Abstract
In this article, the concept of education for sustainable development is substantiated and expanded upon from a socio-economic perspective. Incorporating the concept of the economic citizen, we present the liberal republican civic ethos, moral judgement, decision-making capabilities and key competencies relevant for sustainability together with an informed understanding of economic context as constitutive elements of the educational concept. Against the backdrop of the limited reach of individual behavioural changes and the necessary reflections on structural questions, a heuristic of shared responsibility for sustainable development will be devised.
Globalization—a process of expansion and intensification of economic and cultural exchanges as well as a dissolution of national boundaries and regulations regarding entrepreneurial activities—has changed many societies and has evoked problems of overexploitation of resources and amplification of social inequality, thereby jeopardizing the ecological and social foundations of future generations. The term ‘sustainability’ is the leitmotif that is supposed to regulate this development in service to humankind. On that condition, sustainability means satisfying the needs of current generations without compromising the prospect of this very satisfaction for future generations (cf. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Thus, sustainable development is a process with many prerequisites and depends on the integration of multiple public and private actors (cf. Heinrichs, 2011).
Against the backdrop of ecological as well as social and economic problems that go along with globalization, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992) recognized this sustainable development leitmotif as the crucial momentum of a social transformation and coined the term for political and scientific discussions (cf. Schwedes, 2004). Education is an essential part of sustainable development; as Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 clearly states: ‘Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues’ (UN Documents Cooperation Circles, n.d., p. 1).
‘Sustainable development, if it is going to happen, is going to be a learning process’ (Vare & Scott, 2007, p. 192). Education is supposed to create an awareness of problems that are relevant to sustainability and to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge regarding these problems. To allow for alterations in terms of sustainable development, a change of mindset is needed which enables people to actively and responsibly participate in a sustainable development of the global society. Within this modern, wired and multifocal global society, individual educational requirements will increase.
Sustainable development has to be regarded as a cross-sectional task in order for education to meet these requirements. Against this background, the concept of education for sustainable development was developed during the 1990s (Tilbury, Stevenson, Fien, & Schreuder, 2002). It combines ideas of environmental education, development education, peace education, health education and political education. Their respective contents and key aspects are being interrelated. Education for sustainable development is, therefore, a unique educational concept; although it overlaps with the field of political education among others, it creates various new perspectives. Education for sustainable development aims to contribute to an understanding of the complex interrelations that are not covered by other forms of education on their own (cf. Michelsen, Siebert, & Lilje, 2011).
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) states:
Education for sustainable development develops and strengthens the capacity of individuals, groups, communities, organizations and countries to make judgments and choices in favour of sustainable development. It can promote a shift in people’s mindsets and in so doing enable them to make our world safer, healthier and more prosperous, thereby improving the quality of life. Education for sustainable development can provide critical reflection and greater awareness and empowerment so that new visions and concepts can be explored and new methods and tools developed. (2005, p. 1)
Education for sustainable development is thus supposed to empower people to take part in sustainable development and reflect on their own actions concerning this matter self-critically. People conduct these actions in various institutional arrangements and organizational structures, which often leads to inter- and intra-role conflicts. In order for people within a framework of increasing complexity to be able to participate in social learning and communication processes for sustainable development leading to an advancement of a ‘great transformation’ (WBGU, 2011), they are in need of individual key competencies. To this effect, the fundamental objective of education for sustainable development has to be the development of key competencies that empower people to actively participate in the process of sustainable development (Rieckmann, 2012; Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011). This means participation both in their private lives and in institutionalized and organizational contexts, that is, at work, in politics or as members or officials within groups or organizations.
The discourse about education for sustainable development, therefore, assigns a huge responsibility to the individual regarding the handling of social problems of sustainability, for instance in his/her role as a sustainable consumer. This is comprehensible from the viewpoint of educational science. Looking at the social interrelations of a (non-)sustainable development, however, the question arises as to whether the individual is overburdened and whether the public responsibility of political actors (cf. Grunwald, 2010) and the role of (multinational) corporations is marginalized.
While the discussion about education for sustainable development covers the problem of overemphasizing individual responsibility, the bearers of responsibility on the macro- and meso-level, that is, (supra-)national actors and private organizations like corporations, as well as the tense relationship between them, have not been considered yet. Given the loss of national influence on multinational corporations, the field of economic and business ethics has been dealing with the discourse about (political) responsibility of corporations in a global context for quite some time. Corporations, in particular, become bearers of sustainable development if they insist on higher social or ecological standards than those prescribed by a country’s legislature (cf. Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007).
Against this background, this article substantiates and expands upon the concept of education for sustainable development from a socio-economic perspective. The potential of the socio-economic perspective on education for sustainable development is demonstrated. This is a rather unusual approach to education for sustainable development; it emphasizes economic educational contents and their normative-social incorporation into social and ecological issues. This approach seems especially prolific for this discussion, since it ties in with the epochal problems of globalization (cf. Kashniz, 2005) such as the distribution and organization of the (global) labour volume, the sustainable capacity of social security systems and the environmental impact and the consumption of resources. This accounts for the ostensibly economic dimension of globalization as well as issues and challenges emerging from the progressive reduction to economics of various areas of life. This reduction to economics of various areas of life which were once governed by an extra-economic rationality is also an important incitement of a socio-economically substantiated education. Since Gary S. Becker (1993) and the economic imperialism connected to his name, many areas that were once approached sociologically or through political or educational science are now subject to an economic rationality and thus the market logic—this calls for the ability to think inclusively about (socio-) economic education.
This article deals with the following three central questions:
How can socio-economic education and economic ethics contribute to the definition of a normative leitmotif for education for sustainable development? Education for sustainable development has to encompass a normative leitmotif for responsible citizens who have the intention and competencies to shape sustainable development (‘sustainability citizens’). Dealing with the leitmotif of the ‘economic citizen’, a term coined by Peter Ulrich, new impulses emerge which have not been considered yet.
Which key competencies are to be developed through education for sustainable development? Should one particular set of values be fostered? This is a genuine field of education for sustainable development; at this point, however, it has to be renegotiated under conditions of the normative idea of a sustainability citizen and his/her qualities.
How can the focus of education for sustainable development, which currently lies on individual responsibility, be redirected to a multidimensional network of relations and responsibilities in order to prevent an excessive moral burden on the individual? The role of the individual is to be embedded within a multidimensional network of relations and responsibilities which does not relieve the actors on the meso- and macro-level of their responsibilities, but instead illustrates mutual dependencies and responsibilities through an ethical discourse. Education for sustainable development ought to enable individuals to deal with this network.
Well-Understood Anthropocentrism: The Economic Citizen as a Normative Leitmotif for the ‘Sustainability Citizen’
With sustainable development as its guideline, education for sustainable development has a strong normative core that relates to the conservation of the natural environment and the implementation of inter- and intra-generational justice (cf. Ott, Muraca, & Baatz, 2011). The Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) thus calls for a goal that lends itself to political and social consensus; however, against the backdrop of an increasing global inequity (cf. Petersen, 2012), humanity already fails at creating intragenerational justice, that is, the adjustment of current generations’ socio-economic living conditions. All in all, globalization tends to increase wealth; but what about its distribution? The consideration of future generations further complicates the issue. The conservation of the natural environment, its biodiversity, the renewable resources and the careful handling of non-renewable resources are, however, closely linked to economical production and exchange processes.
