Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education

program at universities
Jose
rio de Andrade Guerra a, b, c, *, Je

Baltazar Salgueirinho Oso
ssica Garcia b, d,
Mauricio de Andrade Lima a, e, Samuel Borges Barbosa f, Mauri Luiz Heerdt e,
Issa Ibrahim Berchin a, b
a
University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul), Brazil
b
Research Group on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), Unisul, Brazil
c
Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance (C-EENRG), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, United
Kingdom
d
International Relations, Unisul, Brazil
e
Production Engineering, Unisul, Brazil
f ^mico Andrei Cristian Ferreira Street, Florianopolis, Brazil
Production Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Eng. Agrono

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: By developing and implementing environmental concerns in its principles and infrastructure, univer-
Received 1 July 2016 sities are becoming increasingly active in promoting societal changes towards sustainable development.
Received in revised form These environmental concerns are translated into comprehensive and transversal environmental edu-
27 October 2016
cation programs aimed at building capacities and promoting awareness not only for students but also to
Accepted 29 November 2016
Available online xxx
the surrounding communities. This paper aims to develop a Balanced Scorecard strategy map for
implementing and monitoring environmental education programs in universities. To accomplish this
objective, we conducted a literature review on environmental education in higher education, finding 10
Keywords:
Universities
primary indicators and 40 sub-indicators needed to implement environmental education programs in
Higher education universities. Fifteen experts in sustainability research were asked to evaluate these indicators and sub-
Environmental education indicators. Then, those indicators and expert evaluations were used to build a decision tree that sup-
Sustainable development ports the Balanced Scorecard. Based on our findings, we created and adapted a strategy map for envi-
Balanced Scorecard ronmental education based on five dimensions: sustainable development; environmental education;
teaching processes and environmental management; learning and environmental growth; and economic
and financial responsibility. The main contribution of this paper is to propose a theoretical proposal that
can serve as a guide to implement and monitor environmental education programs in universities.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction promoting ecological behaviors and critical thinking (Kibbe et al.,

Environmental education (EE) gained international focus on the
1970s in an effort to emphasize the importance of the natural
environment, developing environmental awareness and con-
sciousness to society (McKeown and Hopkins, 2003). The term EE is
often used to emphasize the education and promotion of awareness
and information on environmental sustainability e e.g. focusing on
* Corresponding author. 219 Trajano Street, Florianopolis, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: baltazar.guerra@unisul.br (J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra), jessica.
sgarcia@outlook.com (J. Garcia), mauricio.lima@unisul.br (M. de Andrade Lima),
osamuelbarbosa@gmail.com (S.B. Barbosa), mauri.heerdt@unisul.br (M.L. Heerdt),
issaberchim@gmail.com (I.I. Berchin).
2014; Frantz and Mayer, 2014; Zso
ka et al., 2013; Carleton-Hug
and Hug, 2010), focusing on information about proper waste
management (Pe
rez-Belis et al., 2015) and focusing on shaping
attitudes about sustainable consumption (Zso
ka et al., 2013).
McKeown and Hopkins (2003) dedicated a paper to discuss the
differences between EE and education for sustainable development
(ESD), alleging that EE evolved from a restricted focus on envi-
ronmental issues to a more comprehensive concept, involving so-
cial and economic matters. Thus, the authors allege that ESD
naturally “involve and address three realms: environment, society,
and economy”.
There is a tenue difference in the use of terms like EE, ESD and
Education for Sustainability, and they have been addressed as

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
2 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
synonyms, or relatively related terms, by Kopnina (2015), Zso
ka
et al. (2013), Heimlich (2010). However, Stevenson (2006) and
Nomura (2009) attempted to distinguish EE from ESD by alleging
that the first is more focused on environmental concerns, while the
second is more devoted to social and economic concerns.

