Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

University research for sustainable development: definition and

characteristics explored
T. Waas a, *, A. Verbruggen b, T. Wright c
a
University of Antwerp, Institute of Environment & Sustainable Development, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium
b
University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
c
Dalhousie University, College of Sustainability, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax B3H 4J1, NS Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: University research is pivotal for sustainable development, but to succeed, new ways of conducting
Received 16 January 2009 research are needed. Only recently has the field of ‘‘sustainability and higher education’’ (SHE) started to
Received in revised form deal with the issue. In this paper we define ‘‘university research for sustainable development’’
16 September 2009
comprehensively as ‘‘all research conducted within the institutional context of a university that contributes
Accepted 21 September 2009
Available online 26 September 2009
to sustainable development’’, and propose a set of twenty two preliminary characteristics of this concept.
We provide foundational information in particular for various university stakeholders, and those of
higher education in general, considering the (re)orientation of research towards sustainable develop-
Keywords:
University ment and offer a beginning of dialogue on the subject, within SHE.
Higher education Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainable development
Research
Science

1. Introduction development and to guide society on its path towards a sustainable

Humanity faces a world of far-reaching anthropogenic-induced
environmental problems, in an order of magnitude unprecedented
in human history. The state of the environment has significant
implications for the well-being of humans and other species on
earth, which is currently seriously threatened. In addition,
humanity faces several important societal problems as well, such as
failing socio-economic and institutional systems.
Contemporary society considers sustainable development to be
the best way to address these complex and interrelated problems for
the sake of current and future generations and for the integrity of the
planet. Globally, progress towards sustainable development is
deemed highly imperative. While all actors of society must
contribute in the transition towards a sustainable world, universities
are seen as a major catalyst to work towards this goal. In the past,
universities have played a historic role in transforming societies and
in serving the greater public good. The urgent societal need and broad
call for sustainable development allow universities to assume
a fundamental and moral responsibility in contributing to sustainable
future.
Since the 1990s, universities worldwide have increasingly
embraced the sustainable development movement. More than
1000 academic institutions worldwide have signed international
declarations towards implementing sustainability through envi-
ronmental literacy initiatives; curriculum development; research;
partnering with government, non-governmental organizations and
industry in developing sustainability initiatives; and ‘greening’
physical operations [1,2]. Such actions, however, are only a begin-
ning. Much remains to be done for sustainable development to
become genuinely and fully implemented at universities and for
universities to become true leaders in sustainable development.
The focus of this paper is on university research for sustainable
development, a theme that has not been explored extensively
within the field of ‘‘sustainability and higher education’’ (SHE).
2. University research for sustainable
development: background

It is generally acknowledged that research, as a generator of new

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 3 265 21 15; fax: þ32 3 265 21 28.
E-mail addresses: tom.waas@ua.ac.be (T. Waas), aviel.verbruggen@ua.ac.be
(A. Verbruggen), tarah.wright@dal.ca (T. Wright).
knowledge, including the one conducted at universities, is pivotal
for sustainable development. The ‘‘Declaration on Science and the
Use of Scientific Knowledge’’, adopted at the World Conference on
Science, held in Budapest in 1999 and co-organized by the United