The Brundtland Report illustrates that the benefit of mankind should take centre stage. Nature constitutes a resource, and its conservation is in mankind’s best interest. This understanding of sustainability is, therefore, anthropocentric (cf. Meyer-Abich, 2001)—it is geared towards humans, their needs and their influence. This is not reprehensible as long as it leads to a substantiated discussion with humans as economic actors, embedding their self-interest within the pursuit of common good, striving for justice. Education for sustainable development is thus not only in need of one or more normative leitmotifs regarding its goals (teleological leitmotifs) but also requires the principles and ethics of its actors (deontological values). Based on the idea of the ‘sustainability citizen’ (cf. Barry, 2005; Wals, 2015; Wals & Lenglet, 2016), we intend to depict a normative framework that transforms the prevailing anthropocentrism into a well-understood anthropocentrism.
A market economy aiming for sustainable justice needs actors who perceive themselves as citizens with an unbowed self-image, embedded in the social system, which includes accepting conditional legitimacy in regard to any form of economic action, thereby limiting private and unconditionally efficient economy that is not bound by any normative considerations. Such individual economic actions would shift all responsibilities for the goals of sustainable development to the regulatory level of politics, which in turn would guide individual actions through legal restrictions or incentives. This may seem efficient in the Smithian sense but can hardly solve issues of intergenerational justice which are not yet available to the current transactional parties and are of no advantage for the market economy. An education for sustainable development which is of normative significance on the actors’ level requires a liberal republican civic ethos that ties any economic and social actions to civic virtues and moral judgement (cf. Schank & Lorch, 2014). Regarding his integrative economic ethics, Ulrich describes economic citizens as subjects of economy who do not separate but rather blend their business sense and their civic sense, that is, their self-image as ‘good citizens’ (Ulrich, 2005, p. 14).
Education for sustainable development thus needs a comprehensive socio-economic basis because knowledge of economic interrelations and exchange processes is highly relevant. Going back to the understanding of the economic citizen, we define the objective of a socio-economic education as a composition of economic expertise (i.e., knowledge of economic (market) rationality), of civic sense (with responsibility for shaping the res publica as its core) and of the ability for ethical reflection (keeping basic ecological, social and ethical questions in mind). In spite of (or because of) its ethical component, socio-economic education does not stand for an economically blind moralism that sets up impossible moral postulates (cf. Röpke, 1961), but rather for prudent economic activity under conditional legitimacy of the common good. Following the idea of the economic citizen, the ‘sustainability citizen’ (cf. Barry, 2005; Wals, 2015; Wals & Lenglet, 2016) thus requires both expertise and reflexive competence (cf. Schank & Lorch, 2014): (a) He/she has to be willing to subordinate his/her actions to the civic sense and the common good, (b) he/she has to have a faculty of moral judgement and the moral will to push values, virtues and duties geared towards the common good and (c) he/she has to have economic expertise (as an integral part of the key competencies of an education for sustainable development, which is discussed in the later sections) in order to expose (predominantly) economic myths.
The citizen is a demanding and normatively substantial term with respect to shaping the liberal republican basis of the ‘sustainability citizen’. The understanding of sustainability is essentially tied to how the term citizen is understood; this seems to manifest in a conflict between the bourgeois and the citoyen. The self-serving, business-oriented bourgeois sees his/her (economic) actions as an isolated, maybe even an autistic act whose limits and framework conditions are determined by a contract with society. Within this framework, the bourgeois strives for maximum individual liberty, autonomy and absence of constraints. This tradition of citizenship emphasizes the claim of individual rights (cf. Schrader, 2011). This kind of citizen might nonetheless opt for sustainable development and act accordingly, even without governmental restrictions or incentives. But that will only happen if it is self-serving or at least not costly. This scarcely leads to an intrinsic concern for the conservation of the natural environment and the continuation of prosperity and quality of life of future generations. Rather, nature becomes a resource; its use can be well considered but is ultimately subject to individual necessities within a legal framework. At best, such a citizen (and organizations represented by him/her) acts as a responsive private institution (Maak & Ulrich, 2007, p. 21) that considers sustainability only in light of opportunistic instrumentalism.
By way of contrast, the idea of the citoyen provides a different foundation; a citoyen can conceive of sustainable development as a value in and of itself. Individual actions are bound by an expanded conditional legitimacy that defines the individual as a member and custodian of society and its material and immaterial goods. The pursuit of individual advantages still remains legitimate and possible, yet cannot be separated from the political or ethical sphere. This kind of citizen requires guiding virtues. Ulrich describes minimal prerequisites:
first, a fundamental willingness of the citizens to reflect on their preferences and attitudes involving a certain degree of self-critical open-mindedness which will enable them, if need be, to change their position;
– secondy, a fundamental willingness to reach an agreement on impartial, fair principles and procedural rules regulating the deliberative process. A particular degree of good will is required for the clarification of this basic consensus, as the participants must be prepared to renounce the use of their power potential in the pursuit of their own interests;
– third, a willingness to compromise in areas of dissent which, beside the good will to arrive at a basic consensus on fair rules for finding compromises, also requires a permanent mutual acceptance of limited areas of disagreement;
– fourth, a willingness to accept the need for legitimation, i.e., the willingness to submit “private” actions unconditionally to the test of public legitimation. This includes the renunciation of an a priori privatism, adequate forms of “publicity” and accountability for publicly relevant activities. (Ulrich, 2008, p. 299f.)
Under these socio-economic and business-ethical circumstances, education for sustainable development has to support the emergence of a citizenship that combines ethical, social and ecological dimensions of sustainability and recognizes individual actions as being subject to the conditional legitimacy of current and future generations. The ‘sustainability citizen’ succeeds in this regard due to his/her self-reflexive competence and willingness to communicate and find a compromise not only because of laws and regulations but also because of a perpetual consideration of interests based on discourse.
Dealing with questions of sustainable development holds challenges with a distinctly normative content. This concerns both the ‘sustainability citizen’s’ personal lifestyle and his/her actions as a political citizen through which he/she participates directly and indirectly in democratic processes. By combining business sense and sense for the common good and not bowing to the economic system’s dictate, the citoyen manages to embed the economic principle of rationality in a practical context geared towards societal well-being. Economic activity is thus no longer an isolated act governed by its very own rules, but instead part of the Aristotelian trinity of ethics, politics and economy (cf. Ulrich, 2009).1 From this point of view, education for sustainable development deals with questions of inter- and intragenerational justice as well as society’s ecological and social condition as an integral part of all areas of life. When transferred to economic actions, this means that the generation of goods and values has to also raise the following questions: for what or whom are they created and what is their intended purpose (cf. Ulrich, 2010)? ‘Sustainability citizens’, who want to take these challenges self-determinedly and responsibly, require exceptional moral judgement and decisiveness.