ka et al. (2013, p. 128) consider higher ESD as “a field of
Zso
enquiry which seeks to understand how sustainability may be
advanced in the curriculums and operational activities of higher
education institutions”, attempting to “play the traditional role of
transforming societies and serving the greater public good”. Thus,
according to McKeown and Hopkins (2003), EE and ESD have
similarities and are complementary to each other. Hereafter, for this
paper EE and ESD will be addressed as synonyms.
EE awareness has become relevant to academia, being a theme
of discussions at several conferences such as ECO 92 and Rio þ20
(United Nations, 2012). Thus, EE began to be implemented in uni-
versities intending to educate future generations and ensure that
economic and social development could apply sustainability pat-
terns (Xiong et al., 2013).
The final report of the Rio þ20 Conference, “The Future We
Want”, encourages the promotion of ESD, especially in universities,
alleging that it can instigate skills and innovative solutions, devel-
oping and training students to be “bridging skills gaps for
advancing national sustainable development objectives” (United
Nations, 2012, p. 41).
The Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education
organized by Unesco (1977) affirms that the promotion of EE in
universities is essential to aware people about environmental
complexities and about the need to adapt current development
activities respecting the nature. Additionally, EE promotes not only
knowledge, but also experiences and behaviors (Luppi, 2011;
Teixeira, 2013; Constantinescu, 2014), creating environmental
consciousness and critical thinking (Nasibulina, 2015), that support
learners to shape future sustainable societies (Kitamura, 2014).
There is a growing demand from society for universities’ actions
on sustainable development, turning these institutions into agents
for change (Stephens and Graham, 2010; Lozano et al., 2013b;
Ramos et al., 2015; Suryawanshi and Narkhede, 2015; Ceulemans
et al., 2015). Thus, an increasing number of universities are
becoming aware of their role in building a sustainable paradigm
(Hancock and Nuttman, 2014; Holm et al., 2016; Lozano et al.,
2015a, 2015b; Ramos et al., 2015; Verhulst and Lambrechts,
2015), with the potential to accelerate the progress towards a
sustainable development (Katiliu  te_ et al., 2014).
Universities are gaining relevance all around the world,
“developing specialized and skilled manpower […] creating human
capital needed to support development of local communities”, for
this reason investments in sustainable universities are seeing both
as a contributor to the society and as competitive advantage
(Gholami et al., 2015, p.52). Thus, higher education is essential to
establish a sustainable society, incorporating and institutionalizing
sustainable development into their own systems to implement and
disseminate sustainability (Lozano et al., 2013a, 2015a, 2015b; Foo,
2013; Ramos et al., 2015; Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2015).
Several authors (e.g. Lozano et al., 2013b; Figueiro
and Raufflet,
2015; Waheed et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2011;
Hoover and Harder, 2015; Jua
rez-Na
jera et al., 2006; Ko
scielniak,
2014; Go
mez et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2015; Mintz and Tal, 2014)
reinforce the importance of implementing an institutional agenda
for sustainable development, after all, its implementation inside
universities’ administration and campuses is essential to establish
sustainability in the institutions. Within the above, the following
question is formulated to guide this paper: Which indicators should
be considered to implement and monitor environmental education
programs in universities, supported by a BSC?
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
2. Literature review
Universities, secular institutions and one of the most important
social organizations, are now inserted in a complex scene of great
change and uncertainty in the economic, political, social, educa-
tional, technological and environmental fields, requiring new forms
of management to make them more agile, flexible and effective in
terms of responsiveness to social demands (Aktas, 2015). Environ-
mental degradation and natural resources depletion are among the
most challenging subjects of the 21st century and as a response, EE
is increasingly being integrated into the university's core.
Given the notion that universities play a major role in character
formation and educating future professionals and world leaders, it
becomes clear the necessity for an EE program to these institutions.
Thus, it is indispensable to say that EE is a lifelong process that
should start at the early stages of education (Azeiteiro et al., 2015;
Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Mintz and Tal, 2014).
A survey conducted by Meyer (2015) validates the importance
that education carries in individuals with higher educational de-
grees, proving that there is at least some soft evidence that they are
more aware of the impacts of their behavior and more concerned
with social welfare. With that in mind, it is easier to understand
that EE helps to build a society that is more conscious of their de-
cisions and that moves towards a sustainable future. Alongside
with EE, sustainable development is also being incorporated on
universities as part of their institutional framework (Ramos et al.,
2015). Considering that university campuses are a part of the ur-
ban ecosystem, it presents impacts on the environment and
therefore, the institution's role is to serve as example of sustainable
practices (Bantanur et al., 2015; Cortese, 2003).
The institution must oversee its own EE program and, to do so, a
monitoring system is required, making it easier to recognize how to
improve the program and understand its effectiveness. To create a
monitoring tool to EE programs, the literature review was used to
identify indicators that are most valuable to a successful program
and then, establishing the indicators for EE programs.
2.1. Guidelines for environmental education programs in higher
education
The first indicator relates to an inter/multidisciplinary approach.
The interdisciplinary approach is one of great importance, espe-
cially in universities because of the complex interactions between
the social, economic and environmental spheres, which are the
basis of sustainable development (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Gombert-
Courvoisier et al., 2014; Ko
scielniak, 2014). By presenting a case
study, Aktas (2015) allege that universities need new approaches
and new methods to communicate and teach, engaging themselves
to develop and implement a university-wide common course on
sustainability. Sustainability can be integrated in higher education
through a holistic and inter/transdisciplinary approach, focused in
values and learners’ competence development (Lambrechts et al.,
2013; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Waheed et al., 2011).
An interdisciplinary approach is considered one key dimension
of the ESD, especially in e-learning (see Azeiteiro et al., 2015),
allowing learners and professors to proceed a lifelong and inde-
pendent learning process, and stimulating critical thinking and
creativity (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014;
Mintz and Tal, 2014). In the same way, Lozano et al. (2013b, p.
310) stress that “E-learning brings new dimensions to traditional
education, when it comes to adult learning, and increases the
motivation of students to learn about environmental issues”.
Thus, “the emphasis of higher education institutions should be
to promote interdisciplinary thinking and analysis, which is the
basis of sustainable development” (Azeiteiro et al., 2015, p. 309).
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
Through an analysis of international declarations on sustainability
on higher education, Lozano et al. (2013b) highlight that a multi-
disciplinary teaching is essential to support societal trans-
formations for achieving a sustainable development. In this regard,
multidisciplinary researches involve different types of knowledge
to investigate, analyze and find solutions to problems, and it is “is
increasingly accepted as necessary in addressing complex, multi-
stakeholder real-life problems with high social and environ-
mental relevance” (Gaziulusoy and Boyle, 2013, p. 140). Thus,
transdisciplinary activities, rethinking their missions, restructuring
their research programs, curriculum, and life style on campus, and
enhancing cooperation with other societal institutions, help to
enhance sustainability in universities (Waheed et al., 2011).
Environmental and sustainability issues must be incorporated in
a broader range of courses in higher education, to have a real
impact in the students and future professionals, inducing their
behavior to “take action for sustainable development”, being more
environmentally conscious (Mintz and Tal, 2014; Rodríguez-
Barreiro et al., 2013). Rodríguez-Barreiro et al. (2013) also high-
light two main factors that influence environmental behavior: in-
ternal factors (such as knowledge, emotions, values, and feeling)
and external factors (infrastructure, cultural factors, and economic
situation).
The second indicator is related to outreach programs. To incor-
porate sustainability values in higher education, the institution
must rethink its goals and reorient its education, research and
outreach programs (Wals, 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2013). Com-
munity outreach is important because, as stated by Barth et al.
(2014), there is no sharp boundaries separating the institution it-
self and its surroundings. The objective here is to engage the stu-
dents with their own community, characterizing volunteerism,
social transformation and participatory democracy (Bedawy, 2014;
Boyer, 1996; Markus et al., 1993).
Moreover, Stephens et al. (2008) and Zhang et al. (2011) believe
that the relevance of community outreach is based on the fact that
this kind of programs have the potential to influence the society. In
Lozano et al. (2013b), the authors mention how important it is for
universities to stablish their own outreach programs by high-
lighting a great number of documents that support the same idea,
such as the Talloires declaration, the Halifax declaration, the Kyoto
declaration, the Swansea declaration and the COPERNICUS charter.
Outreach programs help students to develop skills on problem-
solving situations to help local communities (Bacon et al., 2011).
Thus, Milutinovic and Nikolic (2014) believe that outreach pro-
grams regarding sustainable development should be able to offer
specific educational services for the local community. Waheed et al.
(2011) also state that higher education institutions, specially uni-
versities, hold the potential to engage thousands of individuals in
campus and millions on the surrounding communities. By
providing the means through outreach programs, the institutions
are facilitating the link between theory and practice, fostering new
ideas and approaches (Lozano et al., 2013a).
The third indicator accounts for the adoption of an institutional
agenda for sustainable development. It means that not only the
students must be involved, but also every sector of the institution.
The concept of achieving sustainability in universities goes beyond
education and research and it must be implemented in planning
and administration (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Figueiro
and Raufflet,
2015; Saadatian et al., 2009).
The implementation of the concept of sustainability in the
mission, vision and planning of universities are one of the key
factors for achieving a sustainable higher education and to
demonstrate institutional commitment towards those goals
(Go
mez et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2015; Waheed et al., 2011). On the
other hand, Verhulst and Lambrechts (2015) warn about the
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
3
difficulties to an organizational change towards sustainable
development, stating that the institution might face barriers like
lack of awareness, changes in the structure of universities and the
lack of resources.
Thus, to lead the process towards a sustainable future, univer-
sities must apply sustainability into their own systems, promoting a
paradigm shift (Lozano et al., 2013b). However, according to Hoover
and Harder (2015), this process is characterized as long and chal-
lenging and it is not a matter of what is being done, but how it is
being implemented.
The fourth indicator is Sustainability Report. Linked with the
previous indicator, the institution must report its advances and
retractions to improve sustainable development performance,
facilitate communications among departments and transparency,
planning strategies and changes, market sustainable development
efforts, making comparisons between institutions, creating
awareness on environmental issues, and reporting those issues to
stakeholders (Ceulemans et al., 2015; Figueiro
and Raufflet, 2015;
Lozano, 2013). However, a successful sustainability report must
have clear objectives to facilitate identifying the outcomes
(Carleton-Hug and Hug, 2010; Heilmayr, 2006).
In addition, students can be actively participating in the evalu-
ation of the HEI progress towards sustainable development, by
allowing them to learn from the assessment and to give input on
how to improve their learning (Lambrechts et al., 2013). Thus, ac-
cording to Dlouha and Burandt (2015), when it comes to evaluating
learning, students' perceptions are essential to reflect on the
learning process and give feedback onto its quality.
The fifth indicator is related to cooperation with other in-
stitutions. Partnerships involving other educational institutes, the
public and the private sector are essential to develop new research,
facilitate technology transfer and identify similar subjects to work
on (Unece, 2009; Unesco, 2014). It is also important to share and
disseminate knowledge on sustainability with other institutions
(Aktas, 2015; Adombent et al., 2014). When it comes to sharing
experiences and professional development, conducting workshops
with other institutions are a viable and interesting way to do so
(Anand et al., 2015).
Another significant form of cooperation is through exchange
programs, especially those involving students on courses related to
environmental issues, which contributes not only for the learning
experience but also for an inter-cultural one (Lozano et al., 2013b,
2015b). Regarding potential for innovative projects, Müller-Christ
et al. (2013) and Stephens and Graham (2010) state that partner-
ships between universities and nongovernmental organizations
have a great potential to achieve changes in the field of sustainable
development.
Taking it to a more practical situation, a collaborative partner-
ship between universities is also helpful to learn about sustain-
ability practices inside campus territory, which enables
comparisons and learning for better outcomes (Yuan and Zuo,
2013). Therefore, corporations and partnerships allow new initia-
tives extremely valuable to an EE program.
The sixth indicator is capacity building, which aims at increasing
skills to work on issues related to the environment and its preser-
vation through training, policy development, and institutional
strengthening (Monroe et al., 2007; Barth et al., 2014). According to
Lambrechts et al. (2010), professors' capacitation should involve
elements of sustainable development although in an implicit and
fragmented way. To prepare those future professionals to incor-
porate sustainable development thinking into their practices, the
professors must be well prepared to transfer their knowledge, even
if the discipline does not necessarily have any environmental
approach (Lozano-García et al., 2009).
Universities must be willing to constantly improve its education,
4 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
providing quality training on EE according to the particular context
of the institution (Cebria
n and Junyent, 2015). Furthermore, as
stated in the previous indicator, the education and training courses
can be taught in conjunction with other universities, to promote
cooperation between institutions with the same goals (Malyan and
Jindal, 2014), in this case, towards sustainability.
The seventh indicator approaches the Internal Processes and its
objective is to understand if the institution can provide sustainable
measures to its internal functions. Through a sustainable manage-
ment, the institution can improve productivity reducing the con-
sumption of important resources such as water and energy and
narrowing negative environmental impacts while also enhancing
its image (Rauen et al., 2015; Adombent et al., 2014; Saleh et al.,
2011).
The increase in consumption due to population growth needs
great attention. In this regard, universities should deal with their
amount of resource consumption and create innovative and
responsible ways to inspire students to do the same (Katiliu  te_ et al.,
2014; Ho et al., 2014). This calls for clear strategies to reduce its
impacts on the environment, promoting the changes that need to
be done, aiming for a long-term transformation that is responsive
to society's needs (Waheed et al., 2011; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008;
Velazquez et al., 2006).
The eighth indicator refers to Education and Research, and aims
to establish pathways to engage students in dealing with envi-
ronmental issues while exercising their abilities to solve problems
and encourage them to conduct their own research and surveys.
The student's involvement in researches can stimulate the learning
process and contribute to understand and solve environmental
complexities (Barth et al., 2014; Go
mez et al., 2015; Ramos et al.,
2015).
Furthermore, research is based on real-world contexts and
contemporary issues, which is very important to develop critical
and holistic thinking, leaning towards ESD (Azeiteiro et al., 2015).
According to Kopnina (2015), the institution's duty should be to
encourage critical thinking instead of instructing a certain type of
behavior. For Lambrechts et al. (2013), using research methods like
