18
C. Shiel et al.
only listed in position six in the NUS report; this suggests that incorporating green
impact participation into staff workload could provide an effective solution for BU
to encourage more staff to adopt pro-environmental behaviours and so, where more
staff lead through example, more students might be encouraged to follow.
In early 2017, it seemed to be the case that while considerable progress was being
achieved in relation to campus greening, community engagement and sustainability
research, since achieving ISO 14001, the ESD agenda was lagging; securing staff
commitment and interest was continuing to be a challenge. In essence a different
approach was required to engage academic colleagues.
6 A Further Shift of Approach: Aligning with the SDGs
As a consequence of ESD being incorporated into the EMS and hence an item on the
‘risk register’, it became an agenda item for the SSG. This was an important turning
point highlighting the need to try other approaches. The group evaluated ESD as at
‘high risk’ of not being achieved. The main reason for this decision was the lack of
evidence that sustainability had been embedded in courses further obtaining robust
and objective evidence to report on the extent to which it had been embedded, was
likely to be challenging. Other Universities, such as the University of Winchester,
have addressed how to embed and benchmark sustainability in the curriculum by
signing up to the NUS Responsible Futures programme which provides a framework
for implementing and reporting on ESD (NUS 2017). BU had not participated in
such a scheme.
Discussion on how to move forward highlighted the importance of communication
that appealed to all stakeholders. Communication of sustainability messages is key
to engaging with academics (Djordjevic and Cotton 2011) and to culture change.
SSG recognised the potential of focusing communication on the SDGs, as a vehicle
to engage with a wider academic audience and to achieve greater adoption of ESD.
This decision was based on the assumptions that: all staff might address one or more
SDGs in their subjects; the topic might have greater appeal than ESD, given that
some staff were unable to relate to sustainability, let alone ESD; others were finding
it difficult to understand how their actions today are either directly or indirectly
affecting the future of the planet to support human life; others struggled to connect
taking personal responsibility for relatively simple actions, such as recycling, with
protecting the environment. The SDGs would provide a different lens for people to
understand and explore what sustainability means for them, plus the tangible ways
they might help make a difference.
The first communication initiative took the form of an adaption of the earlier
ESD competition: instead of requesting examples of ESD, academics were asked to
submit case studies of where they incorporate the SDGs in their programmes. Disappointingly, the competition had less impact than anticipated but did allow for three
excellent winning academic examples to be promoted. These included an academic
who teaches Film and TV. She had incorporated the SDGs into two modules and
C. Shiel et al.
only listed in position six in the NUS report; this suggests that incorporating green
impact participation into staff workload could provide an effective solution for BU
to encourage more staff to adopt pro-environmental behaviours and so, where more
staff lead through example, more students might be encouraged to follow.
In early 2017, it seemed to be the case that while considerable progress was being
achieved in relation to campus greening, community engagement and sustainability
research, since achieving ISO 14001, the ESD agenda was lagging; securing staff
commitment and interest was continuing to be a challenge. In essence a different
approach was required to engage academic colleagues.
6 A Further Shift of Approach: Aligning with the SDGs
As a consequence of ESD being incorporated into the EMS and hence an item on the
‘risk register’, it became an agenda item for the SSG. This was an important turning
point highlighting the need to try other approaches. The group evaluated ESD as at
‘high risk’ of not being achieved. The main reason for this decision was the lack of
evidence that sustainability had been embedded in courses further obtaining robust
and objective evidence to report on the extent to which it had been embedded, was
likely to be challenging. Other Universities, such as the University of Winchester,
have addressed how to embed and benchmark sustainability in the curriculum by
signing up to the NUS Responsible Futures programme which provides a framework
for implementing and reporting on ESD (NUS 2017). BU had not participated in
such a scheme.
Discussion on how to move forward highlighted the importance of communication
that appealed to all stakeholders. Communication of sustainability messages is key
to engaging with academics (Djordjevic and Cotton 2011) and to culture change.
SSG recognised the potential of focusing communication on the SDGs, as a vehicle
to engage with a wider academic audience and to achieve greater adoption of ESD.
This decision was based on the assumptions that: all staff might address one or more
SDGs in their subjects; the topic might have greater appeal than ESD, given that
some staff were unable to relate to sustainability, let alone ESD; others were finding
it difficult to understand how their actions today are either directly or indirectly
affecting the future of the planet to support human life; others struggled to connect
taking personal responsibility for relatively simple actions, such as recycling, with
protecting the environment. The SDGs would provide a different lens for people to
understand and explore what sustainability means for them, plus the tangible ways
they might help make a difference.
The first communication initiative took the form of an adaption of the earlier
ESD competition: instead of requesting examples of ESD, academics were asked to
submit case studies of where they incorporate the SDGs in their programmes. Disappointingly, the competition had less impact than anticipated but did allow for three
excellent winning academic examples to be promoted. These included an academic
who teaches Film and TV. She had incorporated the SDGs into two modules and