Education for sustainable development, therefore, has to convey a basic moral framework, leading to various skills and abilities (cf. Knopf & Brink, 2011; Maak & Ulrich, 2007):
Moral knowledge: Prevailing standards, conventions and customs regarding economic, social and ecological decisions have to be well-known, especially when pondering dilemmatic situations.
Moral judgement: ‘Sustainability citizens’ require the ability to analyse situations and actions according to the moral content and to decide whether a certain standard or duty has to be followed.
Competence of moral reflection: This competence encompasses the ability to differentiate morally in dilemmatic situations where moral principles have to be put to the test. It is the ability to reflect on ethical viewpoints—particularly one’s own.
Moral courage: Following the competence of reflection is the ability to keep a critical distance towards standards and values in certain contexts; distancing oneself from prevailing morals can be necessary to escape the pressure to conform to standards of organizations or corporations.
The socio-economic element of education for sustainable development demands a decided discourse with normativity, which can be found even in seemingly value-free issues. If this education is supposed to achieve more than just an adaptation of externally determined values, then the ‘sustainability citizen’ has to be endowed with the ability to reflect on prevalent standards and principles in complex situations against the backdrop of a globalized society. The complexity of these situations also conveys the limitations of socio-economic education. In light of an increasing value pluralism and the realization that culture is a constantly changing, fluid system, interwoven with conflicting standards and values (Geertz, 1995, p. 9), the educational goal cannot be a lesson in good and timeless values. Rather, the individual needs to acquire the capability to make better judgements and decisions regarding his/her own social actions (cf. Gewecke & Huse, 2011, p. 109).
A socio-economically substantiated education for sustainable development claims to form economically responsible citizens capable of reflecting on complex economic and social interrelations as well as the role of economic rationality. We emphasize the necessity of a comprehensive basic economic knowledge, since economism might very well be the last major ideology of our times (cf. Ulrich, 2000, p. 556). The term ‘economism’ means the expansion of economic rationality into non-economic areas of life and society. Those who follow this reasoning might have been taught a critical approach to a methodological economism for a micro-substantiated explanation of human behaviour, but there is also the danger of perceiving social activity as nothing but a market appendix (cf. Polanyi, 1978). A responsible ‘sustainability citizen’ realizes this danger and conceives of himself/herself as a myth buster. Such an actor, who values science and scepticism, knows how to replace unprovable ideas, myths, beliefs and metaphysical speculations with theories, that is, models of reality that are demonstrable, provable and correctable through facts (Elias, 2009, p. 53f.).
Basic economic knowledge and economism as a scientific field remain important. However, in view of rational, economic world models, the ‘sustainability citizen’ must identify the normative content of every seemingly value-free statement, lest scientific theories become belief systems: what might still appear to be a social science wants its statements to be treated like natural laws or metaphysical dogmata. If such a (compulsory) rationale demands moral duties of the individual, a note of caution should be sounded. The principle of profit is one example: it serves as a normative postulate for the individual, transmitted via the capitalistic corporate ethos (cf. Ulrich, 1998).
The socio-economically educated ‘sustainability citizen’ can be considered a successful myth buster if he/she has the ability to judge and perceive the market’s natural metaphysics (Ulrich, 1997, p. 3ff.) and its (compulsory) rationale as human-made cultural products; thus, any premise derived thereof is neither morally binding nor without alternatives and are still subject to a conditional legitimacy. Moreover, not only criticism of economism but also basic economic education are paramount to a sustainable development.
If these three aspects can be combined without contradiction, the ‘sustainability citizen’ will develop an unbroken identity as a responsible actor, guided by the common good and integrated into society. He/she will reflect on his/her actions and their consequences against a normative backdrop, ties them to an open social discourse and accepts a negotiated conditional legitimacy.
Development of Key Competencies And a Critical Value Discourse as Goals of a Socio-Economically Substantiated Education for Sustainable Development
This chapter deals with the issue of which key competencies and value orientations should be fostered as well as the question whether education for sustainable development should promote a particular value orientation. This article’s approach to education for sustainable development and the outlined normative idea of the ‘sustainability citizen’ will be correlated.
Education for Sustainable Development as ESD 1 and ESD 2
Education for sustainable development should take part in advancing a sustainable development of society. There are, however, various views on the most appropriate approach. Vare and Scott (2007) discern two different concepts of education for sustainable development (ESD): ESD 1 and ESD 2. Wals (2011, 2015) makes a similar distinction, calling them as the ‘instrumental approach’ and the ‘emancipatory approach’.
ESD 1 assumes that there are certain values and behaviours that are unequivocally linked to a sustainable development and can be identified by experts; therefore, the goal of education for sustainable development is to raise awareness of sustainable development, to impart values tied to sustainability and to foster sustainable behaviours (cf. Vare & Scott, 2007). ESD 1, thus, overlaps with the discussion concerning environmental education and environmental awareness: ‘Much environmental education aims at changing learner behaviour, including attitudes, beliefs and values’ (Wals, 2011, p. 178). Certain behavioural patterns, like waste sorting or saving energy, are to be encouraged via educational processes (cf. Vare & Scott, 2007). Relating to approaches from environmental psychology (cf. Wals, 2011), incentives are used to make certain sustainable behaviours palatable.
This approach of education for sustainable development in terms of ESD 1 is to be found, for instance, in the objectives of the UN Decade of Sustainable Development (2005–2014) and the following World Programme of Action; the UNESCO states that it aims at a vision of a world in which all people can benefit from education and learn the values, lifestyles and behaviours that are necessary to reach a sustainable future and to positively transform society (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2014, p. 14).
Additionally, many statements of governments and non-governmental organizations refer to the expectation that education for sustainable development will contribute to a sustainable lifestyle.
ESD 2, on the other hand, takes a more reflexive approach. It is not about stipulating patterns of thought and behaviour—instead, individuals should be enabled to think about questions of sustainable development and draw their own conclusions (cf. Vare & Scott, 2007). In this context, sustainable development is not viewed as a closed discourse among experts, but rather as an open social (learning) process. This train of thought is led by the realization that it is often uncertain which kind of behaviour yields the most sustainable results (cf. Wals, 2011, 2015).
In ESD 2, we can’t measure success in terms of environmental impacts because this is an open-ended process; outcomes will depend on people’s unforeseen decisions in future, unforeseen circumstances. But we can research the extent to which people have been informed and motivated, and been enabled to think critically and feel empowered to take responsibility. (Vare & Scott, 2007, p. 194)
Education for sustainable development in terms of ESD 2 enables people to critically deal with a sustainable development and its complexity, uncertainty and discrepancies. The sustainable development is a learning process in and of itself (cf. Vare & Scott, 2007). The focus lies on capacity building and critical thinking as prerequisites for decision-making in terms of sustainable development (cf. Mulder, 2014; Wals, 2011, 2015). Figure 1 gives an overview of the two concepts.
Even though Vare and Scott view both approaches as complementary, they favour ESD 2 from an educational standpoint—likewise, Wals (2011, 2015) prefers his ‘emancipatory approach’.