bibliographic research and problem analysis are valuable tools to
fill the gap between theory and practice.
Social context must also be a part in every practice that the
learner is developing, stating that social interactions may lead to
rethinking ideas and contesting viewpoints and thereby, learning
as a group instead of learning individually (Unece, 2009; Hoover
and Harder, 2015). Another valuable strategy is to formulate
curricula that embodies sustainable development accordingly to
the desired outcomes set by the institution and to revise it when-
ever needed (Lozano et al., 2015a, 2015b; Posner and Stuart, 2013).
The ninth indicator is simulation activities. According to
Mingazova (2014) and Steiner and Posch (2006), engaging students
in practical activities can motivate independent, proactive, logical
and creative behavior. Participatory learning is also a method to
achieve critical thinking, working as a group and sharing knowl-
edge, especially if it is linked with the student's interest
(Missingham, 2013; Kaewjumnong, 2013; Barth et al., 2014).
Additionally, Müller-Christ et al. (2013, p. 3) states, “the philosophy
of 'hands-on practice' can serve to attract further students”.
One of the most frequent participatory methods is the use of
case studies. For Dieleman and Huisingh (2006), case studies allow
to observe reality and to go beyond the merely analytical approach,
by providing solutions to a specific problem in a specific context.
In the context of practical learning, role-playing and simulations
are also a very interesting method to use critical thinking and ex-
ercise problem solving. “When playing, a person simulates and
creates realities, with certain rules, roles, conditions and premises
mutually accepted, and he can put himself in other shoes,
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
developing an emotional understanding of why some people act in
certain ways” (Ghilardi-Lopes et al., 2013, p. 470).
The tenth indicator is Democratic Process, which suggest that
higher education has the potential to promote social inclusion,
gender equality and diversity, through offering equal opportunities
to capacity building and access to knowledge and market (Gurin
et al., 2002; Go
mez et al., 2015). According to Wang et al. (2013),
student's participation in decision-making should be the main
precondition to EE or ESD programs, since it has a great influence
on their behavior.
The promotion of equity between staff and students allows the
cross-cultural sharing of ideas and can enhance learning (Waas
et al., 2012). Regarding gender equity, UN Women (2014) states
that “achieving gender equality and realizing the human rights,
dignity and capabilities of diverse groups of women is a central
requirement of a just and sustainable world”.
Adopting a democratic process helps into shaping ideologies
and values (Alshurman, 2015). According to Unece (2009), ESD
requires a holistic approach and includes taking about social, eco-
nomic and cultural diversity.
2.2. Prospects and assumptions of a Balanced Scorecard, towards
sustainability in higher education
Traditionally, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) divides an organi-
zation into four perspectives: financial perspective, customer
perspective, internal process perspective, and learning and growth
perspective (Kaplan and Norton, 1997). Prospects are analyzed and
consist of a balanced set of financial and non-financial indicators
that are modeled on cause and effect relations to achieve organi-
zational strategic objectives. For this purpose, in each perspective,
some questions are proposed which should be answered by stra-
tegic decisions.
The objectives of the four perspectives intertwine with each
other in a cause and effect relation. The development and align-
ment of intangible assets induce improvements in process perfor-
mance, which, in turn, drive the success for customers and
shareholders. Lawrence (2002) indicates that in each of its per-
spectives, the BSC provides answers to four relevant questions:
How does the shareholders can benefit? (Financial Perspective);
How does the customers see the company? (Customer perspec-
tive); What should be improved? (Perspective of internal pro-
cesses); Is it possible to continue to improve and create value?
(Learning and growth perspective).
The BSC is a technique that aims at integrating and balancing all
major existing performance indicators in a company from the
financial/administrative to those relating to internal processes
(Kaplan and Norton, 2004). The strategy map of the BSC displays
hypothesis of the strategy, and each indicator becomes part of a
logical chain of cause and effect that connects the desired outcomes
of the strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 2004). For this paper, there was
no strategy established, consequently a reverse process had to be
performed (i.e. the first step was the set of indicators for the de-
scriptors of each perspective, based on a literature review, and then,
strategic objectives were designed, based on the perspective of
experts, shown in the decision tree).
The strategy map describes the process of transforming intan-
gible assets into tangible results for customers and therefore, in
financial results (Kaplan and Norton, 2004). This tool aims at
decoding the complex processes of decision-making, enabling a
better monitoring and evaluation of the strategy. The BSC compo-
nents are associated as follows:
1. Strategy map: interpretation of the strategy into quantifiable
goals, establishing cause-effect relations between components;
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
2. The indicators measure the degree of achievement of the pro-
posed objectives and influence the behavior of people in the
pursuit of the goal;
3. The goals and initiatives provide the speed and the priority of
the implementation process in pursuit of achieving a goal;
4. The strategic initiatives specify how to achieve the set targets
and eliminate or neutralize the causes identified. It represents a
project, program or strategy and should be interpreted into
operational actions and budgets. They should represent actions
or operational routines (meetings, reporting, etc.). It may be
related to more than one strategic objective.
The main objective of the BSC is to seek alignment between the
strategic planning of an organization and the operational activities
that it carries (Kaplan and Norton, 1997). In this sense, it aims to
translate the mission and strategy into objectives and measures,
organized by indicators that will inform all members of an orga-
nization about the drivers of current and future success. Thus, it is
expected that the BSC conduct energy, skills and knowledge of all
the organization's employees to reach long-term goals. By building
these strategic capabilities, organizations provide value to the
market, while providing an increased business value for its
shareholders.
The BSC is considered an effective and flexible tool to formulate
strategies and increase performance of organizations, allowing
managers to adapt it to different forms and add new perspectives
according to the interest of the organization (Figge et al., 2002; Falle
et al., 2016). “The balanced scorecard has evolved from its early use
as a simple performance measurement framework to a full strategic
planning and management system, and it enables executives to
truly execute their strategies” (Rajesh et al., 2012, p. 270).
Accordingly, Figge et al. (2002) proposed a Sustainability BSC by
adding a nonmarket perspective to address social and environ-
mental concerns. Several other authors (e.g. Sidiropoulos et al.,
2004; Valenzuela and Maturana, 2016; Kang et al., 2015; Falle
et al., 2016), emphasize the importance of adding non-financial
perspectives in the BSC, adding new dimensions and/or replacing
the traditional ones in order to face the current challenges of sus-
tainable development. Thus, Hansen and Schaltegger (2016) argue
that the BSC is one of the most effective tools for evaluating sus-
tainability performance of organizations, considering that it bal-
ances the three dimensions of sustainability (i.e. social,
environmental and economic), into the strategic goals of organi-
zations, allowing to monitor and measure their progress, either by
adding social and economic perspectives in every classic dimension
of the BSC (i.e. Financial Perspective, Customer Perspective, Process
Perspective, and Growth and Learning Perspective) or/and by
adding a specific new dimension for social and environmental and
ethics aspects.
Some authors have proposed a Sustainable BSC, by changing
some aspects of the traditional BSC and adding a fifth dimension e
e.g. Sidiropoulos et al. (2004, p. 28) proposed an Eco- BSC defined as
“an interactive methodology employed at the operation strategy
level that uses business-process simulation models in connection
with a modified form of the Balanced Scorecard structure”; by
analyzing the Chilean wine industry, Valenzuela and Maturana
(2016) reinforced the importance of sustainability by proposing a
BSC model that embraces social and environmental matters as in-
dependent perspectives from internal process, also stating the
higher performance of wineries that managed to use BSC in their
business and addressed sustainability criteria; to analyze the re-
lations between corporate social responsibility and business per-
formance in the hospitality industry, Kang et al. (2015) also applied
the Sustainability BSC; Lin et al. (2016) proposed a modified BSC to
address sustainability in higher education, mostly focusing on
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
5
environmental concerns.
By reviewing several studies on the application of BSC in higher
education institutions, Al-Hosaini and Sofian (2015) observed that
universities, especially public universities, concentrated their
strategic goals more on quality performance then in financial e e.g.
by emphasizing community participation, innovation, strategic
partnership and scientific research excellence in their strategies.
Tohidi et al. (2010) discussed the importance of strategic planning
on Iranian educational organizations by presenting a BSC to enable
the institutions to focus on good quality educational services,
harmonize annual action plans and have personnel involvement in
decision-making. Other studies such as Karathanos and Karathanos
(2005), Armitage and Scholey (2006), Beard (2009) and
Umashankar and Dutta (2007) also applied BSC to education and in
universities and, according to Schobel and Scholey (2012), what the
literature shows is that there is a great value on the use of perfor-
mance management tools like the BSC on educational institutions.
In order to develop a BSC for EE programs in universities, it was
necessary to add values from both sustainability BSC and BSC for
higher education institution. To adapt the BSC for environmental
education programs in universities, the four traditional dimensions
of the BSC were adapted to five dimensions: 1) Dimension of Sus-
tainable Development; 2) Dimension of Environmental Education;
3) Dimension of Processes and Environmental Management; 4)
Dimension of Learning and Environmental Awareness; and 5)
Dimension of economic and financial responsibility.
3. Methods
In order to summarize the methods used to develop this paper,
Fig. 1 shows the steps applied.
3.1. Mapping indicators for environmental education programs in
universities
The existing literature published on scientific journals enabled
the identification of 10 indicators and 40 sub-indicators to envi-
ronmental education programs in higher education. These in-
dicators are:
1. Inter/multidisciplinary approach, unfolded into: 1) Adoption
of ethics and sustainability classes in all courses; 2) Devel-
opment of interactive platforms for dialogue among disci-
plines; and 3) Application of cognitive learning methods in
all courses.
2. Outreach, unfolded into: 1) Number of outreach programs
engaging the community in the University's surroundings; 2)
Number of outreach programs devoted to environmental
awareness; 3) Number of outreach programs related to
innovation; 4) Number of outreach programs related to
environmental awareness in partnerships with primary and
secondary schools; and 5) Number of students and pro-
fessors engaged with outreach programs.
3. Adoption of an institutional agenda for sustainable devel-
opment, unfolded into: 1) Adoption of sustainable develop-
ment concerns in the vision and mission of the institution; 2)
Adoption of environmental issues when planning for devel-
opment and growth; 3) Development of an online interactive
platform for students, professors and the community at
large.
4. Sustainability Report, unfolded into: 1) Plans for sporadic
reporting on sustainability results from the institution; 2)
Dissemination of Sustainability Reports in accessible plat-
forms; 3) Plans for engaging academic community and other
stakeholders in the development of the Sustainability
6 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
Fig. 1. Steps applied to conduct this paper.
Report; 4) Establishment of transparent metrics to monitor,
evaluate and report sustainable activities.
5. Cooperation with other institutions, unfolded into: 1) Num-
ber of joint research projects with other institutions; 2)
Number of Seminars, Conferences and/or Workshops with
other institutions; 3) Number of exchange/training programs
with foreign institutions; 4) Number of practical projects in
partnership with other institutions.
6. Capacity building, unfolded into: 1) Number of training
courses and capacitation on environmental education, to all
university's employees; 2) Number of professors, students
and staffs trained and aware about environmental issues; 3)
Number of professors specialized in Environmental Educa-
tion and sustainability issues; 4) Number of programs/ini-
tiatives aimed at enhancing organizational competencies.
7. Internal processes, unfolded into: 1) Adoption of a program
to reduce printed documents; 2) Adoption of a program to
reduce wastes; 3) Adoption of a program to store and use
rainwater, reuse water and reduce water consumption; 4)
Reduce energy use through improvements in energy effi-
ciency; 5) Adoption of a recycling program.
8. Education and research, unfolded into: 1) Number of Post-
Graduate programs considering environmental issues in
the curricula; 2) Number of research databases signed by the
university; 3) Number of research groups focused on envi-
ronmental issues.
9. Simulation activities, unfolded into: 1) Application of case
studies in classes; 2) Adoption of role-playing activities in all
courses; 3) Organization of computer simulations of practical
activities; 4) Number of academic enterprises.
10. Democratic Process, unfolded into: 1) Adoption of a policy for
gender equality; 2) Adoption of a policy for inclusion of
students with disabilities; 3) Adoption of a policy for cultural
diversity; 4) Student's participation on decision-making; 5)
Development of platform
3.2. The decision tree and its indicators for environmental
education programs
After identifying the indicators in the literature review, a multi-
criteria evaluation model was built. This method should serve as a
support for institutions willing to implement and monitor EE
programs. Multi-criteria methodologies emerged from the Opera-
tional Research (OR) field, initially used to support decision making
by companies (Mellers, 1990; Bana e Costa et al., 1999). This type of
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
methodology is used in business decision-making in highly com-
plex situations, where many qualitative and quantitative factors are
involved. The emergence of multi-criteria methodologies occurred
in contrast to traditional methods, which aimed only at improving
the financial performance of the companies (Clemen, 1996).
The multi-criteria methodologies may be used for the creation
of evaluation indicators. In order to do so, a decision tree should be
drawn, containing the indicators at its various dimensions. It is
possible to have more than one dimension and indicators should be
unfolded to levels that can be numerically measured (sub-in-
dicators). In furtherance of building the indicators' group, the
literature review identified 10 main indicators, which were
unfolded into 40 sub-indicators. These indicators represent aspects
that should be observed for the development and implementation
of EE programs in universities.
After establishing the indicators in accordance with the litera-
ture review, a consultation with 15 experts in the sustainability
field was performed. The experts consulted are PhDs and uni-
versity's professors with over five years of experience in research
and sustainability projects. This consultation was made through a
questionnaire sent by email to each expert, containing the 10 in-
dicators and the 40 sub-indicators, where the experts ranked their
level of importance according to their knowledge.
Subsequent to the rating, a distribution of the weights of in-
dicators and sub-indicators was performed. The decision tree
created is an overview of the rank of each indicator and sub-
indicator for the development of EE programs in universities.
Thus, the decision tree shows which indicators are relevant ac-
cording to the experts' perspectives. Fig. 2 represents the in-
dicators' tree with their individual weights.
The proposed decision tree is based on the table presented in
Appendix 2. The decision tree shows which indicators have greater
or minor importance to EE programs.
3.3. The BSC for EE programs at universities
The BSC require decision makers to define the organizational
strategy, however, to compensate the lack of a strategy and to
develop a theoretical design of the BSC for implementing and
monitoring EE programs in universities, the literature review
allowed the identification of the most relevant indicators con-
cerning this topic, endorsed by the consultation with 15 experts.
This procedure was intended to classify the level of importance of
each indicator and indicators group. Accordingly, the decision tree
(Fig. 2), provides an overview of the importance of each indicator in
the development of EE programs in universities. The decision tree
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17 7

