internet, ed-
8. SD champion and his/her role ucation, etc.), with a special focus on educating the educa-
tors. A clear understanding of SD is necessary for the
The role of the opinion leader, defined by Rogers [5] as incorporation of the concept.
‘‘. individuals who are influential in approving or disapprov-  Detecting, engaging and empowering the individuals who
ing new ideas’’, in this case the SD champion, is to be at the are already convinced with the idea, making them SD
forefront and be the link between the innovator and the orga- champions to help them achieve a multiplier effect
nization. Opinion leaders belong to the early adopters’ cate- throughout the entire organization. An important group
gory. The path from the innovation to the organization (or that must take part is the students.
community) is proposed by Spence [12] and shown in Fig. 3.
Even though leadership plays a vital role in the SD incor- These steps, even though presented serially, should be done
poration and institutionalization in universities, it is the duty simultaneously and repeatedly.
of all of the individuals in the organisation to change their at- The multiplier effect refers to the identification and em-
titudes and to work towards SD and make it part of their cul- powerment of innovators and early adopters among the indi-
ture and system. viduals that are being educated in SD to create a reference
group that can by homophily, i.e. ‘‘. the degree to which
two or more individuals who interact are similar in certain at-
9. Recommendations tributes .’’ [5], and peer-pressure and influence accelerate the
diffusion of SD to the other individuals and categories.
This author believes that even though SD is a radical inno- The multiplier effect is supported by Elton’s [4] three stages
vation within universities, it is necessary to incorporate it in- of dissemination, who states that an innovation must pass:
crementally. Otherwise, the incorporation process will face
stiff resistance from individuals and will lead to unnecessary 1. ‘‘From the innovator to the converted or readily convert-
conflicts. ible, usually best through workshops;
2. From the converted, back at base, to the convertible ones
1
in the same discipline in the home institution, as well as
An SD champion is an opinion leader that is influential in the approval or in other institutions;
disapproval of new ideas.
794 R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796

Fig. 3. The usual sequence of players in the process of the adoption of an innovation in personal or organizational contexts. Source: Adapted from Spence [12].

3. From the converted discipline to other disciplines within a framework where there are no abuses. Under number 12,
each of the institutions’’ [4]. promoting sustainability in popular culture, McKeown [16]
points that SD must be woven into everyday life and govern-
Elton’s [4] proposal, to pass from the innovator to the easily mental policy, creating bottom-up pressure.
convertible, then to the ones in the same disciplines, reinforced By following these recommendations, the resistance to
by homophily, and then onto other disciplines, does not corre- change can be reduced, diminishing the barriers to change,
spond with the SD holistic nature, where many disciplines even though they still arise since many individuals prefer the
must be involved since the beginning of the incorporation status quo.
and institutionalization process, thus rendering the application It has been suggested that in order to incorporate SD within
of Elton’s [4] second and third stages as such inadequate. El- universities a top-down approach is the best strategy [17]. This
ton’s [4] proposal can be used within the adopter categories author believes that the best strategy is to foster SD through
specifying that the dissemination should pass from the innova- a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches at the
tors to the early adopter and so onto the laggards. same time. Certainly, top-level support through university pol-
Thus the multiplier effect is ensured so as to accelerate the icies, programs, financial and human resource allocation is es-
transition towards a more sustainable university by engaging sential. At the same time, trans-disciplinary involvement of
and empowering all of the stakeholders. students, faculty, staff and others in the university community,
Once the multiplier effect begins to have an impact, then at all levels, is essential to obtain support and gain momentum
the following issues proposed by McKeown [16] should be in the SD incorporation and institutionalization process in-
taken into consideration to assure continuity and to foster cluding all the stakeholders, fomenting the transition towards
the institutionalization of SD: a trans-disciplinary approach.
In summary, the following approaches can be used to facil-
1. ‘‘Increasing awareness; itate and support the SD incorporation process:
2. Structuring and placing SD in the curricula;
3. Linking to existing issues: educational reform and eco- - Make SD explicit in the universities’ academic policies,
nomic viability; institutional mission, strategy and planning.
4. Facing the complexity of SD concept; - Appoint an SD coordinator, who acts as a champion, to co-

5. Developing an ESD program with community ordinate the SD institutionalization process. A multi-
participation; stakeholder committee should be established to help the
6. Engaging traditional disciplines in a trans-disciplinary SD champion to plan and coordinate the implementation
framework; process.
7. Sharing the responsibility; - Involve stakeholders in all the phases of the process of