De Haan follows a similar rationale: education for sustainable development does not refer to goals, purposes and intentions of individuals’ actions, but to their consequences. It is supposed to enable people who have correspondent goals and intentions to act according to the idea of sustainable development (de Haan, 2010). It is about the introduction of possibilities, not about practising certain sustainable behaviours.
Our ideas of the ‘sustainability citizen’ result from a reflexive, discourse-oriented understanding, similar to ESD 2, without negating the necessity of shared core values. These common values are mainly tied to civic sense and civic virtues and not to a less abstract knowledge about sustainable development. We will elaborate on the impact of education on the development of these civic core values at a later time. However, the procedural character of a rational, normative reflection, negotiation, decision and action defines the ‘sustainability citizen’ better than the implementation of an externally specified, probably static bunch of values and behavioural patterns.
The main goal of this emancipatory approach to education for sustainable development is the development of key competencies which enable individuals to actively influence the process of a sustainable development. The question of which key competencies are particularly relevant to a sustainable development has to be answered.
Key Competencies for a Sustainable Development
With regard to education for sustainable development, one question has been discussed intensely over the past few years: which key competencies2 should individuals have in order to be able to actively shape their own lives as well as their social environment (cf. Rieckmann, 2012; Wiek et al., 2011, 2016). The concept of ‘shaping competence’ is often referenced; it describes the ability to identify problems of non-sustainable developments and to effectively apply knowledge about sustainable development (de Haan, 2010). It encompasses 12 sub-competencies (de Haan, 2010, p. 320):
gather knowledge in a spirit of openness to the world, integrating new perspectives;
think and act in a forward-looking manner;
acquire knowledge and act in an interdisciplinary manner;
deal with incomplete and overly complex information;
co-operate in decision-making processes;
cope with individual dilemmatic situations of decision-making;
participate in collective decision-making processes;
motivate oneself as well as others to become active;
reflect upon one’s own principles and those of others;
refer to the idea of equity in decision-making and planning actions;
plan and act autonomously; and
show empathy for and solidarity with the disadvantaged.
So the concept of shaping competence includes competencies that enable a forward-looking and self-dependent shaping of sustainable development. In addition to shaping competence, the concepts of ‘decision-making competence’ (Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010) and ‘Transformative Literacy’ (Schneidewind, 2013) are also discussed and applied. Particularly concerning Global Education, the framework for the field of Global Development in line with education for sustainable development (Schreiber & Siege, 2016) is put into practice. It states core competencies of global development in three areas: recognition, assessment and action.
Similar to the German discourse, there is an international debate about fostering competencies via education for sustainable development. Concepts such as ‘Sustainability Literacy’ (Stibbe, 2009), ‘Gestaltswitching’ (Wals, 2010), ‘Action Competence’ (Mogensen & Schnack, 2010), ‘Key Competencies in Sustainability’ (Wiek et al., 2011) and ‘Sustainability Capabilities’ (Thomas, Barth, & Day, 2013) are discussed. Wiek et al. (2011, 2016) merged some of the above-mentioned concepts to create their ‘Key Competencies in Sustainability’; by laying their focus on fields of studies about sustainability, they distinguish five key competencies: system thinking compe-tence, anticipatory competence, normative competence, strategic competence and interpersonal competence (see Figure 2).
Based on an international Delphi study with experts on education for sustainable development from Germany, England, Ecuador, Chile and Mexico, the concept of ‘Key Competencies for a Sustainable Development of the Global Society’ (cf. Rieckmann, 2012) was developed. It distinguishes the following key competencies with relevance to sustainability:
Competence in tolerating ambiguity and frustration: the ability to deal with disputes, conflicting goals and agendas, contradictions and setbacks.
Assessment competence: the ability to develop assessment criteria and to make independent assessments regarding conflicts of interests and goals.
Competence in empathy and in changing perspectives: the ability to identify one’s own perspective and the perspectives of others, to deal with one’s own value orientations as well as those of others, to put oneself in other people’s position and to accept diversity.
Competence in acting justly and environment-friendly: the ability to recognize different courses of action, to be guided by values of justice, solidarity and environmental protection, to reflect on possible consequences of one’s own actions and to take responsibility for them.
Competence in interdisciplinary work: the ability to cope with knowledge and methods of different fields and to work on complex problems in interdisciplinary relations.
Competence in communication and media usage: the ability to communicate in intercultural contexts, to handle information technologies and to criticize media.
Competence in critical thinking: the ability to deal with the world, to challenge standards, practices and opinions, to reflect on one’s own values, perceptions and actions, to give one’s own opinion and to understand others’ perspectives.
Participatory competence: the ability to see room for shaping and participation and to participate in shaping a sustainable development.
Competence in planning and implementing innovative projects and ideas: the ability to develop ideas and strategies, to plan and implement projects, to show willingness to learn and innovate, to reflect on and deal with possible risks.
Competence in systemic thinking and dealing with complexity: the ability to identify and understand interrelations and to deal with uncertainty.
Anticipatory competence: the ability to develop sustainable ideas for the future, to apply the precautionary principle, to anticipate consequences and to deal with risks and changes.
Competence in collaboration within (heterogeneous) groups: the ability to deal with conflicts, to learn from others and to appreciate needs, perspectives and actions of others.
Since this concept advances the approach of shaping competence, it exceeds the often Eurocentric focus of the competence debate in education for sustainable development via the inclusion of European and Latin-American experts in the Delphi study (cf. Rieckmann, 2012) and additionally—in contrast to the concept of Wiek et al. (2011)—spans various disciplines and fields of education, the ‘Key Competencies for a Sustainable Development of the Global Society’ in this paper are favoured over other competence concepts.
It has already been argued that in terms of an emancipatory pedagogy, an education for sustainable development which focuses on the development of competencies in order to empower people to actively shape a sustainable development is preferable to merely prescribing specific patterns of thought and behaviour. Does that mean that education for sustainable development does not provide a value orientation?
‘Sustainability Citizen’ Within a Critical Value Discourse
If sustainable development is seen as a process of social learning, communicating and shaping (cf. Godemann & Michelsen, 2011), inculcating students with specific patterns of thought and behaviour will not be an option, since the negotiation of these very ideas is part of the process (cf. Wals, 2011). However, sustainability cannot be a ‘theory about everything’ (cf. Ott et al., 2011); therefore, education for sustainable development is not arbitrary. De Haan points out that education for sustainable development is not limited to the development of competencies—it is also an educational concept. The educational component is marked by the orientation along ideas of intra- and intergenerational justice (cf. de Haan, 2010). Education for sustainable development thus aims for a contribution to a sensitization for a survival responsibility (Mokrosch, 2008, p. 38).
