472
A. Schlickmann et al.
Gomez et al. (2014) presented an Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability in
HEI. Lin et al. (2016) provided details of how sustainability issues can be integrated
into a modified Balanced Scorecard model for industrial-academic cooperation. From
Andrade Guerra et al. (2018) developed a Balanced Scorecard strategic map for
implementing and monitoring environmental education programs at universities.
Disterheft et al. (2016) developed INDICARE. Sonetti et al. (2016) propose a
new approach that encompasses clusters of homogeneous campus typologies for
university comparisons and classifications. Da Silva Junior et al. (2018) discuss a set
of sustainability indicators applied to Brazilian HEIs.
In the group of practical studies with application of recognized tools and focusing
on the curriculum, highlight the only tool mentioned in the works: STAUNCH.
Lozano and Young (2013) verified the influence of student numbers and course
credits and Glover et al. (2011), identified that the main focus of the courses is on
the cross-sectional aspect and the lowest focus occurs on economic aspects. Lozano
(2010) concluded that while some schools may be innovative in a specific dimension,
they do not necessarily fall into the innovative category when the overall contribution of sustainable development is considered. In the work of Watson et al. (2013)
STAUNCH results showed that the main focus was on the environmental dimension.
In the group of practical works, with application of recognized tools and focusing
on the organization, we have: most of the HEIs in Canada are involved in sustainable
development work, especially in the curricular area (Beringer et al. 2008). The CSAF
tool has been classified as constructive for post-secondary sustainability education
(Beringer 2006). In the work of Berzosa et al. (2017) the most important dimension came from environmental sustainability, followed by education, giving less
importance to economic indicators.
Results in Saudi Arabia reveal that projects related to sustainability are not prioritized in universities and sustainable financial management practices are not significant (Alshuwaikhat et al. 2016). Lidstone et al. (2015) found greater emphasis on
facility domains and less on research and education. In the United States, the degree
of impairment of the entire HEI sample was rated high considering all dimensions
of the HEI institutional environment; too high for the academic dimension and high
for the operational and administrative dimension (Casarejos et al. 2017). Semeraro’s
study and Boyd (2017) demonstrated that the area with the highest scoring in the
STARS database was planning, administration and engagement.
The only practical work with application of unrecognized and curriculum-focused
tools was developed by Dlouhá et al. (2013), who analyzed models of Regional
Sustainability Initiatives and Regional Centers of Expertise to identify general
principles of efficiency and built a system for their evaluation based on indicators.
Regarding practical studies with application of unrecognized tools and focusing
on the organization: the similarity between these studies is in the methodology. All
papers review the literature on particular assessment tools, the indicators of these
tools are related, and the final selection of indicators involves the participation of
experts or stakeholders. The differences involve the region of application of the study.
While the work of Larran Jorge et al. (2016) was applied in Spain, the de Aleixo
A. Schlickmann et al.
Gomez et al. (2014) presented an Adaptable Model for Assessing Sustainability in
HEI. Lin et al. (2016) provided details of how sustainability issues can be integrated
into a modified Balanced Scorecard model for industrial-academic cooperation. From
Andrade Guerra et al. (2018) developed a Balanced Scorecard strategic map for
implementing and monitoring environmental education programs at universities.
Disterheft et al. (2016) developed INDICARE. Sonetti et al. (2016) propose a
new approach that encompasses clusters of homogeneous campus typologies for
university comparisons and classifications. Da Silva Junior et al. (2018) discuss a set
of sustainability indicators applied to Brazilian HEIs.
In the group of practical studies with application of recognized tools and focusing
on the curriculum, highlight the only tool mentioned in the works: STAUNCH.
Lozano and Young (2013) verified the influence of student numbers and course
credits and Glover et al. (2011), identified that the main focus of the courses is on
the cross-sectional aspect and the lowest focus occurs on economic aspects. Lozano
(2010) concluded that while some schools may be innovative in a specific dimension,
they do not necessarily fall into the innovative category when the overall contribution of sustainable development is considered. In the work of Watson et al. (2013)
STAUNCH results showed that the main focus was on the environmental dimension.
In the group of practical works, with application of recognized tools and focusing
on the organization, we have: most of the HEIs in Canada are involved in sustainable
development work, especially in the curricular area (Beringer et al. 2008). The CSAF
tool has been classified as constructive for post-secondary sustainability education
(Beringer 2006). In the work of Berzosa et al. (2017) the most important dimension came from environmental sustainability, followed by education, giving less
importance to economic indicators.
Results in Saudi Arabia reveal that projects related to sustainability are not prioritized in universities and sustainable financial management practices are not significant (Alshuwaikhat et al. 2016). Lidstone et al. (2015) found greater emphasis on
facility domains and less on research and education. In the United States, the degree
of impairment of the entire HEI sample was rated high considering all dimensions
of the HEI institutional environment; too high for the academic dimension and high
for the operational and administrative dimension (Casarejos et al. 2017). Semeraro’s
study and Boyd (2017) demonstrated that the area with the highest scoring in the
STARS database was planning, administration and engagement.
The only practical work with application of unrecognized and curriculum-focused
tools was developed by Dlouhá et al. (2013), who analyzed models of Regional
Sustainability Initiatives and Regional Centers of Expertise to identify general
principles of efficiency and built a system for their evaluation based on indicators.
Regarding practical studies with application of unrecognized tools and focusing
on the organization: the similarity between these studies is in the methodology. All
papers review the literature on particular assessment tools, the indicators of these
tools are related, and the final selection of indicators involves the participation of
experts or stakeholders. The differences involve the region of application of the study.
While the work of Larran Jorge et al. (2016) was applied in Spain, the de Aleixo