8. Building human capacity; incorporation and ensuring continuity of the SD


9. Developing material and financial resources; program, SD demands stakeholder participation; it is
10. Developing policy; also highly advised that all the disciplines contribute their
11. Developing a creative, innovative and risk-taking climate; knowledge.
12. Promoting sustainability in popular culture’’. - Reduce the fear of change to incorporate SD by providing

the necessary information to everybody that addresses the


It should be noted that McKeown [16] does not clarify rational of certain individuals, using the empiricaleratio-
whether the issues should be addressed in the presented order nal strategy, and engaging others using the normative-re-
or all at the same time. For example, number 10, developing educative strategy.
university policies to promote SD should be in one of the first - Incorporate SD into all five academic dimensions (curric-

activities, together with top-level engagement and support. ula, research, campus operations, community outreach,
Issue number 11, developing a creative, innovative and and assessment and reporting).
risk-taking climate, according to her should ensure that the - Communicate regularly, the goals, objectives, processes,

teachers are should be free to experiment and feel that the progress and future plans of the SD efforts to all stake-
administrators will support their efforts, always under holders within and outside of the academic context.
R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796 795

- Develop and utilize specific strategies to overcome the SD; (c) work with research coordinators and the individual
barriers to change, at all levels. Specifically the levels 2 researches to help them to incorporate SD into their disci-
and 3, since level 1 can be overcome with information. plinary, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary research;
A powerful and useful strategy to achieve this is the nor- (d) incorporate SD into all outreach activities; (e) establish
mative-educative, where the different individuals are clear goals, objectives, indicators and methods for easy as-
involved in SD projects, thus reducing their resistance to sessment, reporting, analysis and comparison and (f) use
change. the reports and related information to accelerate the incor-
- Achieving the multiplier effect can reduce the time of SD poration of SD among all university stakeholders.
adoption; this can be achieved by identifying and encour- 4. The university should ensure continuity within a clear and
aging some of the individuals involved in small projects to transparent framework and a long-term plan for institu-
share their experiences and knowledge. The multiplier tionalization of SD.
effect can also be achieved by educating educators to
educate other educators and thus obtain a multiplier effect. For the universities that have already incorporated SD in
- Incorporate SD into the everyday life of all on campus; it their systems the work load is lighter. The following recom-
should not be seen as an abstract concept that does not re- mendations could help them improve their SD process:
late to the day-to-day work.
- Understand and meet individual needs; if the individuals do 1. Establish a high level SD coordinator position which is
not internalize SD the institution will never be sustainable. empowered and funded to ensure SD continuity.
2. Verify that SD is included in the five dimensions (curric-
This author offers some recommendations presented in the ula, research, campus operations, outreach, and assess-
following paragraphs for: ment and reporting).
3. Perform thorough and regular assessment on where your
a. the universities that have not yet incorporated SD, university stands on the five dimensions and compare
b. the universities that have already incorporated it, and with your plan’s goals. By detecting the individuals, de-
c. the three main stakeholders in universities. partments and centers that (a) are the most eager to
work with SD, and (b) the most reluctant will help to de-
The recommendations are not exclusive for each group. All tect the innovators and laggards. The first ones can be used
of the groups should study the recommendations proposed for as multipliers by educating the educators, and the last to be
the others, some of which can offer new insights. able to detect the highest change level and take the appro-
In the case of universities that have not yet incorporated SD priate measures.
into their systems the following recommendations are made: 4. Plan and implement regular reporting of campus SD
achievements.
1. The universities’ leaders must recognize that working to-
wards SD is a necessity in the current world, where eco- These points lead the author to make recommendations for
nomic processes are rapidly degrading the natural and the three main stakeholders in the universities:
human resources upon which societies are totally and mu-
tually interdependent. SD offers a possible vision to help 1. Academic directors: You are the ones who lead and guide
reduce this degradation. One of the information and in- your university. It is imperative that you understand the
volvement sources are offered by the different SD declara- importance of SD in the modern world and take action
tions and charters for universities (for further information to incorporate it in your institution. There are several SD
refer to IISD [18] and Lozano-Ros [2]). declarations and charters for universities; review them
2. The individual(s) that are willing to become SD cham- and if possible sign and use them as guides in your SD im-
pion(s) must be identified, engaged and supported with of- plementation. They can help you introduce SD to the uni-
ficial authority and financial means. This champion or versity’s mission, policy and strategic planning. You
champions must receive a proper SD education and be should also select and empower a SD champion and
highly motivated and skilled in educating and motivating help in the development and transformation of courses to
others to also become engaged in the SD journey. more trans-disciplinary.
3. The university policies and strategies must be designed to 2. Professors: Through your work with students, you have
holistically integrate SD as the golden thread throughout the opportunity and obligation to educate them in the con-
the university system. After this, the process of implemen- cepts, tools, approaches and values of SD. Work with the
tation in the five dimensions must be started with real in- students and with your colleague professors towards
volvement at all levels. The following steps may be among a more trans-disciplinary and SD focused education.
the first ones to be started: (a) implement resource savings, 3. Students: You, as the future leaders and decision-makers of
recycling and green procurement via the campus opera- society must learn about and apply the concepts, ap-
tions, since this will provide quick and visible results proaches and values of SD into your personal and profes-
rapidly; (b) make course and curricular changes after edu- sional lives. You have the energy and motivation to take
cating educators on the concepts, tools and approaches in new challenges. You can help your university by
796 R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 787e796