Moreover, education for sustainable development strives to enable a discourse about values that are connected to the leitmotif of sustainable development (particularly concerning the conservation of nature, human dignity and justice). ‘The treating of values and ethics […] will need to become an integral part of our education if sustainability is to be seriously addressed’ (Wals, 2015, p. 8). Consequently, education for sustainable development is expected to contribute to a value clarification (Mokrosch, 2008, p. 36) and a critical value discourse (cf. Rieckmann, Fischer, & Richter, 2014). It can encourage to reflect on one’s own values and to take part in the value discourse leading to a sustainable development (cf. Barth, 2012). Beyond that, education for sustainable development can redound to expand the students’ value framework. The Latin-American discourses regarding ‘Buen Vivir’ (good life) and the rights of nature might, for instance, are factored into the value debate (cf. Rieckmann, Adomßent, Härdtle, & Aguirre, 2011). Eurocentric patterns of thought can thus be expanded and reflected upon.
This version of education for sustainable development can be part of a value shift towards sustainability (cf. WBGU, 2011) without patronizing or overwhelming students; on the contrary, it supports the development of a reflexive competence. The practical implementation of critical value discourses in contexts of education and socialization is a demanding and actively discussed challenge which at this point cannot be dealt with (see Mokrosch, 2008; Schwarz & Schrüfer, 2014; Stein, 2008).
If the prevalent sustainability discourse is characterized by an orientation along ideas of intra- and intergenerational justice as well as the conservation of nature, and if education for sustainable development supports the individual in participating in that discourse and reflecting on one’s own and other people’s values, then the issue will be the incorporation of the ‘sustainability citizen’ into the critical value discourse. The Leitmotif of the ‘sustainability citizen’, which has been discussed earlier, and the version of education for sustainable development presented in this chapter are to be correlated in a synthesis.
Our understanding of the ‘sustainability citizen’ demands three interdependent stipulations (see Figure 3); without them, individuals cannot meet the requirements of self-determined, enlightened shapers of a sustainable development: economic expertise forms the basis, while the liberal republican civic ethos, the ability to judge and decide morally and the key competencies for sustainable development are needed as well. All three stipulations have an explicable share in the sustainability discourse and the promotion of a sustainable development, but they need to be present collectively. The development of key competencies alone will fail if the individual lacks the willingness to adapt his/her actions to civic sense and civic virtues and to accept a conditional legitimacy. Those key competencies would otherwise be of a strictly instrumental and strategic nature and would be utilized only due to calculated self-interest, force or social desirability. It also remains questionable whether such an actor without civic sense would be willing to participate in an open-ended, unbiased sustainability discourse. If only the key competencies and the civic ethos are combined, it remains doubtful whether the individual is capable of identifying the virtue content of decisions or whether he/she can challenge a prevalent moral framework and thus eventually make normative, well-founded decisions. Absent any key competencies for sustainable development—though goodwill and the ability to judge are given—the individual will simply not be able to implement the values and principles in concrete situations.
If learning processes are to aim at the development of the stipulations for the ‘sustainability citizen’, consequences for the didactic design of these processes will follow. The critical value discourse outlined earlier can contribute to the development of the liberal republican civic ethos and the ability to judge and decide morally. Education for sustainable development has to provide opportunities to explicitly deal with different value frameworks as well as the relation between individual and society. Competencies can be made accessible and subsequently learned, but cannot be conveyed (cf. Weinert, 2001); to that effect, the development of competencies can be characterized as learning by experience or situated learning. Reflection is also of fundamental importance. A competence-oriented education thus presupposes a new educational culture based on ‘enabling didactics’ (Arnold & Lermen, 2005, p. 59). Teaching and learning methods have to be learner-centred and must facilitate the development of competencies (cf. Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann, & Stoltenberg, 2007).
Hence, education for sustainable development primarily has to create opportunities for the students to act on their own. These are some didactic approaches and methods that meet this requirement: self-organized learning, explorative learning, project-oriented learning, problem-oriented learning, multi-perspective and interdisciplinary work (cf. Barth et al., 2007). If these methods are combined with a reflection of normative and moral questions, they can also facilitate the development of the liberal republican civic ethos and the ability to judge and decide morally.
Shared Responsibility for Sustainable Development Instead of an Overburdening of the Individual
Education for sustainable development starts with the individual’s acquirement of knowledge and competencies and his/her value orientation. The responsibility for a sustainable development thus becomes a private matter (Grunwald, 2010, p. 178). The emphasis lies on the individual responsibility for waste sorting, saving energy, compensating CO2 and so on, while the public responsibility of political actors and the role of (multinational) corporations are marginalized. This is problematic in many ways: first of all, individuals are overwhelmed by the complexity and uncertainty that come with decisions relating to sustainability—they often lack the required knowledge (cf. Grunwald, 2010). Hellmann states that this revives an old debate about the precarious sovereignty of the consumer, which is quite demanding, considering the complexity of the causal chains involved. Keywords are shopping cart, customer and commodity flow. One should bear in mind that such a moralization of consumption can lead to the consumer being overwhelmed (Hellmann, 2013, p. 12).
Second, trade-offs might occur even regarding explicitly sustainable behaviours. Third, the separation between public and private spheres can be blurred (cf. Grunwald, 2010).
Focusing on individual responsibility alone is problematic for yet another reason: the dominance and permanence of social structures and cultural patterns are being underestimated. ‘Individuals […] are often “atomized” by the practices and procedures of institutions and the ideology of “democratic” and “consumer choice”, while their behaviour is heavily circumscribed by structures, institutions and practices over which they have little influence or control’ (Wals, 2015, p. 13). Consumption, for instance, is not just shaped by individuals, but culturally embedded (cf. Assadourian, 2010). The market economy with its inherent ‘growth spiral’ (Binswanger, 2012) also limits the possible impact of individual behavioural changes. An actually sustainable development of society demands nothing less than the creation and circulation of cultural alternatives (Hübner, 2012, p. 263f). In many fields, sustainable development is linked to structural issues. However, if the focus lies on a fixation on learners as private consumers, a structural redesign of the criticized conditions will be impeded (Danielzik, 2013, p. 31). It is therefore of utmost importance that education for sustainable development should not only focus on the individual level, but also raise questions regarding structures and the ‘Great Transformation’ (cf. WBGU, 2011). Sustainability is not a private affair, but a public challenge (cf. Grunwald, 2010).
The socio-economically educated ‘sustainability citizen’ is still a crucial protagonist in the sustainability discourse and significantly involved in the implementation of his/her results, but will be easily overwhelmed if he/she has to take all responsibilities. While this article drafts an ideal of the ‘sustainability citizen’, the average human defects have to be considered in the real world (Weber, 1919, p. 57). In a complex environment, the ‘sustainability citizen’ thus needs ‘institutional backing’ (Ulrich, 2008, p. 302) that enables him/her to take responsibility. The interdependencies between these actors and their roles in discourse and implementation of sustainable development are quite complex (see Figure 4). The discourse among actors of the micro-, meso- and macro-level will be successful if it leads to teleological leitmotifs, that is, shared and desirable conditions and goals (in what kind of society do we and our descendants want to live in?), and is at the same time guided by a deontological value framework, determining legitimate ways and means to reach these goals.
Although these discourses are traditionally led on the micro-level by natural citizens capable of moral actions, some organizations and national actors intend to partake. Since the issue of the ‘sustainability citizen’ has already been broached, the two other levels and their respective actors need to be presented at least briefly.
