Enhancing education for sustainable
development in Business and Management,
Hospitality, Leisure, Marketing, Tourism
Chapter 14 Stepping outside a comfort zone: transdisciplinary
innovation in sustainability education
Darien Simon, Anette Lundebye, Regent’s College, London, and Evelyn Ang, University
of Wisconsin
Edited by Richard Atfield and Patsy Kemp
Contents
Section
Page
Summary
3
Introduction
3
Sustainability and sustainable development
3
Paradigm change, communication and conflict
4
Paradigm change strategy: academics (academic heal thyself!)
5
Paradigm change strategy: students (transforming win-lose into win-win)
6
Main learning points
8
Conclusion
8
References and URLs
9
Biographies
10
2
Summary
Through transdisciplinary collaboration across US and UK institutions of higher education, a win-win role play developed for
negotiation and conflict resolution has been innovatively adapted for use in the context of ‘sustainability in business’. The
adaptation process included theoretical and practical inputs from business, law, natural and social science, and fine arts
perspectives. This in itself is a demonstration of the win-win collaboration required to address systemic issues such as
sustainability in the academic environment, where highly specialised knowledge silos can discourage communication.
Introduction
Interdisciplinary. Multidisciplinary. Transdisciplinary. The buzzwords flow through academia, representing both lofty ideals and
necessary goals for the 21st century. Buzzwords they may be, but these concepts help us to identify systemic connections
between previously isolated bundles of knowledge.
How do we operationalise inter/multi/transdisciplinarity in education? Academics are trained to focus intensively on an indepth understanding of a minute fraction of a discipline, to become ‘experts’ capable of declaiming the final word in their
topics to students. There are now so many disciplines, sub-disciplines and cross-disciplines that terminology and/or conceptual
gaps may prevent one from fully communicating with another. As climate change risks become more apparent and the need
for sustainable development becomes more urgent, this situation is becoming dysfunctional because it is failing to provide the
coherency in educational programming and information sharing necessary to address the systemic problems. Students are
caught in between the systemic needs of the real world and the disciplinary boundaries in academia.
Sustainability and sustainable development
We define sustainability as the ideas and operations necessary to ensure the continuation of a healthy natural environment;
this includes the societies and economic activity reliant upon that environment, and the resources, services and aesthetics it
provides, as graphically illustrated in Figure 1. We use this definition because all social and economic activities, the primary
interests of a business school, rest on the foundation of the natural environment, the source of all raw materials and support
for human life and the development of social capital.
Figure 1: Aspects of sustainable development.
(Adapted from: http://www.sogesid.it/english_site/Sustainable_Development.html)
3
Global sustainable development — the means to achieve the goal of sustainability as it is generally conceived, based on the
Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) — encompasses natural and social sciences, theory and practical applications across
multiple economic sectors, spanning diverse cultures. Historically, these diverse fields and cultures have maintained a certain
insularity and isolation. In the sciences, specialisation and subject-specific vocabulary continue to enforce the separation.
Across economic sectors, interests and perspectives on the world differ. Between cultures there are historic, linguistic, ethnic,
religious and geographic variations that can be self-reinforcing.
Gaps are being identified everywhere: between disciplines, between theory and practice, between science and society,
especially those between cultures and nations in different developmental circumstances. These gaps are identified by the
authors’ direct observation and experience of academia in the US and UK, such as the distinct degree programming for
practitioners and theorists in many disciplines, by the inability of practitioners to share a common vocabulary, by the
ineffectiveness of science communications, by the conflicts arising between cultures as well as by the development of a
plethora of new disciplines and inter or multidisciplinary research centres. How can we get all these diverse people not only
talking to each other effectively, but working together efficiently to seek and promote sustainability? How can we bridge the
gaps and avoid resource and related conflicts? How can we replace traditional win-lose behaviour with win-win sustainable
development business behaviour?
New knowledge on how multiple stressors affect human and natural systems requires decision-makers to have an ability to
translate knowledge and awareness into usable information. This enables them to make wise short-term judgements as
scientific and local, national, and regional information is improved (The UN CSD Education Working Group, 2011).