Fig. 2. Weight of indicators and sub-indicator for Environmental Education Programs.

enabled the understanding of which aspects are more and less
important in the perspective of experts, working as a substitute to
the strategy.
After identifying the indicators and sub-indicators and attrib-
uting a weight of relevance to them, it was possible to start the
process of adaptation of the BSC to EE programs at universities. The
first step was to modify the original BSC architecture, from four
prospects to five dimensions (Fig. 3). Then, in order to give a more
aligned direction to each dimension, guiding questions were
developed and presented to achieve and organize the descriptors of
the strategy map.
After presenting the decision tree (Fig. 2) and structuring the
strategy map (Table 11), strategic objectives were defined to pre-
sent a cause and effect relationship as shown in Fig. 4. Accordingly,
Table 11 and Fig. 4 show the BSC's strategy map redesigned for
environmental education programs (see Tables 1e10).
4. Results and discussion: proposal of a BSC's strategy map for
EE programs
According to the scientific literature review, universities are
promoters of societal changes. In this regard, education for

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
8 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17

Fig. 3. Adaptation of the BSC to environmental education programs at universities.

Table 1
Inter/multidisciplinary approach as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Inter/multidisciplinary approach

Description An inter/multidisciplinary approach must be adopted in all classes and academic activities, drawing on the specific content of each discipline in making
possible a holistic and balanced perspective of different issues. Enabling the students and the professors to have a broader and deeper knowledge about
several subjects, contributing to find creative and effective solutions to unsustainable problems.
Authors Aktas, 2015; Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Gaziulusoy and Boyle, 2013; Gombert-Courvoisier et al., 2014; Ko
scielniak, 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al.,
2013b; Lozano et al., 2015b; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Mintz and Tal, 2014; Rodríguez-Barreiro et al., 2013; Waheed et al., 2011; Wals, 2014; Yuan and
Zuo, 2013
Sub- Adoption of ethics and sustainability studies in all courses
indicator
Description Presenting an ethical perspective is quite necessary, in order to reflect on the meaning of sustainable choices that every individual makes as a citizen.
Authors Aktas, 2015; Ko
scielniak, 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Luppi, 2011; Mintz and Tal, 2014
Sub- Development of interactive platforms for dialogue among disciplines
indicator
Description Interactive platforms for dialogue among disciplines leads to exchange of ideas between different areas, challenging the traditional knowledge paradigms
Authors He
nard and Roseveare, 2012; Wilson, 2016
Sub- Application of cognitive learning methods in all courses
indicator
Description In order to fully achieve sustainability in higher education, it is necessary to develop competences related to critical and systemic thinking
Authors Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2013b; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Mintz and Tal, 2014; Rodríguez-Barreiro et al., 2013; Waheed et al., 2011

sustainable development has the potential to create a generation of
future leaders aware of their impacts in the society and in the
environment, assuming their role in making a change and pro-
moting sustainability throughout the society. Thus, education for
sustainability should be a life-long process, from kindergarten to
higher education and beyond.
A holistic environmental education program in universities
enables the immersion of students, professors and other staff
members in a sustainable environment. Therefore, a holistic envi-
ronmental education program goes beyond education in class and
spread to the whole institution, from its infrastructure to its in-
ternal processes and the definition of the institution itself (i.e. its
mission, vision and the planning process).
Even though the BSC does not specifically address environ-
mental concerns, the model can be adapted to other sectors of
society. Kaplan and Norton (2004) allege that it is possible to
redesign the BSC architecture for organizations in which the
financial success is not the main goal. Based on the above, a strategy
map for implementing and monitoring EE programs in universities
is proposed. To do so, the sustainable development dimension re-
places the dimension of the economic and financial responsibility,
as it can be seen in Fig. 4.
The proposed strategy map model is based on the table pre-
sented in Appendix 1, which summarizes the strategic objectives
and its indicators. By observing Fig. 4, it is possible to note that the
use of the BSC can create many possibilities for improving EE
programs in universities, turning it into a part of their systems and
enabling its implementation, monitoring, and reporting on the
program's progress.
The first positive aspect for the use of the BSC is to respect
existing features in the universities’ environment. While univer-
sities may seem like other organizations, they have different
complex characteristics in the legal, cultural and, especially, in its
social role of creating and disseminating knowledge.
The second aspect is the possibility of structuring a number of
strategic objectives within a university context, in an integrated
and interconnected way that allows the effective construction of an
EE program. Thus, it can transcribe the strategic objectives into a
coherent set of performance indicators, enhancing its ability to
clarify and provide consensus on strategies to EE. Therefore, its use
tends to facilitate communication related to the strategic planning.
In this regard, it is necessary to adopt sustainable development

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17 9

Table 2
Outreach as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Outreach
Description Outreach programs focused on EE and sustainability concerns help to stimulate students to use knowledges acquired in classes, encouraging their creativity
and creating experiences and knowledges that will be used during their lifetime.
Authors Barth et al., 2014; Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Bacon et al., 2011; Boyer, 1996; Bedawy, 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2013b; Lozano et al., 2013a;
Markus et al., 1993; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Waheed et al., 2011; Wals, 2014; Stephens et al., 2008
Sub- Number of outreach programs engaging the community in the University's surroundings
indicator
Description Outreach programs can address a local environmental issue and benefit the community
Authors Waheed et al., 2011; Barth et al., 2014; Lozano et al., 2013b; Lozano et al., 2013a; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Wals, 2014; Stephens et al., 2008; Zhang
et al., 2011
Sub- Number of outreach programs devoted to environmental awareness
indicator
Description Promote outreach programs with focus on environmental awareness
Authors Waheed et al., 2011; Barth et al., 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2013b; Lozano et al., 2013a; Milutinovic and Nikolic, 2014; Stephens et al., 2008;
Zhang et al., 2011
Sub- Number of outreach programs related to innovation
indicator
Description Promote outreach programs with focus on innovation to environmental concerns
Authors Lozano et al., 2013a; Stephens et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2011
Sub- Number of outreach programs related to environmental awareness in partnerships with primary and secondary schools
indicator
Description Promote outreach programs in partnerships with different levels of education, aiming at the principle of EE being a lifelong process
Authors Barth et al., 2014; Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Soykan and Atasoy, 2012
Sub- Number of students and professors engaged with outreach programs
indicator
Description Promote the engagement of students and professors in outreach programs with the purpose of enhancing critical thinking and solving-problems skills
Authors Barth et al., 2014; Wals, 2014; Zhang et al., 2011

Table 3
Adoption of an institutional agenda for sustainable development as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Adoption of an institutional agenda for sustainable development