Organizations and corporations on the meso-level are closely interconnected with citizens who—in their role as managers or employees—exert influence and at the same time are influenced by organizational frameworks. Organizations demand subordination and loyalty, thereby limiting one’s freedom of action, but at the same time embed the individual in powerful structures that can be shaped or used for one’s personal goals. Organizations are more than the sum of their parts, that is, their organizational citizens. But can artificial entities like organizations be bearers of responsibility? Although this is a historically controversial issue (cf. Schank & Beschorner, 2017), their influence on sustainable development in the twenty-first century is more important than ever before (cf. Beschorner, Hajduk, & Schank, 2012). Corporations have to fulfil two requirements in order to enable the shaping of sustainable development and an economy that improves life (cf. Ulrich, 2008): First of all, they have a shared responsibility for regulative policies (republican corporate ethics); second, they are obligated to develop upright business strategies (business ethics). Responsibility for regulative policies means that corporations must be willing to shape their competitive environment in such a way as to enable a sustainable economy. In today’s globalized world, nations are more and more struggling to create or complete such a framework. Corporations have a responsibility to deal with grey areas, for instance via inter-trade agreements. Upright business strategies focus on a corporation’s inner structure and its market appearance. The balance of interests in regard to stakeholders takes centre stage in order to align the core business with social, ecological and (legitimate) socio-political demands.
The macro-level is shaped by (supra-)national actors and a (supra-)national framework. An intact framework that is oriented along the leitmotif of sustainability is a crucial factor for sustainable development; it can guide the productive and consumptive handling of natural resources via incentives and enforced standards. A perfect framework would have the potential to manage such a development almost entirely on its own. Such perfection is of course a financial and political impossibility, especially in this day and age. It is also ultimately undesirable since it would massively restrict citizens’ rights and liberties. Regarding the organization of a sustainability-oriented economic system, two central tasks need to be performed (cf. Ulrich, 2008, p. 393ff): the first challenge is to determine which social subsystems (education, health etc.) are to be affected by the market, or whether other forms of resource allocation should be utilized. The second challenge is to explore how and under which restrictions the market or an alternative allocation mechanism can be exercised. The ‘sustainability citizen’ has to be subject to this (democratically legitimized) framework and at the same time contribute to its design in his/her role as citizen and sovereign.
Sustainable development will only succeed as a result of the interaction and cooperation between these three levels and their respective actors. The ‘sustainability citizen’ as a natural person and thus as a natural subject of responsibility plays a crucial part and consequently remains the central addressee of education for sustainable development, be it in his/her role as consumer, investor, employee, entrepreneur or sovereign:
A sustainability citizen is one who is able to interrogate resilient unsustainability and who can participate in the co-creation of new systems and associated routines that appear, at least for the moment, more sustainable than the ones in need of replacement. Clearly this demands more than the ability to adapt to changing circumstances due to, for instance, climate change or, in light of such changes, to become more resilient as an individual and as a community. It rather requires the capacity to disrupt and to transgress prevailing, dominant and unquestioned frameworks and systems that predetermine and structure social and economic behaviour, and that, somewhat ironically, have proven to be highly resilient themselves. This capacity is little emphasized in the current discourse around sustainability governance and in circles connected to education and learning in the context of sustainable development. By stressing disruptive capacity building and transgressive learning the focus shifts away from learning to cope with the negative and disempowering effects of the current hegemonic ways of “producing”, “consuming” and “living” to addressing the root causes thereof and to the quest for morally defensible, ethical and meaningful lives. (Wals, 2015, p. 30)
By means of a development of key competencies that are relevant for sustainability, the reflection of structural barriers as well as a debate about the aforementioned multidimensional network of relations and responsibilities, individuals can be empowered to criticize non-sustainable structures and to contribute to the shaping of a sustainable development. Education for sustainable development thus fulfils a vital function. However, it should also facilitate processes of social learning (cf. Barth, 2012; Wals, 2011, 2015). At this point, bearers of responsibility on the macro- and meso-level, that is, (supra-) national actors and private organizations, as well as their tense relationships among one another, have to be taken into consideration.
Conclusion
This article illustrates how the concept of education for sustainable development can be normatively substantiated and expanded upon using approaches from socio-economic education and integrative business ethics. The usual focus on key competencies for a sustainable development is widened per incorporation of the economic citizen leitmotif in order to encompass the liberal republican civic ethos and the ability to judge and decide morally, thereby presenting the idea of the ‘sustainability citizen’. The key competencies for sustainable development, which can be characterized as purely instrumental and value-free on their own, are thus embedded in a normative-ethical framework. Such a socio-economically substantiated education for sustainable development regards the development of civic sense and civic virtues and the critical reflection of moral questions as significant elements that are necessary to individually deal with sustainable development without dismissing an emancipatory-reflexive understanding of education.
Furthermore, an exclusive focus on individual responsibility for sustainable development has to be viewed critically. This article shows that dealing with structural questions on the meso- and macro-level, that is, the importance of (supra-) national actors and private organizations and their interaction among each other, as well as dealing with the micro-level and thus the shared responsibility for sustainable development, should be part of the emancipatory education for sustainable development. This is the only way to keep the individual from being unduly or inappropriately overburdened.
There is, however, a need for further research concerning the question: how exactly the liberal republican civic ethos, the ability to judge and decide morally and the key competencies for sustainable education are interacting in individual actions. In educational practice, the issue of fostering a liberal republican civic ethos and the ability to judge and decide morally without overwhelming the individual has to be elaborated. Eventually, this is a matter of advancing education and pedagogy in times of the ‘Great Transformation’.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1.
Ulrich (2006, p. 166) criticizes the disentanglement of the neoclassical economy from this trinity regarding its possibly contradictory implications: either an exact, perfect theory of ‘pure’ economics that abstracts from the empirical basis in an axiomatic-conceptual way would emerge or it would lead to a (seemingly) objective empirical science that presupposes a behavioural determinism. The methodological status of economic science cannot be discussed at this point, and neither can the question to what extent the economic citizen itself, developed by Ulrich, has to be seen as a perfect theory whose translocation to practical discourses would prove to be difficult.
2.
Competencies are individual dispositions composed of knowledge, abilities, skills, motives and emotional elements. Key competencies are transversal, multifunctional and context-spanning competencies that are crucial to achieving important social goals and thus important for all individuals (cf. Rieckmann, 2012).