To date, the attempts by universities such as Rutgers University (New Jersey, USA) to bridge the gaps have been
inter/multidisciplinary, creating even more speciality in the form of interdisciplinary research institutes and new scholarly
disciplines. For example, on its website (http://www.rutgers.edu/research/centers-institutes) Rutgers University boasts having
more than 200 research institutes 1. In disciplinary terms the attempt to bridge the gaps across natural sciences (biology,
chemistry and geology) led to the development of biogeochemistry, and the merger of sociology and psychology formed social
psychology, both interdisciplinary rather than transdisciplinary 2 (systems-based studies like sustainability). As a result, the gaps
remain or are widening.
Innovative change is needed, and by innovation we mean not just incremental change such as updating an existing process; for
example, incorporating new forms of audio-visual educational materials in the classroom. We mean primarily revolutionary or
disruptive innovation — changing the game. This requires us to step outside the comfort zone of expertise, familiar pedagogy
and disciplinary limitations. It requires paradigm change.
Paradigm change, communication and conflict
Changing paradigms can be confusing and cause conflict. What was accepted as ‘known’ in the past may no longer hold; new
ways of knowing emerge leaving previous certainties as reliable a foundation as quicksand. The cognitive scripts, habits and
beliefs developed from our personal past learning become unreliable or fail. When this happens, we resist. This resistance
must be overcome and patterns of thinking need to be learned anew to meet the new paradigm requirements. To do this we
need new, innovative ideas and methods of learning.
For example, academic experts and environmental groups have traditionally presumed that simply reporting facts will be
persuasive to students, the public, government and business. To a minor degree it has been. Awareness of environmental
issues is currently higher than it was a few decades ago. But along with growing awareness has come an increasing resistance
to changes such as sustainable development. Recently, some reasons for this failure in communications have been identified
(Bain et al, 2012; Kahan et al, 2011), reinforcing earlier theories (Olson, 2009).
Traditional scientific communication focuses on hypotheses, theories, data and analysis. Despite questions about achievability,
objectivity is a goal pursued by peer-review, replication, and questioning of assumptions. Reputations are made and maintained
1
Examples include the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine, Center for Behavioral Health Services and Criminal
Justice Research, Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics the Center for BioMaPS (Biological, Mathematical, and
Physical Sciences Interfaces), and the New Jersey Center for Biomaterials.
2
Here we distinguish between the concepts “interdisciplinary”, “a collaborative focus and blends and integrates research
between disciplines” (http://www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/content/pages/what-interdisciplinary-research) ,
“multidisciplinary”, combining several disciplines “does not seek to integrate the multiple disciplines involved” (ibid), also
“thinking outside the box”, and “transdisciplinary”, the recognition that there is no box and that knowledge transcends the
artificial limits imposed by discrete disciplines, “with a focus on problems or issues that cut across the boundaries of two or
more disciplines, or fall between them” (ibid).
4
by volume of publications and the ability to successfully expand or critique existing theory. The focus is insular, academic, not
on applications in the real world, and not necessarily on teaching for learning.
Business leaders, the public and policy makers communicate differently. For them subjective experience, personal stories and
feelings about things take precedence over objectivity in persuasive efforts (Olson, 2009). Studies have shown that the public
may rely on information from friends and family or other trusted or ideologically congruent sources over that of experts
(Griffin, 1967; Peters et al, 1997). In addition, business leaders have traditionally focused on their economic bottom line to the
exclusion of environmental and social consequences of pursuing profit; though there are notable exceptions (Interface, Inc. is
often cited in textbooks and conference presentations 3).
As long as scientists persist in addressing society as if addressing a scientific conference, the message imparted, however
urgent and compelling from a scientific perspective, is likely to be lost. Or worse, it will be counteracted by people who do
understand how to address society persuasively. Hansen’s comments to the US Congress in the summer of 1988 led to both
to the investigation of causal links between human behaviour and climate change, and to the increasingly vocal opposition to
such causality. The result has been a declining dedication to action on the part of the public, business and governments, just as
the scientific consensus has strengthened and some early predictions have been shown to be overly conservative (Hansen,
2012).
