citizen indebtedness, and loss of individual and corporate resources for charitable giving to non-profit
organizations and faith communities. These recent
developments have undermined what had been seen
as organizational pillars in achieving the SDGs. With
the impairment of global production systems, SDG 12
on responsible (or sustainable) consumption and production (SCP), viewed, by some as being “at the heart
and soul” of the 2030 Agenda (Paul 2018), have taken
even greater prominence.
A key organizational sector, however, that perhaps
has more resilience due to its traditional countercyclical nature to economic activity and its own
organizational autonomy is Higher Education (see
Petry & Ramkat 2019). Even prior to the COVID-19
crisis, Higher Education (HE) already had been recognized as having important contributions to make to
the SDGs through its knowledge production and dissemination activities. Longstanding global scholarly
organizations, such as the United Nations University
(UNU, established in 1972) and the InternationalAssociation of Universities (IAU, established in 1950), for
example, had mobilized university-led initiatives to
generally advance sustainable development and now,
more specifically, the 17 SDGs. Strategic initiatives
include the UNU’s Regional Centres of Expertise
(RCEs) on Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD) and the IAU’s Global Cluster Higher Education
and Research for Sustainable Development (HESD),
established in 2019 (IAU 2020; UNU 2020). In both
cases, integrative approaches have been sought: a
“whole-institution approach” for universities in the
case of the IAU initiative, and a “regional approach”
integrating Higher Education and community partners in the case of RCEs. Such whole-institution HE
approaches recognize the significant unknowns associated with how to achieve sustainable development,
thereby acknowledging the prudential need for inclusion of the full range of scholarly disciplines. They also
recognize the value of participation of entire organizations beyond the domains of traditional scholarship
(e.g., staff, administrators, alumni) and the value of
partnering with other organizations in effective and
efficient resource mobilization. In part, this is again
tied to the uncertainty of such investments, both in
terms of how to best meet the multiple dimensions
of well-being of populations in diverse ecological and
social contexts in the present generation, much less for
future generations.
But a whole-institution approach within universities faces multiple challenges. These are sufficiently
substantial that individual scholars historically have
sought to create innovations in scholarly methods
outside the traditional academy, such as the Royal
Society of London (that gave rise to modern science)
and the formation of the Trilingual Colleges (that
gave rise to the humanities in Northern Europe; see
Petry 2014). Some of these academic barriers are historic, such as commitments to disciplinary centered
research (vs. inter/multi/trans-disciplinary community
engaged research) and traditional scholarly outputs
(such as books and journals) that constrain research
and teaching from being measured, in part, by its transformation impact on development patterns for sustainability. Some of these academic barriers, however,
are historically more recent, such as the corporatization of the university over the last three decades
(Polster & Newson 2015). This corporatization has
led to the erosion in collegial governance through
the centralization and growth of university administrations whose focus includes the commercialization
and privatization of knowledge to support particular
industrial and high tech sectors through new products and services. Some disciplines have been eroded
through the focus of resources on particular disciplines
viewed as valuable in the knowledge economy (such as
STEM disciplines). The scholarly profession is itself
being dismantled. This unbundling includes the hiring of precarious academic labor solely for teaching,
research-only faculty, and the assertion of organizational control of intellectual property scholars generate
(either by private companies or university administrations) to generate revenue. The reengineering of
universities and their scholarly outputs to serve the
economic needs of business (including universities
seen as businesses) and government for short-term
economic growth and the profitability of existing forprofit entities only reinforces the existing patterns
of unsustainable development. Global market production does not significantly factor in those principally
left out of the market (poor and marginalized individuals and communities who have little money with
which to consume), much less not yet existing future
generations and non-human species that can effect little (or no) market demand (at least on their own).
Yet these three areas are the primary focus of sustainable development. What is also precluded is a
scholarly focus on the best types of scholarly questions
enabled through traditional academic freedom and the
investigator-driven pursuit of knowledge. In the case of
education for sustainable development (ESD) it would
be those questions that lead to the most highly transformative knowledge, innovations, and dissemination
techniques for sustainable development—whether or
not this occurs through existing market organizations,
traditional patterns of investment and employment,
or even markets at all. Scholars need to consider
that some of the better (or perhaps best) forms of
sustainable development may rely on new, not yet
existing firms (including small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs) or co-operatives), non-business
organizations (such as government, households, or the
non-profit sector), or non-market activities (such as
volunteerism).