Description The institutional implementation of a sustainable agenda inside universities administration and campuses are essential and it might consider environmental
aspects in their plans for development and growth.
Authors
and Raufflet, 2015; Go
Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Figueiro
mez et al., 2015; Hoover and Harder, 2015; Lozano et al., 2013b; Ramos et al., 2015; Saadatian et al.,
2009; Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2015; Waheed et al., 2011
Sub- Adoption of sustainable development concerns in the vision and mission of the institution
indicator
Description Characterizing the philosophy of sustainable development in the vision and mission of the universities, helping to stress their commitment with
sustainability.
Authors Saadatian et al., 2009; Zdanyte_ et al., 2014; Waheed et al., 2011; Go
mez et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2015; Verhulst and Lambrechts, 2015
Sub- Adoption of environmental issues when planning for development and growth
indicator
Description The process of planning is essential to determine the guidelines for institutions, and environmental concerns may be addressed to implement an
environmental program.
Authors
and Raufflet, 2015; Go
Saadatian et al., 2009; Figueiro
mez et al., 2015; Hoover and Harder, 2015; Ramos et al., 2015
Sub- Development of an online interactive platform for students, professors and the community at large
indicator
Description Creating online platforms for learning, teaching and promoting interaction is an important tool to stimulate lifelong learning, critical thinking and
developing a mechanism for dialogue and problem solving.
Authors Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2013b

concerns in the vision and mission of the institution, also consid-
ering environmental issues when planning for development and
growth.
The third relevant aspect arising from the BSC use was that in
the construction process, as from the inclusion of the descriptors in
each dimension, it was possible to detect the need to include other
indicators. To build a more cohesive and integrated proposition to
an EE program, economic indicators that were not identified by the
scientific literature review, were added to make the program
economically viable. Thus, strategic objectives, as well as indicators
in this direction should be part of this process.
This study showed a direct relation between practice and theory,
necessary aspects for the better use of the BSC and thus for the
benefit of the organization, with a wide range of financial and non-
financial indicators, distributed in five dimensions within condi-
tions close to reality, increasing the reach of its goal. However, it is
emphasized that the effective implementation of the BSC requires
leadership, effort and financial resources. The positive results from
the use of the BSC requires fundamental changes in the culture of
universities, which is precisely where there is a higher possibility of
failure.
The transformation of beliefs and cultures of an organization is

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
10 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17

Table 4
Sustainability Report as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Sustainability Report

Description Universities must disseminate the results of their EE programs, creating outputs to different societal stakeholders, and sharing their knowledges acquired in
the process. Also enabling the follow up of results from the expected outputs described in the EE program.
Authors
and Raufflet, 2015; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano, 2013; Carleton-Hug and Hug, 2010; Heilmayr, 2006; Dlouha and
Ceulemans et al., 2015; Figueiro
Burandt, 2015
Sub- Plans for sporadic reporting on sustainability results from the institution
indicator
Description Establishing a timeframe to perform sustainability reports and the analysis of its results.
Authors Koehn and Uitto, 2014; Waheed et al., 2011; Carleton-Hug and Hug, 2010
Sub- Dissemination of Sustainability Reports in accessible platforms
indicator
Description Public publishing sustainability reports, demonstrating transparency and accountability.
Authors Waheed et al., 2011; Carleton-Hug and Hug, 2010; Waas et al., 2012
Sub- Plans for engaging academic community and other stakeholders in the development of the Sustainability Report
indicator
Description To determine what aspects, universities need improvements in the perspective of the community and other stakeholders.
Authors Wattage and Mardle, 2005; Manetti and Toccafondi, 2012; Bianchi and Kossoudji, 2001
Sub- Establishment of transparent metrics to monitor, evaluate and report sustainable activities
indicator
Description Provide information regarding the evaluation framework used and its results.
Authors Koehn and Uitto, 2014; Waas et al., 2012; Lambrechts et al., 2013

Table 5
Cooperation with other institutions as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Cooperation with other institutions

Description Universities must cooperate to share knowledge, capacities, researches, methods and experiences. Also, promoting the value and necessity of local, national
and international co-operation in the prevention and solution of environmental problems.
Authors Adombent et al., 2014; Aktas, 2015; Anand et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2013b; Lozano et al., 2015b; Müller-Christ et al., 2013; Stephens and Graham, 2010;
Yuan and Zuo, 2013; Unece, 2009; Unesco, 2014
Sub- Number of joint research projects with other institutions
indicator
Description Joint research can expand knowledge and experiences and are an essential process to come up with new ideas and solutions for environmental issues.
Authors Lisetskii et al., 2015; Haegeman et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2013b; Lozano et al., 2015b; Stephens and Graham, 2010; Yuan and Zuo, 2013
Sub- Number of Seminars, Conferences and/or Workshops with other institutions
indicator
Description Collaborative events are an interesting way to create new opportunities for research and joint projects with other institutions, and a propitious place to share
knowledge and learn from each other.
Authors  s et al., 2015; Anand et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2013b; Lozano et al., 2015b; Stephens and Graham, 2010
Haegeman et al., 2015; Lisetskii et al., 2015; Soo
Sub- Number of exchange/training programs with foreign institutions
indicator
Description Exchange programs are valuable to share learning experiences, and being aware of different realities and trainings are of great importance to acquire skills
and competencies.
Authors Lisetskii et al., 2015; Anand et al., 2015; Malyan and Jindal, 2014
Sub- Number of practical projects in partnership with other institutions
indicator
Description Joint research often leads to partnerships in innovative projects that can deal with environmental issues within the institutions, the local communities or in a
higher level.
Authors Nasibulina, 2015; Lisetskii et al., 2015; Anand et al., 2015; Lozano et al., 2015b; Müller-Christ et al., 2013

one of the greatest challenges of contemporary administration.
Thus, indicating the need to aware students, professors and other
staff members about sustainability issues, promoting mandatory
changes in internal processes (e.g. adoption of a program to reduce
printed documents, adoption of a program to reduce wastes,
adoption of a program to store and use rainwater, reuse water and
reduce water consumption, reduce energy use through improve-
ments in energy efficiency, adoption of a recycling program), in
order to promote cultural changes in benefit of an effective
implementation of a holistic environmental education program in
universities.
Nonetheless, one can point out some issues that cannot be
postponed: explicit commitment of top management (leadership)
to create a more receptive environment for cultural changes,
incentive programs, training programs that encourage empower-
ment in employees, conducting changes in systems and processes
of the organization.
5. Conclusions
Environmental challenges faced by the world today covers all
spheres of society; in this regard, EE plays a fundamental role in the
awareness of future generations. Universities represent the highest
level of knowledge and should exceed to EE processes, so that
students, professors and other staff members can work together for
sustainable development.

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17 11

Table 6
Capacity building as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Capacity building

Description Capacity building may be done by training professionals to act sustainable, building their capacities to think and create sustainable solutions to solve
problems. Also, training universities' employees, staff and students to EE.
Authors
n and Junyent,
Barth et al., 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2010; Monroe et al., 2007; Ramos et al., 2015; Lozano-García et al., 2009; Malyan and Jindal, 2014; Cebria
2015
Sub- Number of training courses and capacitation on environmental education, to all university's employees
indicator
Description Development of key competencies and awareness to all employees regarding environmental issues and sustainability.
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Lambrechts et al., 2010; Cebri

Malyan and Jindal, 2014; Barth et al., 2014; Go an and Junyent, 2015
Sub- Number of professors, students and staffs trained and aware about environmental issues
indicator
Description Development of key competencies to deal with environmental issues.
Authors Malyan and Jindal, 2014; Barth et al., 2014; Lambrechts et al., 2010; Cebri

an and Junyent, 2015; Barth et al., 2007
Sub- Number of professors specialized in environmental education and sustainability issues
indicator
Description Development of key competencies to transmit knowledge to students.
Authors Lambrechts et al., 2010; Malyan and Jindal, 2014; Cebri

an and Junyent, 2015
Sub- Number of programs/initiatives aimed at enhancing organizational competencies
indicator
Description Enhancing organizational competencies to ensure the provision of a quality education.
Authors
n and Junyent, 2015; Malyan and Jindal, 2014
Cebria

Table 7
Internal processes as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Internal processes

Description Consider universities' environment in its totality, adopting policies to change organizational routines and promoting sustainable interventions in the
building, to embrace economic, political, technological, cultural-historical, moral, and aesthetic aspects.
Authors Adombent et al., 2014; Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Rauen et al., 2015; Katiliu
 te_ et al., 2014; Saleh et al., 2011; Waheed et al., 2011; Velazquez et al., 2006; Ho et al.,
2014; Ferrer-Balas et al., 2008
Sub- Adoption of a program to reduce printed documents
indicator
Description Adoption of actions to reduce the use of paper.
Authors Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Waheed et al., 2011
Sub- Adoption of a program to reduce wastes
indicator
Description Adoption of actions to reduce waste, e.g. waste collection programs.
Authors Adombent et al., 2014; Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Katiliu
 te_ et al., 2014; Rauen et al., 2015; Jibril et al., 2012; Zdanyte_ et al., 2014; Waheed et al., 2011
Sub- Adoption of a program to store and use rainwater, reuse water and reduce water consumption
indicator
Description Adoption of actions to reduce water consumption and to maximize its efficiency.
Authors Rauen et al., 2015; Zdanyte_ et al., 2014; Waheed et al., 2011
Sub- Reduce energy use through improvements in energy efficiency
indicator
Description Adoption of actions to reduce energy consumption and to maximize its efficiency.
Authors Adombent et al., 2014; Rauen et al., 2015; Bantanur et al., 2015; Jibril et al., 2012; Zdanyte_ et al., 2014; Waheed et al., 2011
Sub- Adoption of a recycling program
indicator
Description Adoption of actions to promote recycling.
Authors Rauen et al., 2015; Jibril et al., 2012; Zdanyte_ et al., 2014; Waheed et al., 2011

Table 8
Education and research as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Education and research

Description Research and education are the basis of universities, being key areas to invest to implement and promote sustainability into the institution. Thus, it is
important to emphasize the complexity of environmental problems and thus the need to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Hoover and Harder, 2015; Kopnina, 2015; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2015a; Lozano et al., 2015b; Posner
Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Go
and Stuart, 2013; Ramos et al., 2015; Unece, 2009
Sub- Number of Post-Graduate programs considering environmental issues in the curricula
indicator
Description Incorporation of sustainability concept into curricula at all levels
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Hoover and Harder, 2015; Kopnina, 2015; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2015a; Lozano et al., 2015b; Posner
Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Go
and Stuart, 2013; Ramos et al., 2015
Sub- Number of research databases signed by the university
indicator
Description Investment in research by signing diverse databases to enhance research performance
Authors Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2015b
Sub- Number of research groups focused on environmental issues
indicator
Description Support research groups focused on environmental issues
Authors Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Go
mez et al., 2015; Hoover and Harder, 2015; Lambrechts et al., 2013; Lozano et al., 2015a; Lozano et al., 2015b; Posner and Stuart,
2013; Ramos et al., 2015

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
12 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17

Table 9
Simulation activities/practical learning as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Simulation activities/practical learning

Description Utilize diverse learning environments and a broad array of educational approaches to teaching/learning about and from the environment with due stress on
practical activities and first-hand experience. Thus, enabling learners to have a role in planning their learning experiences and provide an opportunity for
making decisions and accepting their consequences.
Authors Barth et al., 2014; Dieleman and Huisingh, 2006; Ghilardi-Lopes et al., 2013; Kaewjumnong, 2013; Mingazova, 2014; Missingham, 2013; Müller-Christ et al.,
2013; Steiner and Posch, 2006
Sub- Application of case studies in classes
indicator
Description Case studies stimulate critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Authors Dieleman and Huisingh, 2006; Mingazova, 2014; Missingham, 2013; Steiner and Posch, 2006
Sub- Adoption of role-playing activities in all courses
indicator
Description Role-playing can provide a contextual idea on how to act and make decisions in a certain position/profession.
Authors Dieleman and Huisingh, 2006; Ghilardi-Lopes et al., 2013; Mingazova, 2014
Sub- Organization of computer simulations of practical activities
indicator
Description Computer simulations can provide information about an overall environmental issue, engaging the students to take decisions and understand its
consequences.
Authors Dieleman and Huisingh, 2006; Mingazova, 2014; Cruickshank and Fenner, 2012
Sub- Number of academic enterprises
indicator
Description Academic enterprises use simulation to understand decision-making in a business scenario.
Authors Ghilardi-Lopes et al., 2013; Dieleman and Huisingh, 2006; Mingazova, 2014

Table 10
Democratic Process as a matter of environmental education programs in universities.