Complicating resistance, conflict can occur when we have to step out of our comfort zone, when our paradigms are
questioned. Wilmot and Hocker (2011:11) define conflict as an “expressed struggle between at least two interdependent
parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals”. When
paradigms are perceived as inconsistent, whether those paradigms are cultural, political or academic, human beings react
impulsively in predictable patterns of defensiveness, intransigence or aggression. In the extensive experience of two of the
authors as both students and faculty members at over ten different institutions of higher education, too many academics rest
on their expertise laurels and dismiss the idea of learning from students or communities because the traditional academic
paradigm is founded on differentials of knowledge and expertise, with them at the top. Climate change denial and resistance to
sustainable development are other results of the conflict of paradigms.
The conflict process both drives and fuels the distortion of our perceptions: our own ‘rightness’ is amplified, easily twinned
with the others’ ‘wrongness’. These are some of the perceptions that prevent authentic communications, hinder our ability to
understand and express our own needs, and impair empathy with others. They feed the reluctance and refusal of academics to
learn to communicate effectively with non-academics. Perpetuating the exclusivity of academic expertise reinforces the other
gaps — the traditional, but now dysfunctional, win-lose behaviour continues to be modelled and reinforced by it. This
resistance to change interferes with transdisciplinary discussion and sustainable development education by dismissing the need
for change and disenfranchising ‘non-expert’ perspectives.
Specialists seem particularly vulnerable to these reactions, as a natural consequence of the investment they make to their form
of knowledge creation or practice expertise. This is natural and desired in the institutions perceived as the repositories of
knowledge and practice. However, as the pace of change rapidly continues to increase, the need for transdisciplinary thinking
becomes even more acute.
Traditional teaching and thinking reinforces the status quo through expert-driven thinking. There is little or no listening to
others outside the recognised expertise or authority. In educational terms, what the lecturer says goes. But how far does it
go? Students listen and repeat what they are told but how deep is their understanding of the interconnections involved in
sustainable development, where the inherent problems are novel and systemic? How capable are they of exhibiting the critical
thinking required or of continuing to learn after or outside the classroom experience? Such questions are not likely to be
resolved by traditional and isolated thinking, especially as this thinking is largely responsible for creating the problems. As
Einstein is supposed to have noted 4: "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."
Paradigm change strategy: academics (academic heal thyself!)
Clearly, the genesis of the problem is in the demands of academic environments where knowledge has been divided into
disciplines to make it manageable. The adverse consequences of this division of knowledge are many. One of them is the
isolation of knowledge, the topic of many conversations between Darien Simon and Evelyn Ang, and brought into sharp focus
during a recent conference. The goal expressed by the Ecological Society of Australia was to discuss how to mainstream
ecology. While we were in favour of the proposed conference discussion we were dismayed that the dialogue would,
apparently, be held exclusively among ecologists. How can you mainstream something if the discussion is open solely to
specialists, we wondered? Around the same time, Anette Lundebye expressed frustration at the lack of win-win sustainabilitythinking experiential learning tools. Through our sharing of information, we achieved a new understanding of the issues and
developed a strategy to address some aspects of the problem.
3
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2010) Business Ethics. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; and Willard, B. (2012) The New
Sustainability Advantage. New Society Publishers: British Columbia, Canada; are just two examples.
4
http://www.great-quotes-on-life.com/albert-einstein-quotes.html and many other web sources for quotations.
5
Effective sustainable development education requires academics to step outside their disciplinary comfort zones and share
ideas, techniques and knowledge in order to develop and enhance creative and innovative learning experiences, including
enhancing theory with experiential learning. This requires a willingness to learn new vocabularies, to respect the expertise of
other sciences and disciplines, the development of abilities to see potential innovative applications of existing learning
techniques to novel situations, and the ability to step back and seek commonalities instead of focusing on differences.
Based on our experience, we have identified three key steps to formalise the communication processes used among ourselves.
They mirror the three steps recommended by Ikeda (2002) in a document circulated at Rio+10: to learn, to reflect, to
empower. Our first step was to recognise and risk pursuing opportunities for transdisciplinary communication by learning
from others with different expertise. Our second step was to reflect on new possibilities, to actively seek out novel
applications for established tools by stepping back and considering the commonalities instead of the differences between
disciplines, preferably through discussions with interested parties, not just academic colleagues. Our third step is to share
more widely the innovations arising from the discussions, to empower students and colleagues.