If universities as a whole are to be mobilized for sustainable development, a whole institutional approach
must engage the deeper cultural dimensions of the
university. It is these cultural dimensions that both
unify universities as organizations while protecting
diverse forms of scholarship. The foregoing suggests
that earlier scholarly identities relying on academic
freedom and collegial governance, both informing and
29
organizations and faith communities. These recent
developments have undermined what had been seen
as organizational pillars in achieving the SDGs. With
the impairment of global production systems, SDG 12
on responsible (or sustainable) consumption and production (SCP), viewed, by some as being “at the heart
and soul” of the 2030 Agenda (Paul 2018), have taken
even greater prominence.
A key organizational sector, however, that perhaps
has more resilience due to its traditional countercyclical nature to economic activity and its own
organizational autonomy is Higher Education (see
Petry & Ramkat 2019). Even prior to the COVID-19
crisis, Higher Education (HE) already had been recognized as having important contributions to make to
the SDGs through its knowledge production and dissemination activities. Longstanding global scholarly
organizations, such as the United Nations University
(UNU, established in 1972) and the InternationalAssociation of Universities (IAU, established in 1950), for
example, had mobilized university-led initiatives to
generally advance sustainable development and now,
more specifically, the 17 SDGs. Strategic initiatives
include the UNU’s Regional Centres of Expertise
(RCEs) on Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD) and the IAU’s Global Cluster Higher Education
and Research for Sustainable Development (HESD),
established in 2019 (IAU 2020; UNU 2020). In both
cases, integrative approaches have been sought: a
“whole-institution approach” for universities in the
case of the IAU initiative, and a “regional approach”
integrating Higher Education and community partners in the case of RCEs. Such whole-institution HE
approaches recognize the significant unknowns associated with how to achieve sustainable development,
thereby acknowledging the prudential need for inclusion of the full range of scholarly disciplines. They also
recognize the value of participation of entire organizations beyond the domains of traditional scholarship
(e.g., staff, administrators, alumni) and the value of
partnering with other organizations in effective and
efficient resource mobilization. In part, this is again
tied to the uncertainty of such investments, both in
terms of how to best meet the multiple dimensions
of well-being of populations in diverse ecological and
social contexts in the present generation, much less for
future generations.
But a whole-institution approach within universities faces multiple challenges. These are sufficiently
substantial that individual scholars historically have
sought to create innovations in scholarly methods
outside the traditional academy, such as the Royal
Society of London (that gave rise to modern science)
and the formation of the Trilingual Colleges (that
gave rise to the humanities in Northern Europe; see
Petry 2014). Some of these academic barriers are historic, such as commitments to disciplinary centered
research (vs. inter/multi/trans-disciplinary community
engaged research) and traditional scholarly outputs
(such as books and journals) that constrain research
and teaching from being measured, in part, by its transformation impact on development patterns for sustainability. Some of these academic barriers, however,
are historically more recent, such as the corporatization of the university over the last three decades
(Polster & Newson 2015). This corporatization has
led to the erosion in collegial governance through
the centralization and growth of university administrations whose focus includes the commercialization
and privatization of knowledge to support particular
industrial and high tech sectors through new products and services. Some disciplines have been eroded
through the focus of resources on particular disciplines
viewed as valuable in the knowledge economy (such as
STEM disciplines). The scholarly profession is itself
being dismantled. This unbundling includes the hiring of precarious academic labor solely for teaching,
research-only faculty, and the assertion of organizational control of intellectual property scholars generate
(either by private companies or university administrations) to generate revenue. The reengineering of
universities and their scholarly outputs to serve the
economic needs of business (including universities
seen as businesses) and government for short-term
economic growth and the profitability of existing forprofit entities only reinforces the existing patterns
of unsustainable development. Global market production does not significantly factor in those principally
left out of the market (poor and marginalized individuals and communities who have little money with
which to consume), much less not yet existing future
generations and non-human species that can effect little (or no) market demand (at least on their own).
Yet these three areas are the primary focus of sustainable development. What is also precluded is a
scholarly focus on the best types of scholarly questions
enabled through traditional academic freedom and the
investigator-driven pursuit of knowledge. In the case of
education for sustainable development (ESD) it would
be those questions that lead to the most highly transformative knowledge, innovations, and dissemination
techniques for sustainable development—whether or
not this occurs through existing market organizations,
traditional patterns of investment and employment,
or even markets at all. Scholars need to consider
that some of the better (or perhaps best) forms of
sustainable development may rely on new, not yet
existing firms (including small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs) or co-operatives), non-business
organizations (such as government, households, or the
non-profit sector), or non-market activities (such as
volunteerism).
If universities as a whole are to be mobilized for sustainable development, a whole institutional approach
must engage the deeper cultural dimensions of the
university. It is these cultural dimensions that both
unify universities as organizations while protecting
diverse forms of scholarship. The foregoing suggests
that earlier scholarly identities relying on academic
freedom and collegial governance, both informing and
29