The Integration of Competencies for Sustainable …
595
on the provided definition, Wiek et al. (2011, 2015) introduced five competencies for
SD and operationalised them as specific learning objectives for different educational
levels. Recently, based on previous works, UNESCO (2017) introduced eight key
competencies for sustainability arguing that these competencies represent the ones
the sustainability-oriented citizens particularly need to deal with the today’s complex
challenges.
The actual presence of SD competencies in study programmes largely depends
on the heads of study programmes. They are the key players in ensuring that HEIs
are preparing students for dealing with complex and uncertain sustainability issues.
However, the leaders of programmes focus on several challenges that are relevant
for the scope of this paper. Firstly, the dilemma of wording and meaning (Del Sarto
2007) of competencies for SD. Wording refers to the description of a particular competency provided in documents, whereas the meaning refers to the understanding
and perception of a separate competency provided by different actors. The heads of
study programmes need to understand the wording of different SD documents universities have signed (declarations, strategy, plans) and to recognise and encode the
true meaning of a particular competency. They are supposed to know precisely what
the sustainability is and how it could be expressed in a university setting, including
curricula. In the meantime, universities often just include the words “SD” or “competencies for SD” in the documents without expressly explaining what they actually
imply. The distinction between the wording and meaning can cause difficulties in the
SD competency integration process.
Secondly, there is a gap between the intentions of study programmes leaders and
their actual behaviour as regards the implementation of competencies for SD in programmes. As stated by Bekessy et al. (2007), it is widely known that the adoption
of SD declarations does not necessarily translate into the implementation of agreed
commitments. Such gap could be explained using the framework of espoused theory
and theory-in-use (Argyris 1999). Espoused theory represents the way the people
intend to act in a given situation and the rationale behind the intentions; theory-inuse reflects the way people actually behave. The heads of study programmes can
have intentions to translate the wording of SD competencies into study programmes,
but certain barriers could prevent them from acting. Conservative culture, absence of
leadership, lack of coordination, and financial constrains could serve as serious barriers in the described situation. The mismatch between the loudly announced on-paper
commitments and explicit inclusion of competencies for SD in study programmes
can be treated as an illustration of “green-washing” (Laufer 2003; Ramus and Montiel
2005; Bekessy et al. 2007). Actually, the form of SD competency implementation
can vary significantly. Within the curricula, the so-called “built-on” (adding new
courses and modules that contain elements of ESD) and “built-in” (integrating sustainability in the existing study programmes) approaches can be found (Watson et al.
2013; Wals 2014). The “built-on” approach could be called education about sustainability, whereas the “built-in” approach represents education for sustainability and
aims at creating the connection between the subject in question and SD (Sammalisto
and Lindhqvist 2008). Lambrechts et al. (2010, 2013) argue for horizontal (compe-
595
on the provided definition, Wiek et al. (2011, 2015) introduced five competencies for
SD and operationalised them as specific learning objectives for different educational
levels. Recently, based on previous works, UNESCO (2017) introduced eight key
competencies for sustainability arguing that these competencies represent the ones
the sustainability-oriented citizens particularly need to deal with the today’s complex
challenges.
The actual presence of SD competencies in study programmes largely depends
on the heads of study programmes. They are the key players in ensuring that HEIs
are preparing students for dealing with complex and uncertain sustainability issues.
However, the leaders of programmes focus on several challenges that are relevant
for the scope of this paper. Firstly, the dilemma of wording and meaning (Del Sarto
2007) of competencies for SD. Wording refers to the description of a particular competency provided in documents, whereas the meaning refers to the understanding
and perception of a separate competency provided by different actors. The heads of
study programmes need to understand the wording of different SD documents universities have signed (declarations, strategy, plans) and to recognise and encode the
true meaning of a particular competency. They are supposed to know precisely what
the sustainability is and how it could be expressed in a university setting, including
curricula. In the meantime, universities often just include the words “SD” or “competencies for SD” in the documents without expressly explaining what they actually
imply. The distinction between the wording and meaning can cause difficulties in the
SD competency integration process.
Secondly, there is a gap between the intentions of study programmes leaders and
their actual behaviour as regards the implementation of competencies for SD in programmes. As stated by Bekessy et al. (2007), it is widely known that the adoption
of SD declarations does not necessarily translate into the implementation of agreed
commitments. Such gap could be explained using the framework of espoused theory
and theory-in-use (Argyris 1999). Espoused theory represents the way the people
intend to act in a given situation and the rationale behind the intentions; theory-inuse reflects the way people actually behave. The heads of study programmes can
have intentions to translate the wording of SD competencies into study programmes,
but certain barriers could prevent them from acting. Conservative culture, absence of
leadership, lack of coordination, and financial constrains could serve as serious barriers in the described situation. The mismatch between the loudly announced on-paper
commitments and explicit inclusion of competencies for SD in study programmes
can be treated as an illustration of “green-washing” (Laufer 2003; Ramus and Montiel
2005; Bekessy et al. 2007). Actually, the form of SD competency implementation
can vary significantly. Within the curricula, the so-called “built-on” (adding new
courses and modules that contain elements of ESD) and “built-in” (integrating sustainability in the existing study programmes) approaches can be found (Watson et al.
2013; Wals 2014). The “built-on” approach could be called education about sustainability, whereas the “built-in” approach represents education for sustainability and
aims at creating the connection between the subject in question and SD (Sammalisto
and Lindhqvist 2008). Lambrechts et al. (2010, 2013) argue for horizontal (compe-