demanding that the leaders and the faculty provide you and institutionalization. These should be managed according
ample opportunities to learn about and to become empow- to their type.
ered to implement SD in your campus activities and sub- The SD incorporation and institutionalization can be accel-
sequently in your societal functions. If your university erated with multiplier effects, guided by a SD champion. It is
still has not started to incorporate SD, become part of or important that within the process the individual basic needs
create a student organization to promote SD in your cam- are understood and met.
pus context. It is important that you learn SD in the univer- SD incorporation and institutionalization, even though
sity through different channels: curricula, research, a radical innovation, should be done incrementally and with
interaction with students and professors, remember that the participation and empowerment of all the stakeholders to
‘‘hands-on’’ is usually the best approach. reduce the resistance to change and the appearance of unnec-
essary conflicts.

References
10. Conclusions
[1] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common
Although SD, as a concept, became famous after the 1987 future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
publication by the Brundtland Commission of their report, ti- [2] Lozano-Ros R. Sustainable development in higher education. Incorpora-
tion, assessment and reporting of sustainable development in higher
tled, ‘‘Our Common Future’’ [1], many higher education institu- education institutions. Master thesis, IIIEE, Lund University; 2003.
tions in the world have not yet attempted to introduce it to their [3] Cortese AD. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable
systems. The concept of SD contrasts with the existing concepts future. Planning for Higher Education 2003;31(3):15e22.
and teaching methods in universities, which are mainly focused [4] Elton L. Dissemination of innovations in higher education: a change the-
on resource depletion. This makes SD fall into the radical inno- ory approach. Tertiary Education and Management 2003;9(3):199e214.
[5] Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of
vation category of the idea type. Worldwide, all university Glencoe; 1962.
leaders should recognize that it is not possible to continue in [6] Afuah A. Innovation management. Strategies, implementation and
such path and that it is necessary to integrate the environmental profits. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1998.
and social aspects into the economic ones. [7] Roorda N. AISHE: auditing instrument for sustainable higher education.
The author of this document has sought to answer the ques- Dutch Committee for Sustainable Higher Education. Available at:
<http://www.dho.nl/documents/AISHE-Book1.5.pdf>; 2001.
tions: (1) How to effectively and efficiently incorporate SD [8] Sherry L. Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning
into the university’s policies, activities and system? (2) How Research 2003;13(3):209e36.
to ensure that SD becomes an integral part of the university [9] Dobes V. EMS and change of guiding ideas in direction of sustainability.
culture and create a multiplier effect within the institution Paper presented at 7th European roundtable on cleaner production, Lund;
2001.
and in society, in the short and long-terms?
[10] Maslow AH. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper; 1954.
Throughout the SD incorporation and institutionalization in [11] Maurer R. Beyond the wall of resistance: unconventional strategies that
universities barriers to change will inevitable appear. These, as build support for change. 1st ed. USA: Bard Press; 1996.
well as ways to overcome them are also presented in this doc- [12] Spence WR. Innovation: the communication of change in ideas, prac-
ument. Table 1 proposes the approaches and strategies that can tices, and products. 1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
be used to overcome each of the levels and aspects of the bar- [13] Luthans F. Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
[14] Quinn RE, Spreitzer GM, Brown MV. Changing others through changing
riers to change. ourselves. The transformation of human systems. Journal of Management
Overcoming the barriers to change is not an easy task. To- Inquiry 2000;9(2):147e64.
gether with the approaches and strategies, trans-disciplinary [15] Carley M, Christie I. Managing sustainable development. 2nd ed.
and multi-stakeholders approaches must become an integral London: Earthscan Publications Ltd; 2000.
part in the SD incorporation and institutionalization in univer- [16] McKeown R. Education for sustainable development toolkit. Knoxville,
Tennessee: University of Tennessee; 2002.
sities. Top-levels must be engaged and supportive to the [17] Hansson, L. Personal communication, IIIEE, Lund University; 2003.
changes and help develop the university policy framework. [18] IISD. Declarations for sustainable development [Online]. Available at:
Undoubtedly conflicts will appear in the SD incorporation <http://www.iisd.org/educate/declare.htm>; 8th August 2005.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen