A few days ago University World News published the article “Sustainability depends on a transformed HE sector – Expert” in which they quote – amongst Professor Stephen Sterling, a leading expert in environmental and sustainability education. Sterling gave some stark critique on higher education – recorded during a recent International Association of Universities (IAU) webinar. He claimed higher education has largely failed to meet the urgent demands of sustainability, entrenched in “inertia, locking in and unlearning.” Sterling urged a “conscious repurposing” of the higher education system, critiquing its narrow, market-driven agenda which has led to a “disconnect” from the needs of a precarious world.
As an environmentalist for five decades, Sterling has been vocal about education’s role in perpetuating individualism at the expense of collective well-being, a theme explored further in his recent book Learning and Sustainability in Dangerous Times. He emphasized that universities must adopt a transformative approach, challenging the conventional “reductionist, instrumental and managerial paradigm” to create a “life-affirming” educational model.
In this article we dive a bit deeper in his critique.
- 1 The “Locks and Keys” Hindering Transformation in Higher Education
- 2 From Instrumentalism to Whole-System Change in Higher Education
- 3 The Ambiguity of ESD: Education for Sustainable Development or Systemic Change?
- 4 A New Narrative: Hopeful Futures for Higher Education
- 5 Moving Beyond the Development Model
The “Locks and Keys” Hindering Transformation in Higher Education
Sterling outlines ten “locks” that prevent higher education from promoting sustainability effectively, alongside “keys” to unlocking solutions. One of these locks, “threatened futures,” reflects a stark disconnect: “Assessing most higher education courses, research, symposia, and conferences, you would never know that we’re facing a frightening poly-crisis,” he warns. He argues that three decades of narrowing focus and commercial interests have eroded education as a public good, “subsuming ethical norms in service of the economy and growth.”
He also identifies “worldview blindness,” describing how education’s reductionist thinking limits a holistic approach to sustainability. “We need to be brave enough to get out of intellectual, academic, institutional boxes,” he urges, calling for an embrace of adaptability and connectivity in educational structures.
From Instrumentalism to Whole-System Change in Higher Education
A prevalent issue is “instrumentalism”—education’s tendency to focus on personal development without connecting it to broader socio-economic realities. Sterling argues for integrating both individual and societal perspectives, asserting that education should critique the broader forces contributing to unsustainable lifestyles. “Education needs to critique factors delivering degenerative development or ‘dis-economic growth’ where benefits to some are outweighed by costs to many or to nature.”
Another major lock, he describes, is the “individualistic focus” instilled by neoliberal ideologies, which has suppressed values like empathy and cooperation. This approach “blames individuals for a lack of sustainability rather than recognizing the critical role of corporate and government worlds,” says Sterling. To create lasting impact, education must prioritize communal over individual gain.
The Ambiguity of ESD: Education for Sustainable Development or Systemic Change?
Sterling also questions the existing framework of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), arguing that it often detracts from the broader need for systemic transformation. “It’s debatable whether you can have both of those goals at once,” he noted, urging that ESD be reoriented as a tool for deeper change, rather than a separate initiative.
This sentiment was echoed by Dr. Iveta Silova of Arizona State University, who observed that “the dominant model of modern schooling…will ultimately propel us further and faster into the ecological catastrophe.” She suggests a re-evaluation of “student-centered learning,” often lauded as a best practice, and called for pedagogical approaches that question these norms.
A New Narrative: Hopeful Futures for Higher Education
Arjen Wals, a professor at Wageningen University, emphasizes the importance of “developing agency to create more hopeful futures.” He suggests that universities nurture “disruptive capacity” rather than merely refining existing approaches. “Sometimes, there is no key and the lock needs to be broken,” he stated, pointing to the urgent need for “radical transgressive change.”
Sterling concluded with a message on the need for a “great leap” in education. “The two challenges in a nutshell are that education needs to have a critical role, but also a constructive role, in building a safer society in the future.” Emphasizing the urgency, he said, “Can we break through to a more stable world or suffer some breakdown this century?”
Moving Beyond the Development Model
Sterling’s critique also extended to the economic model underpinning current educational goals. Dr. Elena Toukan of UNESCO cited her visit to Zambia, where she witnessed the “paradox” of primary education success alongside severe environmental degradation. This, she argued, represents a dissonance between educational achievements and the realities of unsustainable development. Education, she said, should be more critical of “the development model that has brought humanity to this point.”
Ultimately, Sterling and his colleagues call for a paradigm shift in how education addresses the climate crisis and its societal implications. Sterling’s vision is for education to support a “regenerative and life-affirming” approach, nurturing not just informed individuals but an empowered society capable of tackling complex sustainability challenges head-on.