To accomplish the third key step we are developing workshops designed to push academics outside their comfort zone of
professional conferences and peer reviewed publications and their own earned status as ‘the experts’ by exposing them to
alternative communications methods (storytelling, communication circles) as well as communication and psychological theories
to support use of these activities. These alternative means will provide opportunities for exploring ways to translate
information into more appropriately targeted forms that are likely to be persuasive to the general public and policy makers,
and to help mainstream the scientific knowledge necessary to promote sustainable development.
Paradigm change strategy: students (transforming win-lose into win-win)
Sustainability is a win-win. In order to prepare students to meet the challenges of 21st century sustainable development, a new
pedagogy designed to transcend boundaries and bridge gaps is needed. To tailor the process to meet the needs of students we
began by asking if the concept of win-win varied according to discipline or application. Win-win has developed as an alternative
to the traditional win-lose methodology of conflict resolution. This technique is used in legal mediation processes as well as in
business management.
Most novice negotiators confuse collaboration and compromise. Kilmann and Thomas (1977) identified five conflict
management styles by mapping the individual’s priority for their own needs against the regard for others’ needs. The five styles
were identified as avoid, compete, accommodate, compromise, and collaborate. It is important to recognise that in any
dispute, the range of solutions along the continuum from compete (my needs over your needs) to accommodate (your needs
over my needs) includes a wide array of compromises (some of my needs and some of your needs). In game theory, this set of
solutions is known as ‘zero-sum 5’ or win-lose; each possibility requires more or less sacrifice of one party’s needs over the
others’.
True collaboration, using the conflict management styles as defined by Kilmann and Thomas, is a situation where all needs are
met. Where compromise is necessarily a trade of sacrifices amounting to a ‘lose-lose’, true collaboration can only be said to
be achieved when a ‘win-win’ solution occurs, and all parties’ needs are met (Fisher et al, 1991).
We asked ourselves:
•
•
what do the two disciplinary expressions of win-win (alternative conflict resolution, sustainability) have in
common in terms of theory, methodology and learning tools?
can the tools and methods of one be adapted and applied innovatively in the other?
The subsequent discussions resulted in a plan for an experiential learning exercise to help students feel the difference between
win-lose and win-win thinking.
In three undergraduate courses at Regent’s College, Sustainability in Business, Strategy and Innovation for Sustainable Global
Enterprise and Corporate Social Responsibility, we adapted the Ugli Orange Role Play 6, an experiential learning exercise used
to train negotiators in alternative dispute resolution, for use with approximately 175 undergraduate students. Sustainability in
Business is a required course for all students in the BA (Hons) programme, normally taken in the second year. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Strategy and Innovation for Sustainable Global Enterprise are electives in the Sustainability Pathway.
5
http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/ZeroSum.html; for detailed explanation see Thomas S Ferguson’s, Game Theory
(http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/Game_Theory/mat.pdf) or Roger McCain's Game Theory and Public Policy, Part 1, "A Historical
and Critical Survey", Elgar, 2010.
6
The first known publications of the Ugli Orange Role Play date to John Barkai [(1996)Teaching Negotiation and ADR: The Savvy
Samurai Meets the Devil. Nebraska Law Review]; however, he states he does not know the origin of the exercise. According to
Kolb (1995) the exercise originates from Robert House’s Experiences in Management and Organizational Behavior (1982).
6
In seminar groups (between 15 and 25 students per session) students are assigned one of two roles in the exercise and are
asked to negotiate for a limited supply of Ugli Oranges, essential for solving two unrelated health and safety related problems
being addressed by competitive companies represented by the two negotiators. In the trials, we carefully adapted the
instructions and post-exercise discussion to focus on the win-win aspects of sustainability instead of the alternative dispute
resolution process.
Students in each of the ten seminars were paired off and allowed approximately 30 minutes to negotiate a resolution. The
results ranged from a few stalemates through many compromise variants to a few true collaborations. The stalemates resulted
from unrelenting competition where neither side was willing to compromise or risk exploring their needs. The compromises
developed when one or the other party offered part of the goal (the finite supply of Ugli Oranges) in exchange for money
and/or future considerations, but again there was no real exploration of need. These compromises failed to meet the needs of
either party. A small number of pairs risked sharing key information about their specific needs (one party needed the juice, the
other the rind of the oranges) and found the win-win solution through collaboration.
In one seminar no student pair collaborated and all failed to find the win-win resolution. When the simple solution and how to
achieve it - share non-proprietary information - was revealed there was a pause followed by spontaneous applause.
Sustainability and how to think in win-win patterns had become real, tangible, and most importantly replicable for the students
through experience.
Students in the other seminar sessions reported similar responses and an increased willingness to seek and consider
alternative perspectives to achieve win-win ends.
Figure 2: Student feedback
Figure
2: Student
feedback.
Comments
from students
in the no collaborations session:
"It was AWESOME! I thoroughly enjoyed it!!"
"It taught me that success lies in collaboration and working together to achieve the best results."
"I really liked it and would recommend it for future students to use."
"I thought it was a great exercise. It has taught me to look into things much more deeply and
critically evaluate the possibilities rather than just looking at what is visible."
"It just shows you how we look only for the best result for ourselves. I was determined to get the
best deal and in so doing achieved 2000 of 3000 oranges available. I thought I had done a great job
since I achieved the highest deal in the class, however I had completely overlooked the fact that we
could both benefit from this deal and achieve the full number of Ugli Oranges required to solve
both ethical issues as it was separate parts of the orange that were required by each organisation."
"It was a fun activity. I liked how the class was split so we had time to share our ideas before
moving onto the individual discussions with the opposition.”
With the promising results achieved in the trials in student learning, a version of the exercise was rewritten to reflect key
issues in business sustainability. This version was developed by Evelyn and Darien while at the University of Wisconsin, with
input from Anette. It explores issues such as the limited supply of non-renewable resources, the divide between developed
and emerging economies, and issues of reactive versus proactive behaviour. The Xanadium sustainability role play was pilot
tested with six seminar groups of 15–25 students in the Autumn of 2012. It is now available online through
http://polyvalentia.com/etc/SustainabilityRolePlay.doc under Creative Commons licence. The responses to the win-win
pedagogy exercise clearly show its potential for success as a game-changing, innovative adaptation of one disciplinary approach
to another.
7
Main learning points
Overall, the success of our collaboration — what we consider to be a classic example of a win-win — rests on several key
factors. We believe these are transferable and can be highly beneficial in sustainable development education:
•
be open to the ideas and perspectives of others. Each of the three of us comes from a different academic background:
business and law, natural and social science, fine arts and design. Our willingness to share and listen to the ideas and
perspectives of the others has helped us develop a winning exercise and enhanced our ability to work together;
•
ask questions. This concept began through questions and answers. Ang and Simon have been wondering about and
discussing many of these topics for several years, including developing the basic alternative versions of the role play
while at the University of Wisconsin. The specific use of the Ugli Orange exercise in a sustainability course was
sparked by a question from Anette which helped focus the discussion;
•
seek new connections. All three of us appreciate the opportunity to learn from others and work to develop
connections with colleagues across disciplines and campuses;
•
share experiences without censorship. The set of questions that triggered this particular dance outside the comfort
zone could have resulted in a completely different outcome had any one of us sought to censor, limit, or otherwise
diminish the ability of another to contribute to the discussion. We find this is particularly difficult for many academics
as the training received to attain higher degrees tends to require the consistent application of a particular mindset, a
mindset which may not apply to another discipline;
•
accept changes and adaptations. In order to collaborate successfully, we have found it is necessary to be accepting of
the changes to ideas, goals and methods that may be necessary when seeking to combine successfully the efforts of
several people with different backgrounds and perspectives. To do this, each of us had to adapt our communications
and methods of working, as well as ideas, to maximise effectiveness;
•
recognise the unique value of a group project. This project would not have been possible without the contributions of
all three of us: framing the questions, identifying possible options, redesigning the role play instructions and
implementing the new version;
•
accept and use different styles of working. In addition to our diverse backgrounds, each of us has a different style of
working. It was essential that we learn to not just accept, but respect, the working style of the others. Part of this
came from our recognition of each other as professionals, part from personality, and part from experience.
Conclusion
As extremes of weather are felt around the globe and the Rio+10’s outcome of a UN Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development approaches its end in 2015, it is worthwhile considering not only the ends desired, but the means employed to
achieve them. If the end we seek, successful education for sustainable development, is to be achieved, we must clearly define
what we mean by sustainability, and then identify and develop educational practices consistent with that end. Sustainability is
systemic. Sustainability is constantly changing as planetary systems interact with human ones. Sustainable development (the
means to achieve the end goal of sustainability) is different from any other goal modern civilisation has attempted. To meet it,
our educational methods must become systemic, must constantly change and innovate to meet these novel challenges. They
must incorporate collaborative and transdisciplinary behaviours desired in the outputs as part of the process and pedagogy
inputs.