References
| Arnold, R., Lermen, M. (2005). Lernen, Bildung und Kompetenzentwicklung – neuere Entwicklungen in Erwachsenenbildung und Weiterbildung [Learning, education and competence development - recent developments in adult education and training]. In Wiesner, G., Wolter, A. (Eds.), Die lernende Gesellschaft. Lernkulturen und Kompetenzentwicklung in der Wissensgesellschaft (pp. 45–59) [The Learning Society. Learning cultures and competence development in the knowledge society]. Weinheim, Munich: Juventa. Google Scholar | |
| Assadourian, E. (2010). The rise and fall of consumer cultures. In Worldwatch Institute (Ed.), State of the world 2010: Transforming cultures: From consumerism to sustainability (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute. Google Scholar | |
| Barry, J. (2005). Resistance is fertile: From environmental to sustainability citizenship. In Bell, D., Dobson, A. (Eds.), Environmental citizenship: Getting from here to there? (pp. 21–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar | |
| Barth, M. (2012). Social learning instead of educating the other. GAIA, 19(3), 91–94. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital. A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Beschorner, T., Hajduk, T., Schank, C. (2012). Ökonomie anders denken: Perspektiven nachhaltiger Entwicklung [Thinking economy differently: perspectives of sustainable development]. In Stiftung, B. (Ed.), Politik nachhaltig gestalten. Wie man nachhaltige Politik macht, kommuniziert und durchsetzt (pp. 82–109) [Making Politics Sustainable. How to make, communicate and enforce sustainable policies]. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Google Scholar | |
| Binswanger, H. C. (2012). The growth spiral: Money, energy, and imagination in the dynamics of the market process. Marburg: Metropolis. Google Scholar | |
| Danielzik, C.-M. (2013). Überlegenheitsdenken fällt nicht vom Himmel. Postkoloniale Perspektiven auf Globales Lernen und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung [Superior thinking does not fall from the sky. Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Education and Education for Sustainable Development]. ZEP – Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 36(1), 26–33. Google Scholar | |
| de Haan, G. (2010). The development of ESD-related competencies in supportive institutional frameworks. International Review of Education, 56(2), 315–328. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socio-scientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258. Google Scholar | |
| Elias, N. (2009). Was ist Soziologie? [What is sociology?]. München: Beltz Juventa. Google Scholar | |
| Geertz, C. (1995). Dichte Beschreibung: Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme [Thick Description: Contributions to the understanding of cultural systems]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar | |
| Gewecke, L.-M., Huse, O. (2011). Werte – Zwischen Erziehung und Sozialisation [Values - Between education and socialization]. In Mikhail, T. (Ed.), Zeitlose Probleme der Pädagogik – Pädagogik als zeitloses Problem? [Timeless Problems of Pedagogy - Pedagogy as a Timeless Problem?] Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing. Google Scholar | |
| Godemann, J., Michelsen, G. (2011). Sustainability communication—An introduction. In Godemann, J., Michelsen, G. (Eds.), Sustainability communication. Interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation (pp. 3–11). Dordrecht and New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Grunwald, A. (2010). Wider die Privatisierung der Nachhaltigkeit [Against the privatization of sustainability. Why ecologically correct consumption can not save the environment]. Warum ökologisch korrekter Konsum die Umwelt nicht retten kann. GAIA, 19(3), 178–182. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Heinrichs, H. (2011). Participation: Empowerment for sustainable development. In Godemann, J., Michelsen, G. (Eds.), Sustainability communication. Interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation (pp. 187–198). Dordrecht and New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Hellmann, K.-U. (2013). Der Konsum der Gesellschaft. Studien zur Soziologie des Konsums [The consumption of society. Studies on the sociology of consumption]. Wiesbaden: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Hübner, R. (2012). Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation reloaded. Aporien als Chance für gesellschaftliche Lern- und Entwicklungsprozesse [Sustainability communication reloaded. Aporia as an opportunity for social learning and development processes]. GAIA, 21(4), 262–265. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Kashniz, D. (2005). Ökonomische und politische Bildung sowie die Frage ihrer Integration aus der Perspektive einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Allgemeinbildungstheorie [Economic and political education as well as the question of its integration from the perspective of a social science general education theory]. In Kashniz, D. (Ed.), Integration von politischer und ökonomischer Bildung? [Integration of political and economic education?] (pp. 111–159). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar | |
| Knopf, J., Brink, A. (2011). Moralentwicklung und moralische Orientierung [Moral development and moral orientation]. In Aßländer, M. (Ed.), Handbuch Wirtschaftsethik [Handbook of Business Ethics] (pp. 20–25). Stuttgart and Weimar: J. Metzler. Google Scholar | |
| Maak, T., Ulrich, P. (2007). Integre Unternehmensführung. Ethisches Orientierungswissen für die Wirtschaftspraxis [Integre business management. Ethical orientation knowledge for business practice]. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Google Scholar | |
| Matten, D., Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Meyer-Abich, K. M. (2001). Nachhaltigkeit – ein kulturelles, bisher aber chancenloses Wirtschaftsziel [Sustainability - a cultural but hitherto chance-free economic goal]. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 2(3), 291–310. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Michelsen, G., Siebert, H., Lilje, J. (2011). Nachhaltigkeit lernen. Ein Lesebuch [Learning sustainability. A reading book]. Bad Homburg: VAS. Google Scholar | |
| Mogensen, F., Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 59–74. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Mokrosch, R. (2008). Zum Verständnis von Werte-Erziehung: Aktuelle Modelle für die Schule [Understanding Values Education: Current Models for the School.]. In Mokrosch, R., Regenbogen, A. (Eds.), Werte-Erziehung und Schule. Ein Handbuch für Unterrichtende [Values Education and School. A Handbook for Teachers] (pp. 32–40). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Google Scholar | |
| Mulder, K. (2014). Strategic competencies, critically important for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 78, 243–248. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Ott, K., Muraca, B., Baatz, C. (2011). Strong sustainability as a frame for sustainability communication. In Godemann, J., Michelsen, G. (Eds.), Sustainability communication. Interdisciplinary perspectives and theoretical foundation (pp. 13–25). Dordrecht and New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Petersen, T. (2012). Globale Herausforderungen für das Prinzip der Nachhaltigkeit [Global challenges to the principle of sustainability.]. In Stiftung, B. (Ed.), Politik nachhaltig gestalten. Wie man nachhaltige Politik macht, kommuniziert und durchsetzt [Making Politics Sustainable. How to make, communicate and enforce sustainable politics] (pp. 51–81). Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Google Scholar | |
| Polanyi, K. (1978). The great transformation. Politische und ökonomische Ursprünge von Gesellschaften und Wirtschaftssystemen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar | |
| Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Rieckmann, M., Adomßent, M., Härdtle, W., Aguirre, P. (2011). Sustainable development and conservation of biodiversity hotspots in Latin America. The case of Ecuador. In Zachos, F. E., Habel, J. C. (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots. Distribution and protection of conservation priority areas (pp. 435–452). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Rieckmann, M., Fischer, D., Richter, S. (2014). Nachhaltige Ernährung im Wertediskurs –Beiträge einer Hochschulbildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung [Sustainable nutrition in the value discourse - Contributions of higher education for sustainable development]. In Schank, C., Vorbohle, K., Quandt, J. H. (Eds.), Perspektive Nahrungsmittelethik [Perspective Food Ethics] (pp. 29–58). München and Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Google Scholar | |
| Röpke, W. (1961). Jenseits von Angebot und Nachfrage [Beyond supply and demand]. Stuttgart and Zürich: Rentsch. Google Scholar | |