Indicator Democratic Process

Description Democratic processes must be considered in the EE program, once higher education has the potential to promote social inclusion and gender equality,
through offering equal opportunities to capacity building and access to knowledge and market opportunities.
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2013; Waas et al., 2012; UN Women, 2014; Alshurman, 2015; Unece 2009
Gurin et al., 2002; Go
Sub- Adoption of a policy for gender equality
indicator
Description Promote equal gender opportunities in education, research and outreach programs.
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Gurin et al., 2002; Waas et al., 2012; UN Women, 2014; Unece 2009
Go
Sub- Adoption of a policy for inclusion of students with disabilities
indicator
Description Promote the inclusion of students with disabilities in education, research and outreach programs.
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Waas et al., 2012; Unece 2009
Gurin et al., 2002; Go
Sub- Adoption of a policy for cultural diversity
indicator
Description Promote cultural diversity in education, research and outreach programs.
Authors
mez et al., 2015; Waas et al., 2012; Unece 2009
Gurin et al., 2002; Go
Sub- Student's participation on decision-making
indicator
Description Promote the engagement and participation of students in all decisions that may affect their life in campus.
Authors Wang et al., 2013; Alshurman, 2015; Unece 2009
Sub- Development of platforms for debates
indicator
Description Promote platforms for students and staff to debate any issues regarding diversity or environmental concerns.
Authors Alshurman, 2015; Unece 2009; UN Women, 2014

EE programs are being widely used in universities. However, it is
necessary to frequently monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of
these programs, and to employ methods for this purpose. The
multi-criteria methodologies are an alternative to evaluate the EE
programs, enabling managers and decision makers to identify what
actions are most important and can create better results.
With the hierarchy presented in the decision tree, it is possible
to understand that EE programs should invest in the adoption of
ethics and sustainability classes in all courses, in development of
interactive platforms for dialogue among disciplines and adoption
of environmental issues when planning for development and
growth. This is justified by the fact that the experts consider these
three indicators more valuable to EE programs. Within this, the
BSC's strategy map illustrates the cause and effect relations among
the descriptors and the strategic objectives, and it may be used as a
guide to universities to bring more clarity and focus to their EE
programs.
Accordingly, the strategy map has two important functions:
assisting the implementation of EE programs, which through its
five dimensions, turns the goals of EE much more straightforward
to be followed; and the monitoring of the program, to facilitate
leaders to accompany the progress of EE in the institution.
The indicators and sub-indicators suggested by the scientific
literature review, with the weights attributed by the experts and

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17 13

Table 11
Ramifications of the proposed strategy map.

Dimension of Sustainable Development

How can the university improve the future society’s quality of life through environmental education?
[Planning and Evaluating] [Organization and institutional management] [Institutional social and environmental
responsibility] [Communication with the Society]

AdopƟon of sustainable AdopƟon of sustainable AdopƟon of an insƟtuƟonal Plans for engaging

development concerns development concerns in agenda for sustainable academic community and
in the vision and mission the strategic planning development involving the other stakeholders in the
of the insƟtuƟon (1.1) (1.2) academic community and other development of the
stakeholders (1 3) Sustainability Report (1.4)

Dimension of Environmental Education

In order to achieve our mission and vision, how should we create value to stakeholders?
[Policies to Teaching, Research, Outreach and Post-graduation] [Faculty] [Cooperation] [Policy to
assist students]
Educational projects Teaching staff with Cooperation Academic Academic policies related
(undergraduate and training, practice and programs with administrative to environmental
postgraduate courses) academic experience in other institutions services with an education activities
focused on environmental education focused on emphasis on articulated to teaching,
environmental education and sustainability environmental environmental research and outreach
(2.1) matters (2.2) education (2.3) education (2.4) (2.5)

Dimension of Processes and Environmental Management

In which processes should we look for excellence?
[Research] [Teaching] [Outreach] [Academic services]
Interrelations and integration of Supporting Services to Leveling mechanisms and
courses and disciplines through students participating in scholarships linked to
adaptation, updating curricula, and outreach projects related to environmental education and the
relevance of bibliographic material environmental education (3.2) creation of alumni programs (3.3)
to environmental education (3.1)
Dimension of Learning and Environmental Awareness
How can we consolidate our capacity of leaning, innovating and improving?
[Infrastructure] [Environmental Culture] [Human Capital]

Hardware technologies and updated Promote changes in internal

software aligned with the needs of processes to implement
environmental education (4.1) sustainability (4.2)

Dimension of economic and financial responsibility

In order to accomplish our objectives, how show we manage our costs?
[Efficiency Strategy] [Growth Strategy]
Optimize the cost structure of Increase asset utilization in Expand revenue opportunities
the environmental education environmental education deriving from activities of
program (5.1) programs (5.2) environmental education (5.3)

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
14 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17

Fig. 4. Proposed strategy map for implementing and monitoring Environmental Education Programs in universities.

the model of a BSC's strategy map presented in this paper is a ~o do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC 2016TR557) and the
Inovaça
generic theoretical model that can serve as a guide to develop, Research Councils United Kingdom (RCUK).
implement and monitor EE programs in universities. It is note-
worthy that, ideally, each institution should develop their own Appendix A. Supplementary data
model based on their managers' strategic decisions.
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
Acknowledgments dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179.

This study was conducted by the Research Centre on Energy References

Efficiency and Sustainability (Greens), from the University of
Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul), in the context of the projects:
Building Resilience in a Dynamic Global Economy: Complexity
across scales in the Brazilian Food-Water-Energy Nexus (BRIDGE)
and Linkages between energy, food and water consumption in the
context of climate change mitigation strategies (LINKS 2015), fun-
ded by the Newton Fund, Fundaça ~o de Amparo  a Pesquisa e
Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Godemann, J., Herzig, C., Otte, I., Rieckmannn, M.,
Timm, J., 2014. Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable
development e management education, sustainable consumption and per-
spectives from Central and Eastern Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 1e7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.045.
Armitage, H., Scholey, C., 2006. Hands on scorecarding in the higher education
sector. Plan. High. Educ. 35, 31e41. http://eric.ed.gov/?id¼EJ804857.
Aktas, C.B., 2015. Reflections on interdisciplinary sustainability research with

Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
undergraduate students. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 16, 354e366. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2013-0153.
Al-Hosaini, F.F., Sofian, S., 2015. A review of balanced scorecard framework in higher
education institution (HEIs). Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 5, 26e35.
Alshurman, M., 2015. Democratic education and administration. Procedia - Soc.
Behav. Sci. 176, 861e869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.551.
Anand, C.K., Bisaillon, V., Vebster, A., Amor, B., 2015. Integration of sustainable
development in higher education - a regional initiative in Quebec (Canada).
J. Clean. Prod. 108, 916e923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.134.
Azeiteiro, U.M., Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caetano, F.J.P., Caeiro, S., 2015. Education for
sustainable development through e-learning in higher education: experiences
from Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 308e319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.11.056.
Bacon, C.M., Mulvaney, D., Ball, T.B., DuPuis, E., Gliessman, S.R., Lipschutz, R.D.,
Shakouri, A., 2011. The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and
student praxis projects. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 12, 193e208. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371111118237.
Bana e Costa, C.A., Ensslin, L., Corne

^a, E.C., Vansnick, J.-C., 1999. Decision support
systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process.
Eur. J. Operational Res. 113, 315e335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)
00219-7.
Bantanur, S., Mukherjee, M., Shankar, R., 2015. Emerging dimensions of sustain-
ability in institutes of higher education in India. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4,
323e329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.03.004.
Barth, M., Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Richter, S., Rieckmann, M., 2014. Learning to
change universities from within: a service-learning perspective on promoting
sustainable consumption in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 72e81. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.006 (Accessed 23 February 2016).
Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., Stoltenberg, U., 2007. Developing key
competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 8, 416e430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582.
Beard, D., 2009. Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher edu-
cation. J. Educ. Bus. 84, 275e282. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.5.275-282.
Bedawy, R.E., 2014. Embedding sustainable development into higher education: a
case study from Egypt. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 3, 465e484. Available at:
http://www.irmbrjournal.com/papers/1395805752.pdf (Accessed 05 April
2016).
Bianchi, R.R., Kossoudji, S.A., 2001. Interest groups and organizations as stake-
holders. Soc. Dev. Pap. 35, 30. Available at: https://www.commdev.org/userfiles/
files/1493_file_SDP_35.pdf (Accessed 23 May 2016).
Boyer, E.L., 1996. The scholarship of engagement. J. Public Serv. Outreach 1, 11e20.
Available at: http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/
1589/908 (Accessed 03 April 2016).
Carleton-Hug, A., Hug, J.W., 2010. Challenges and opportunities for evaluating
environmental education programs. Eval. Program Plan. 33, 159e164. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.005.
Cebri
an, G., Junyent, M., 2015. Competencies in education for sustainable devel-
opment: exploring the student teachers' views. Sustainability 7, 2768e2786.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7032768.
Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., Liedekerke, L.V., 2015. Sustainability reporting in higher
education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for
further research. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 127e143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.09.052.
Clemen, R.T., 1996. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis,
second ed. Duxbury Press, Belmont.
Constantinescu, C., 2014. Valuing interdependence of education, trade and the
environment for the achievement of sustainable development. Procedia - Soc.
Behav. Sci. 116, 3340e3344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.760.
Cortese, A.D., 2003. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable
future. Plan. High. Educ. 31, 15e22. Availabe at. http://www.aashe.org/
resources/pdf/Cortese_PHE.pdf (Accessed 03 April 2016).
Cruickshank, H., Fenner, R., 2012. Exploring key sustainable development themes
through learning activities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 13, 249e262. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371211242562.
Dieleman, H., Huisingh, D., 2006. Games by which to learn and teach about sus-
tainable development: exploring the relevance of games and experiential
learning for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 837e847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.11.031.
Dlouha, J., Burandt, S., 2015. In search of a new educational quality and assessment
methodology: design and evaluation of learning processes in an international
sustainability oriented study programme. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 247e258. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.096.
Falle, S., Rauter, R., Engert, S., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016. Sustainability Management
with the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard in SMEs: findings from an Austrian
Case Study. Sustainability 8, 545. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8060545.
Ferrer-Balas, D., Adachi, J., Banas, S., Davidson, C.I., Hoshikoshi, A., Mishra, A.,
Motodoa, Y., Onga, M., Ostwald, M., 2008. An international comparative analysis
of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int. J. Sustain. High.
Educ. 9, 295e316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885907.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2002. The sustainability balanced
scorecard e linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 11, 269e284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.339.
Figueiro
, P.S., Raufflet, E., 2015. Sustainability in higher education: a systematic
review with focus on management education. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 22e33. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.118.
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
15
Foo, K.Y., 2013. A vision on the role of environmental higher education contributing
to the sustainable development in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 6e12. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.014.
Frantz, C.M.P., Mayer, F.S., 2014. The importance of connection to nature in assessing
environmental education programs. Stud. Educ. Eval. 41, 85e89. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.001.
Gaziulusoy, A.I., Boyle, C., 2013. Proposing a heuristic reflective tool for reviewing
literature in transdisciplinary research for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 48,
139e147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.013.
Ghilardi-Lopes, N.P., Braga, J.C., Freitas, S.R., Silva, R.L.F., Ribeiro, T., Simo ~ es, E.,
Pinhata, E., Silva, L., 2013. Environmental education through an online game
about global environmental changes and their effects on coastal and marine
ecosystems. Conf. Proc. SBGames 468e474. Available at: http://www.sbgames.
org/sbgames2013/proceedings/artedesign/57-dt-paper.pdf (Accessed 10 May
2016).
Gholami, H., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N., 2015. A CRM strategic leadership
towards sustainable development in student relationship management: SD in
higher education. Procedia Manuf. 2, 51e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.promfg.2015.07.010.
Gombert-Courvoisier, S., Sennes, V., Richard, M., Ribeyre, F., 2014. Higher education
for sustainable consumption: case report on the human ecology master's course
(University of Bordeaux, France). J. Clean. Prod. 62, 82e88. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.032 (Accessed 26 february 2016).
Go
mez, F.U., Sa
ez-Navarrete, C., Lioi, S.R., Marzuca, V.I., 2015. Adaptable model for
assessing sustainability in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 475e485. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., Gurin, G., 2002. Diversity and higher education: theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harv. Educ. Rev. 72, 330e367. http://
dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.01151786u134n051.
Haegeman, K., Spiesberger, M., Veselitskaya, N., Sokolov, A., Weiss, G., 2015. FTA
supporting effective priority setting in multi-lateral research programme
cooperation: the case of EUeRussia S&T cooperation. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 101, 200e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.009.
Hancock, L., Nuttman, S., 2014. Engaging higher education institutions in the
challenge of sustainability: sustainable transport as a catalyst for action.
J. Clean. Prod. 62, 62e71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.062.
Hansen, E.G., Schaltegger, S., 2016. The sustainability balanced scorecard: a sys-
tematic review of architectures. J. Bus. Ethics 133, 193e221. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3.
Heilmayr, R., 2006. Sustainability Reporting at Higher Education Institutions. CMC
Senior Theses, paper 979. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_
theses/979 (Accessed 26 February 2016).
Heimlich, J.E., 2010. Environmental education evaluation: reinterpreting education
as a strategy for meeting mission. Eval. Program Plan. 33, 180e185. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.009.
He
nard, F., Roseveare, D., 2012. Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education:
Policies and Practices: an IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions. OECD,
Institutional Management in Higher Education. Available at: https://www.oecd.
org/edu/imhe/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf (Accessed 03 April 2016).
Ho, Y., Chang, C., Wei, C., Wang, H., 2014. Multi-objective programming model for
energy conservation and renewable energy structure of a low carbon campus.
Energy Build. 80, 461e468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.054.
Holm, T., Sammalisto, K., Caeiro, S., Rieckmann, M., Dlouh
a, J., Wright, T.,
Ceulemans, K., Benayas, J., Lozano, R., 2016. Developing sustainability into a
golden thread throughout all levels of education. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 1e3. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.016.
Hoover, E., Harder, M.K., 2015. What lies beneath the surface? The hidden com-
plexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education.
J. Clean. Prod. 106, 175e188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.081.
Jibril, D.A.J., Sipan, I.B., Sapri, M., Shika, S.A., Isa, M., Abdullah, S., 2012. 3R s critical
success factor in solid waste management system for higher educational in-
stitutions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 65, 626e631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2012.11.175.
Jones, P., Trier, C.J., Richards, J.P., 2008. Embedding education for sustainable
development in higher education: a case study examining common challenges
and opportunities for undergraduate programmes. Int. J. Educ. Res. 47,
341e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.11.001.
Jua
rez-Na
jera, M., Dieleman, H., Turpin-Marion, S., 2006. Sustainability in Mexican
Higher Education: towards a new academic and professional culture. J. Clean.
Prod. 14, 1028e1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.049.
Kaewjumnong, C., 2013. The model development of participatory learning process
related to community envinronmental management. Eur. Sci. J. 9, 232e240.
Available at: http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/725 (Accessed 05
April 2016).
Kang, J.S., Chiang, C.F., Huangthanapan, K., Downing, S., 2015. Corporate social re-
sponsibility and sustainability balanced scorecard: the case study of family-
owned hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 48, 124e134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhm.2015.05.001.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1997. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into
Action. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2004. Kaplan e Norton na pr
atica. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro.
Karathanos, D., Karathanos, P., 2005. Applying the balanced scorecard to education.
J. Educ. Bus. 80, 222e230. Available at: http://www.wilkes.edu/include/UAC/
Internal/Balanced%20Scorecard%20and%20Education.pdf (Accessed 22 June
2016).
16 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
Katiliu te,
_ E., Daunoriene, _ A., Katkute,
_ J., 2014. Communicating the sustainability
issues in higher education institutions World Wide Webs. Procedia - Soc. Behav.
Sci. 156, 106e110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.129.
Kibbe, A., Bogner, F.X., Kaiser, F.G., 2014. Exploitative vs. appreciative use of nature e
two interpretations of utilization and their relevance for environmental edu-
cation. Stud. Educ. Eval. 41, 106e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.stueduc.2013.11.007.
Kitamura, Y., 2014. The possibility of holistic safety education in Japan: from the
perspective of education for sustainable development (ESD). Int. Assoc. Traffic
Saf. Sci. Reserach 38, 40e47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2014.05.004.
Koehn, P.H., Uitto, J.I., 2014. Evaluating sustainability education: lessons from in-
ternational development experience. High. Educ. 67, 621e635. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9669-x.
Kopnina, H., 2015. Neoliberalism, pluralism and environmental education: the call
for radical re-orientation. Environ. Dev. 15, 120e130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envdev.2015.03.005.
Ko
scielniak, C., 2014. A consideration of the changing focus on the sustainable
development in higher education in Poland. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 114e119. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.006.
Lambrechts, W., Mula , I., Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., Gaeremynck, V., 2013. The
integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education:
an analysis of bachelor programs in management. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 65e73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.034 (Accessed 23 February 2016).
Lambrechts, W., Pons de Vall, I.M., den Haute, H.V., 2010. The integration of sus-
tainability in competence based higher education: using competences as a
starting point to achieve sustainable higher education. In: Knowledge Collab-
oration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation Conference. Available at: https://
lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/407148/1/292_Lambrechts.pdf
(Accessed 01 June 2016).
Lawrence, S., 2002. Commodification of education and academic LABOUR e using
the balanced scorecard in a university setting. Crit. Perspect. Account. 13,
661e677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2002.0562.
Lin, M.H., Hu, J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S.F., Lin, C., 2016. Sustainable development in
technological and vocational higher education: balanced scorecard measures
with uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 120, 1e12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.12.054.
Lisetskii, F., Terekhin, E., Marinina, O., Zemlyakova, A., 2015. Integration strategies of
academic research and environmental education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 214,
183e191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.616.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Seatter, C.S., 2015a. Teaching organisational change
management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the Uni-
versity of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean.
Prod. 106, 205e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.031.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F.J., Waas, T.,
Lambrechts, W., Lukman, R., Huge
, J., 2015b. A review of commitment and
implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a
worldwide survey. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.09.048.
Lozano, R., Lozano, F.J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., Waas, T., 2013a. Advancing higher
education for sustainable development: international insights and critical re-
flections. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 3e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013b. Declara-
tions for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through
addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006.
Lozano-García, F., Huisingh, D., Delgado-Fabi
an, M., 2009. An interconnected
approach to incorporate sustainable development at Tecnolo
gico de Monterrey.
Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 10, 318e333. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?
id¼EJ853286 (Accessed 23 February 2016).
Luppi, E., 2011. Training to Education for Sustainable Development through e-
learning. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 15, 3244e3251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2011.04.279.
Malyan, R.S., Jindal, L., 2014. Capacity building in education sector: an exploratory
study on Indian and African relations. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 157, 296e306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.032.
Manetti, G., Toccafondi, S., 2012. The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting
assurance. J. Bus. Ethics 107, 363e377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-
1044-1.
Markus, G.B., Howard, J.P.F., King, D.C., 1993. Integrating community service and
classroom instruction enhances learning: results from an experiment. Educ.
Eval. Policy Anal. 15, 410e419. Available at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/
dking/service.pdf (Accessed 03 April 2016).
McKeown, R., Hopkins, C., 2003. EE p ESD: defusing the worry. Environ. Educ. Res. 9,
117e128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620303469.
Mellers, B., 1990. Decision making - descriptive normative and prescriptive in-
teractions. J. Math. Psychol. 34, 242e245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-
2496(90)90005-T.
Meyer, A., 2015. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence
from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 116, 108e121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2015.04.018.
Milutinovic, S., Nikolic, V., 2014. Rethinking higher education for sustainable
development in Serbia: an assessment of Copernicus charter principles in
current higher education practices. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 107e113. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.028 (Accessed 24 February 2016).
Mingazova, N.M., 2014. Modification of the active learning methods in
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
environmental education in Russian Universities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 131,
85e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.083.
Mintz, K., Tal, T., 2014. Sustainability in higher education courses: multiple learning
Outcomes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 41, 113e123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.stueduc.2013.11.003.
Missingham, B., 2013. Participatory learning and popular education strategies for
water education. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 150, 34e40. Available at: http://
ucowr.org/files/Achieved_Journal_Issues/150/5_Missingham_150.pdf (Accessed
05 April 2016).
Monroe, M.C., Andrews, E., Biedenweg, K., 2007. A framework for environmental
education strategies. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 6, 205e216. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/15330150801944416.
Müller-Christ, G., Sterling, S., Dam-Mieras, R., Adomßent, M., Fischer, D.,
Rieckmann, M., 2013. The role of campus, curriculum, and community in higher
education for sustainable development-a conference report. J. Clean. Prod. 62,
134e137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.029.
Nasibulina, A., 2015. Education for sustainable development and environmental
ethics. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 214, 1077e1082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.11.708.
Nomura, K., 2009. A perspective on education for sustainable development: his-
torical development of environmental education in Indonesia. Int. J. Educ. Dev.
29, 621e627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.12.002.
Pe
rez-Belis, V., Bovea, M.D., Simo
, A., 2015. Consumer behaviour and environmental
education in the field of waste electrical and electronic toys: a Spanish case
study. Waste Manag. 36, 277e288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2014.10.022.
Posner, S.M., Stuart, R., 2013. Understanding and advancing campus sustainability
using a systems framework. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14 (3), 264e277. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-2011-0055.
Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., Ganesh, K., Ducq, Y., Lenny Koh, S.C., 2012. Generic
balanced scorecard framework for third party logistics service provider. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 140, 269e282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.040.
Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S., Hoof, B., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Ceulemans, K., 2015. Ex-
periences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher ed-
ucation institutions: environmental Management for Sustainable Universities.
J. Clean. Prod. 106, 3e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.110.
Rauen, T.R.S., Lezana, A.G.R., da Silva, V., 2015. Environmental management: an
overview in higher education institutions. Procedia Manuf. 3, 3682e3688.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.785.
Rodríguez-Barreiro, L.M., Fern
andez-Manzanal, R., Serra, L.M., Carrasquer, J.,
Murillo, M.B., Morales, M.J., del Valle, J., 2013. Approach to a causal model be-
tween attitudes and environmental behaviour. A graduate case study. J. Clean.
Prod. 48, 1e280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.029.
Saadatian, O., Mat, S.B., Lim, C., Sopian, K., Daneshmand, S., 2009. Important sus-
tainability in higher educational institutions events. Latest Advances in Biology.
Environment and Ecology. Available at: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/
conferences/2012/Iasi/BIOECO/BIOECO-01.pdf (Accessed 20 May 2016).
Saleh, A.A., Kamarulzaman, N., Hashim, H., Hashim, S.Z., 2011. An approach to Fa-
cilities Management (FM) practices in higher learning institutions to attain a
sustainable campus (Case study: University Technology Mara e UiTM). Procedia
Eng. 20, 269e278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.165.
Schobel, K., Scholey, C., 2012. Balanced Scorecards in education: focusing on
financial strategies. Meas. Bus. Excell. 16, 17e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
13683041211257385.
Sidiropoulos, M., Mouzakitis, Y., Adamides, E., Goutsos, S., 2004. Applying sustain-
able indicators to corporate strategy: the eco-balanced scorecard. Environ. Res.
Eng. Manag. 1, 28e33.

Soos, L., Ferencz, V., Dugas, J., 2015. Innovative management techniques in the field
of environmental education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 174, 3542e3546. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1070.
Soykan, A., Atasoy, E., 2012. Historical development of non-formal environmental
education in Turkey. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 46, 736e743. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.190.
Steiner, G., Posch, A., 2006. Higher education for sustainability by means of trans-
disciplinar case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world
problems. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 877e890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.11.054.
Stephens, J.C., Graham, A.C., 2010. Toward an empirical research agenda for sus-
tainability in higher education: exploring the transition management frame-
work. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 611e618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2009.07.009.
Stephens, J.C., Hernandez, M.E., Roman, M., Graham, A.C., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts.
Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9, 317e338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14676370810885916.
Stevenson, R.B., 2006. Tensions and transitions in policy discourse: recontextual-
izing a decontextualized EE/ESD debate. Environ. Educ. Res. 12, 277e290. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620600799026.
Suryawanshi, K., Narkhede, S., 2015. Green ICT for sustainable development: a
higher education perspective. Procedia Comput. Sci. 70, 701e707. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.10.107.
Teixeira, S.R., 2013. The environmental education as a path for a global sustain-
ability. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 106, 2769e2774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2013.12.318.
Tohidi, H., Jafari, A., Afshar, A.A., 2010. Using balanced scorecard in educational
 J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e17
organizations. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2, 5544e5548. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.904.
Umashankar, V., Dutta, K., 2007. Balanced scorecards in managing higher education
institutions: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 21, 54e67. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540710716821.
UN Women United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of
Women, 2014. Gender Equality and Sustainable Development. World Survey on
the Role of Women in Development 2014. Available at: http://www.unwomen.
org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2014/
unwomen_surveyreport_advance_16oct.pdf (Accessed 16 April 2016).
Unece United Nations Economic Comission for Europe, 2009. Learning from Each
Other: the UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development. United
Nations New York and Geneva, p. 161. Available at: http://www.unece.org:8080/
fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/01_Typo3site/LearningFromEachOther.pdf (Accessed
04 April 2016).
Unesco United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 1977.
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf (Accessed 06
March 2016).
Unesco United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2014.
Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for
Sustainable Development. 07 SP, France. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf (Accessed 04 April 2016).
United Nations, 2012. The Future We Want. Available at: http://www.un.org/
disabilities/documents/rio20_outcome_document_complete.pdf (Accessed 06
March 2016).
Valenzuela, L., Maturana, S., 2016. Designing a three-dimensional performance
measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: a Chilean example. Agric.
Syst. 142, 112e121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.11.011.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., Taddei, J., 2006. Sustainable university: what
can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 14, 810e819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.12.008.
Verhulst, E., Lambrechts, W., 2015. Fostering the incorporation of sustainable
development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 189e204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.09.049.
Waas, T., Huge
, J., Ceulemans, K., Lambrechts, W., Vandenabeele, J., Lozano, R.,
Wright, T., 2012. Sustainable Higher Education: Understanding and Moving
Please cite this article in press as: de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., et al., A proposal of a Balanced Scorecard for an environmental education program
at universities, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.179
17
Forward. Flemish Government. Environment, Nature and Energy Department,
Brussels. Availabe at. http://www.vub.ac.be/klimostoolkit/sites/default/files/
documents/sustainable_higher_education_understanding_and_moving_
forward_waas_et_al_.pdf (Accessed 06 March 2016).
Waheed, B., Khan, F., Veitch, B., Hawboldt, K., 2011. Uncertainty-based quantitative
assessment of sustainability for higher education institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 19,
720e732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.013.
Wals, A.E.J., 2014. Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD:
a review of learning and institutionalization processes. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 8e15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.007.
Wang, Y., Shi, H., Sun, M., Huisingh, D., Hansson, L., 2013. Moving towards an
ecologically sound society? Starting from green universities and environmental
higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 1e5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.09.038.
Wattage, P., Mardle, S., 2005. Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus
development for a wetland in Sri Lanka. J. Environ. Manag. 77, 122e132. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.006.
Wilson, L., 2016. Promoting climate change awareness through environmental ed-
ucation. In: Advances in Environmental Engineering and Green Technologies,
first ed. IGI Global, p. 306. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8764-6.
Xiong, H., Fu, D., Duan, C., Liu, C., Yang, X., Wang, R., 2013. Current status of green
curriculum in higher education of Mainland China. J. Clean. Prod. 61, 100e105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.033.
Yuan, X., Zuo, J., 2013. A critical assessment of the Higher Education for Sustainable
Development from students' perspectives - a Chinese study. J. Clean. Prod. 48,
108e115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.041.
Zdanyte, _ K., Neverauskas, B., Sabaliauskaite,
_ E., 2014. Implementation of sustainable
development opportunities in the Lithuanian higher education institution.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 110, 482e493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2013.12.892.
Zhang, N., Willams, I.D., Kemp, S., Smith, N.F., 2011. Greening academia: developing
sustainable waste management at higher education institutions. Waste Manag.
31, 1606e1616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.006.

ka, A., Szere
Zso
nyi, Z.M., Sze

chy, A., Kocsis, T., 2013. Greening due to environmental
education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and
everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university
students. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 126e138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.11.030.