As shown by both the informal/accidental and formal/planned aspects of our innovative process, true collaboration is essential
in order to harvest the fruits of specialisation, differences in language (jargon), culture (practices), history and heritage. We
accomplished this through inclination, training and experience.
Opportunities for such collaborations abound, but are often unrecognised. Awareness of the possibilities (learning); a
willingness to risk transcending boundaries, to see the larger picture and the ability to adapt learning techniques from one
discipline to another (reflection) and the drive to communicate and facilitate iterations in the process (empowering) are key
ingredients to successful and innovative sustainable development education.
8
References and URLs
Bain, P.G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R. and Jeffries, C. (2012) Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers.
Nature Climate Change | Letter doi: 0.1038/nclimate1532. Available
from:http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1532.html
[Accessed 25 July 2012].
Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991) Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreements Without Giving In. Second edition. New York:
Penguin Books.
Griffin, K. (1967) The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication
process. Psychological Bulletin. 68 (2), 104-120.
Hansen, J. (4 August 2012). Climate change is here — and worse than we thought [online]. Washington Post Opinion. Available
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-th%20an-wethought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html [Accessed 5 August 2012].
Wilmot, W. W. and Hocker, J. (2011) Interpersonal conflict. 8th ed. San Francisco: McGrawHill.
Ikeda, D. (2002) The Challenge of Global Empowerment: Education for a Sustainable Future. Soka Gakkai International Bulletin.
October. Available from:
http://www.sgiquarterly.org/proposal2002Oct-1.html [Accessed 17 February 2013].
Kahan, D. M., Wittlin, M., Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D. and Mandel, G. N. (2011) The Tragedy of the RiskPerception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change. Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No.
2011-26; Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 89; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 435; Yale Law School,
Public Law Working Paper No. 230. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1871503 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1871503 [Accessed 17 February 2013].
Kilmann, R. H. and Thomas, K. W. (1977) Developing a forced-choice
measure of conflict handling behavior: The “mode” instrument. Educational and Psychology Measurement. 37, 309–325.
Olson, Randy (2009) Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Peters, R. G., Covello, V.T. and McCallum, D. B. (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk
communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis. 17 (1), 43-54.
The UN CSD Education Working Group (2011) Concept note: Rio 2012 and beyond, framing policy dialogues: a well-prepared
society. Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/review.htm [Accessed 4 October 2012].
Wilmot, W. W. and Hocker, J. L. (2011) Interpersonal Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.
9
Biographies
DARIEN SIMON teaches sustainability at Regent’s College, London. She has taught systems thinking, social welfare policy,
urban land use planning, and neighbourhood revitalisation in the US. Her research includes work with the US Department of
Energy’s Environmental Management Programme, the States of New Jersey and Maryland, and non-profit groups. She has
volunteered with the Board of Directors of the Green Resource Hub of the Finger Lakes (Secretary) and the Planning Board
of the Town of Ulysses (Vice Chair), both in New York State, as well as collaborating in the development of community
education programmes, including an online course on living sustainably with the National Network for Sustainable Living
Education (USA).
EVELYN ANG teaches communication and social intelligence, communication and human conflict, and introduction to
mediation at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where she has also served as course director for the peace studies
course. She was co-founder of two community mediation programs in Milwaukee, the first executive director of Peace
Learning Centre of Milwaukee, Inc., and has worked with the State Bar of Wisconsin's Fee Dispute Committee, the Council of
Better Business Bureau, EEOC, US Postal Service REDRESS programme, and multiple other US agencies.
ANETTE LUNDEBYE teaches at Regent’s College, London, on the BA (Hons) degree Global Business on the Sustainability
Pathway: sustainability in global business, corporate social responsibility and innovation for sustainable global enterprise, as
well as on business strategy and design management modules. As a consultant she provides organisations and companies with
research and insight on future consumer habits, lifestyles and communications in the context of sustainability and metadesign,
alongside designing and facilitating creative and collaborative processes.
dasd
ssdfsdfsdfdfsdf
asd
sdfsdfdsfsdfsdfsdfsd
10
Enhancing education for sustainable development in Business and
Management, Hospitality, Leisure, Marketing, Tourism
Further chapters of this book are available from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/disciplines/business/ESD_BM_Marketing_HLST
Chapter 1 and
Introduction
Why should Business schools care about sustainability?
Paul M. Marshall, Association of Business Schools; Angus Laing, University of Loughborough
Chapter 2
An institutional approach: education for sustainable development at the University of Leeds
Martin Purvis, Claire Marsh, William Young, Julia Clarke, University of Leeds
Chapter 3
Practical education for sustainable development through interdisciplinary problem-based learning
Helen Dobson, Bland Tomkinson, University of Manchester
Chapter 4
Reaching out: community-based sustainable education, Mission to Mission Beach
Diane Phillips, Greg Boland, University of Canberra
Chapter 5
Integrating sustainability into Business schools: evidence from United Nations Principles for
Responsible Management Education (UNPRME) Sharing of Information in Progress (SIP) reports
Jasmin Godemann, Christian Herzig, Jeremy Moon, University of Nottingham
Chapter 6
No more preaching to the converted: embedding ESD in the Business school curriculum through a
service learning initiative
Denise Baden, University of Southampton
Chapter 7
Sustainable Tourism Management in an internationalised learning environment
Richard Bell, Simon Ireland, University of Salford
With contributions from: R La Piedra Alcami, RM Rodríguez Artola, Universitat Jaume I; S
Matala, M-L Läykki, TAMK University of Applied Sciences
Chapter 8
Sustainability in practice: Action learning and the Green Impact initiative
Beatriz Acevedo, Sarah Johnson, Anglia Ruskin University
Chapter 9
Two birds with one stone: enhancing education for sustainable development and employability
Nikolas Thomopoulos, John Embery, Leeds Metropolitan University
Chapter 10
Contributing to a more sustainable world? Business product innovation and the development of an
industrial ecology
Colin Beard, Sheffield Hallam University; Mark Goode, Cardiff Metropolitan University
Chapter 11
Integrating the ‘VERB’ model into an undergraduate tourism management degree
programme
Andrew Clegg, Jorge Gutic, University of Chichester
Chapter 12
Sustainable marketing: embedding sustainability at the heart of Business education
Barry Emery, Birmingham City University
Chapter 13
Promoting life-wide learning for sustainable development in the hospitality industry
Valerie Mannix, LorainWalsh, Waterford Institute of Technology
Chapter 14
Stepping outside a comfort zone: transdisciplinary innovation in sustainability education
Darien Simon, Annette Lundebye, Regent’s College; Evelyn Ang, University of Winsconsin
Chapter 15
Teaching social legacy management through a ‘stepped case study’ approach
Debbie Sadd, Bournemouth University
11
Contact us
The Higher Education Academy
Innovation Way
York Science Park
Heslington
York
YO10 5BR
+44 (0)1904 717500
enquiries@heacademy.ac.uk
ISBN: 978-1-907207-69-3
© The Higher Education Academy, 2013
The Higher Education Academy (HEA) is a national body for
learning and teaching in higher education. We work with
universities and other higher education providers to bring
about change in learning and teaching. We do this to improve
the experience that students have while they are studying,
and to support and develop those who teach them. Our
activities focus on rewarding and recognising excellence in
teaching, bringing together people and resources to research
and share best practice, and by helping to influence, shape
and implement policy - locally, nationally, and internationally.
The HEA supports staff in higher education throughout
their careers, from those who are new to teaching through
to senior management. We offer services at a generic
learning and teaching level as well as in 28 different
disciplines. Through our partnership managers we work
directly with HE providers to understand individual
circumstances and priorities, and bring together resources to
meet them. The HEA has knowledge, experience and
expertise in higher education. Our service and product range
is broader than any other competitor.
www.heacademy.ac.uk | www.twitter.com/heacademy
The views expressed in this publication are those of the
author and not necessarily those of the Higher Education
Academy. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any storage
and retrieval system without the written permission of the
Editor. Such permission will normally be granted for
educational purposes provided that due acknowledgement is
given.
To request copies of this report in large print or in a
different format, please contact the communications office
at the Higher Education Academy: 01904 717500 or
pressoffice@heacademy.ac.uk
12