| Schank, C., Beschorner, T. (2017). Unternehmensverantwortung aus wirtschaftswissens- chaftlichen Perspektiven [Corporate responsibility from economic perspectives]. In Backhaus-Maul, H., Kunze, M., Nährlich, S. (Eds.), GesellschaftlicheVerantwortung von Unternehmen in Deutschland [Corporate Social Responsibility of Companies in Germany] (pp. 175-196). Heidelberg: Springer VS. Google Scholar | |
| Schank, C., Lorch, A. (2014). Der Wirtschaftsbürger als Subjekt einer sozioökonomischen Bildung [The economic citizen as the subject of a socio-economic education]. In Fischer, A., Zurstrassen, B. (Eds.), Sozio-ökonomische Bildung – Konzepte einer politischen, sozialen, kulturellen und wertorientierten sozio-ökonomischen Bildung [Socio-economic education - Concepts of a political, social, cultural and value-based socio-economic education] (pp. 266–284). Bonn: BPB. Google Scholar | |
| Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility—Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Schneidewind, U. (2013). Transformative literacy. Gesellschaftliche Veränderungsprozesse verstehen und gestalten [Transformative Literacy. Understanding and shaping social change processes]. GAIA, 22(2), 82–86. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Schrader, U. (2011). Corporate citizenship. In Aßländer, M. (Ed.), Handbuch Wirtschaftsethik [Handbook of Business Ethics] (pp. 303–311). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Schreiber, J. R., Siege, H. (Eds.). (2016). Curriculum framework. Education for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://ensi.org/global/downloads/Publications/418/Curriculum%20Framework%20ESD%20final%201.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Schwarz, I., Schrüfer, G. (Eds.). (2014). Vielfältige Geographien. Entwicklungslinien für Globales Lernen, Interkulturelles Lernen und Wertediskurse [Diverse geographies. Development Lines for Global Education, Intercultural Learning and Value Discourses]. Münster and New York, NY: Waxmann. Google Scholar | |
| Schwedes, R. (2004). Sustainability Science – Schlagwort oder Chance für die betriebs- wirtschaftliche Forschung [Sustainability Science - buzzword or opportunity for business research]. In Freimann, J. (Ed.), Akteure einer nachhaltigen Unternehmen-sentwicklung [Actors of Sustainable Company Development] (pp. 147–165). München and Mering: Rainer Hampp. Google Scholar | |
| Stein, M. (2008). Wie können wir Kindern Werte vermitteln? Werteerziehung in Familie und Schule [How can we convey values to children? Values education in family and school]. München: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag. Google Scholar | |
| Stibbe, A. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of sustainability literacy. Skills for a changing world. Totnes: Green. Google Scholar | |
| Thomas, I., Barth, M., Day, T. (2013). Education for sustainability, graduate capabilities, professional employment: How they all connect. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 29(1), 33–51. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R., Fien, J., Schreuder, D. (Eds.). (2002). Education and sustainability. Responding to the global challenge. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Cambridge and Gland: IUCN Commission on Education and Communication. Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (1997). Wofür sind Unternehmen verantwortlich? [What are companies responsible for?] Forum Wirtschaftsethik, 5(3), 3–9. Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (1998). Unternehmensethik und „Gewinnprinzip’’. Versuch der Klärung eines unerled- igten wirtschaftsethischen Grundproblems [Business ethics and “principle of profit”. Attempt to clarify an unfinished ethical business problem] (Berichte des Instituts für Wirtschaftsethik, Nr. 70) [Reports of the Institute of Business Ethics, No. 70). St. Gallen: Institut für Wirtschaftsethik. Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (2000). Integrative Wirtschaftsethik: Grundlagenreflexion der ökonomischen Vernunft [Integrative Business Ethics: Fundamental reflection of economic reason]. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften, 11(4), 555–567. Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (2005). Zivilisierte Marktwirtschaft: Eine wirtschaftsethische Orientierung [Civilized market economy: an economic ethical orientation]. Bern: Haupt. Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (2006). Politische Ökonomie, wirtschaftsethisch rekonfiguriert. Funktionale Systemökonomie im Kontext praktischer Sozialökonomie (pp. 164-182) [Political economy, economically reconfigured. Functional system economics in the context of practical social economy]. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik (zfwu). Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (2008). Integrative economic ethics. Foundations of a civilized market economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Ulrich, P. (2009). Die gesellschaftliche Einbettung der Marktwirtschaft als Kernproblem des 21. Jahrhunderts: eine wirtschaftsethische Fortschrittsperspektive (Berichte des Instituts für Wirtschaftsethik, Nr. 115) [The social embedding of the market economy as the core problem of the 21st century: an economic-ethical perspective for progress]. (Reports of the Institute of Business Ethics, No. 115). St. Gallen: Institut für Wirtschaftsethik. Google Scholar | |
| Ulrich, P. (2010). Zivilisierte Marktwirtschaft: Eine wirtschaftsethische Orientierung [Civilized market economy: an economic ethical orientation.]. Aktualisierte und erweiterte Neuausgabe [Updated and extended revision]. Bern: Haupt. Google Scholar | |
| UN Documents Cooperation Circles (n.d.). Agenda 21, Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/a21-36.htm Google Scholar | |
| United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2005). UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/cep/ac.13/cep.ac.13.2005.3.rev.1.e.pdf Google Scholar | |
| United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural, Organization (UNESCO) (2014). UNESCO Roadmap zur Umsetzung des Weltaktionsprogramms ‘‘Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung’’ [Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2014). UNESCO Roadmap for implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development.]. Retrieved from https://www.bmbf.de/files/2015_Roadmap_deutsch.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Vare, P., Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191–198. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
| Wals, A. E. J. (2010). Mirroring, Gestaltswitching and transformative social learning: Stepping stones for developing sustainability competence. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 380–390. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Wals, A. E. J. (2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177–186. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
| Wals, A. E. J. (2015). Beyond unreasonable doubt. Education and learning for socio-ecological sustainability in the anthropocene. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Retrieved from https://arjenwals.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/8412100972_rvb_inauguratie-wals_oratieboekje_v02.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Wals, A. E. J., Lenglet, F. (2016). Sustainability citizens: Collaborative and disruptive social learning. In Horne, R., Fien, J., Beza, B., Nelson, A. (Eds.), Sustainability citizenship in cities: Theory and practice (pp. 52–66). London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
| WBGU. (Eds.) (2011). Flagship report. World in transition. A social contract for sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_en.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Weber, M. (1919). Politik als Beruf. Geistige Arbeit als Beruf. Vier Vorträge vor dem Freistudentischen Bund. Zweiter Vortrag [Politics as a vocation. Spiritual work as a profession. Four lectures in front of the Freistudentischen Bund. Second lecture.]. München and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Google Scholar | |
| Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In Rychen, D. S., Salganik, L. H. (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, Toronto, Bern and Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber. Google Scholar | |
| Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Wiek, A., Bernstein, M. J., Foley, R. W., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., Withcombe Keeler, L. (2016). Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development. In Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Thomas, I., Rieckmann, M. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 241–260). London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
| World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/a21-36.htm Google Scholar |