0959-6526/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.017
630 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
and the International Council for Science (ICSU), firmly states:
‘‘The sciences should be at the service of humanity as a whole, and
should contribute to providing everyone with a deeper under-
standing of nature and society, a better quality of life and
a sustainable and healthy environment for present and future
generations.’’ [3]
Obviously, universities bear the responsibility to contribute with
their research to sustainable development. Moreover, given the
pressing need for sustainability, they should consider research for
sustainable development not merely as an ‘‘academic exercise’’ but
instead as a ‘‘vital response’’ to a rapidly evolving sustainability
crisis which should be at the top of its research agendas [4].
If university research wants to contribute to sustainable devel-
opment, new ways of research practicing are needed and simply
more of the same kind of research cannot be considered the
solution. As Gallopin, Funtowicz, O’Connor and Ravetz [5] argue,
conventional research practice – ‘‘business as usual’’ – falls short
and does not adequately address the research requirements of
sustainable development. Conventional research practice is based
on static and reductionist approaches, whereas sustainable devel-
opment requires dynamic and holistic ones. Imperative is the need
to focus on linkages between the biological, chemical, economic,
geological, physical, political and social systems, and to search for
dynamic and cross-systemic explanations. In this sense, Lubchenko
[6] calls for a new ‘‘social contract’’ for research. By recognizing the
extent of human domination of the planet, the new social contract
should express a commitment: 1) to harness the full power of the
scientific enterprise in discovering new knowledge, 2) in commu-
nicating existing and new understanding to the public and to
policy-makers, and 3) in helping society to create a more sustain-
able world.
Anticipating the research requirements for sustainable devel-
opment, different scholars deal with the issue [7–9] and various
research efforts are undertaken, both within and outside the
university. Examples include, the increased efforts in multi-, inter-
and transdisciplinary research in various sustainability related
fields such as integrated water management, climate change,
sustainable energy, or (higher) education for sustainable develop-
ment. Filho [10] provides a sound overview of concepts, ideas and
methods. Some scholars recognize in these efforts the emergence
of a new field or discipline ‘‘sustainability science’’ or ‘‘science of
sustainability’’ [11–14]. Sustainability science focuses on the
dynamic interactions between environment and society, is problem
oriented, and is grounded in the belief that knowledge should be
‘‘coproduced’’ between science and society [11]. These evolutions
strengthen the dynamics in (re)orienting university research for
sustainable development.
Despite, the field of SHE has only begun to deal with the theme of
university research for sustainable development [15–18]. SHE is an
emerging field and to date, most of the efforts have been focused on:
1) sustainable development and education (curricula/teaching), and
2) sustainable development and management, in particular the
environmental management of institutions. Fien [19] points out that
a diverse range of SHE publications contain many reports on: 1)
sustainable development and curricula and 2) sustainable devel-
opment and management of higher education institutions. Wright
[20] argues that the literature in the field of SHE dealt with themes
as: 1) education for sustainable development, 2) curriculum devel-
opment, 3) management, 4) policy analysis of higher education and
sustainable development, and 5) assessment methodologies for
higher education and sustainable development.
Only recently have scholars attempted to define SHE research.
For example, Glasser, Calder and Fadeeva [21] define it as:
‘‘[.] any research that is directed at advancing our ability to
incorporate sustainability concepts and insights into higher
education and its major areas of activity: policy, planning, and
administration; curriculum/teaching; research and scholarship;
service to communities; student life; and physical operations/
infrastructure. It also refers to research that treats higher education
institutions as complex systems and focuses on the integration of
sustainability across all of its activities, responsibilities, and
mission.’’
3. University research for sustainable development:
definition
Recognizing that research must go beyond the walls of the
university we define university research for sustainable develop-
ment as:
‘‘all research conducted within the institutional context of
a university that contributes to sustainable development’’.
At least two notes should be made about this definition:
1) Our conceptualization is limited to research conducted within
the institutional context of a university. We therefore exclude
any research accomplished by other types of organizations (for
example private companies or non-governmental organiza-
tions). Such a distinction is important given the differing
missions of various types of organizations. For example,
universities are supposed to serve the public interest whereas
companies and their research and development activities are
often driven by private interests of shareholders. This concep-
tualization does not neglect the growing trend of collaborative
research between universities and other types of organizations.
The point we make is that when university researchers are
involved, the institutional context – ‘‘the university’’ – and its
mission has (or should have) implications for their research
practice whether or not conducted in collaboration with other
types of organizations.
2) We adopt a comprehensive view of university research to
include ‘‘all’’ research that contributes to sustainable develop-
ment ranging from fundamental to applied and with regard to
all disciplines (for example biology, chemistry, economics,
environmental science, history, physics, political science,
sociology).
4. Purpose
The purpose of this explorative study is to ‘‘identify’’
a number of preliminary characteristics of university research for
sustainable development. It represents the first research phase
and first theoretical results, as a part of an action oriented
research project which aims to implement these characteristics
in a real research context at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).
Identification means tracing the characteristics without elabo-
rating in depth on their meaning. This, together with sound
descriptions, requires further research and is part of following
research phases.
Through the identification of a number of characteristics we aim
to contribute to the emergent discussion on research for sustain-
able development within SHE and the establishment of a frame of
reference. According to Weaver and Jansen [22] such a frame is
needed if research efforts are to be made more effective in support
of sustainable development. Ultimately, we aim to further harness
university research for sustainable development, in the pursuit of
a more sustainable world.
 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636
As such, the identified characteristics, although preliminary,
intend to be useful as a guideline or evaluation format for various
university and other higher education stakeholders (such as indi-
vidual researchers, research groups, governing bodies and fund
providers) willing to (re)orient their research towards sustainable
development. Further, this study likely reveals relevant information
for other non-higher education stakeholders (for example private
companies or non-governmental organizations) involved in research
for sustainable development as well.
5. Method
As a part of the action oriented research project this study
frames within the overall methodological approach. Within this
regard two relevant aspects should be mentioned.
First, the project uses a grounded action research methodology.
Grounded action research combines action research with grounded
theory. Action research links research with interventions in prac-
tice, in a participatory way, whereas grounded theory develops
theoretical knowledge – in this case characteristics – inductively
and systematically derived from data. Merging grounded theory
with the research part of action research, results in a more theory-
rigorous and powerfully improved action research [23]. For
a detailed description we refer to the specialized literature [23–26].
Second, recognizing that sustainable development is inher-
ently normative, the project adopts a pragmatic approach and
considers the worldwide acknowledged definition of the report
‘‘Our Common Future’’ (or Brundtland definition), as sustainability
reference:
‘‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.’’ [27]
In other words and serving as bottom line for our study,
university research for sustainable development consists of all
university research that contributes in meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.
Taking into account this overall methodology, we conducted
this explorative study in four phases: 1) SHE literature review, 2)
SHE document analysis, 3) University of Antwerp workshop
‘‘University Research for Sustainable Development’’, and 4) inte-
gration of characteristics derived from the three previous research
phases.
As a starting point we confined the literature review and
document analysis to the field of SHE because it is pre-eminently
this field that deals with the integration of sustainable develop-
ment across all activities, responsibilities and mission of universi-
ties and other institutions of higher education and as such is an
appropriate body of knowledge for this study. Because of the
institutional scope of this study we did not include the broader
literature on research or science for sustainable development.
1) An exhaustive review of the major SHE publications was con-
ducted including a review of the following: the ‘International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education’ (Vol. 1 (2000)–
Vol. 8 (2007)), conference proceedings [28–33] and handbooks
[34–41]. Titles and abstracts were manually screened for
specific content related to university research for sustainable
development. Additionally, the body of some publications was
screened when we felt that the content might contain relevant
information for this study.
2) The document analysis consisted of an examination of leading
SHE declarations (or charters) for characteristics of university
631
research for sustainable development: Talloires Declaration,1
Swansea Declaration,2 Kyoto Declaration,3 Copernicus Charter,4
Lüneburg Declaration,5 Ubuntu Declaration,6 Thessaloniki
Declaration,7 Halifax Declaration.8 In addition, two relevant
reports were analyzed: 1) the report of the workshop
‘‘University Research & Sustainable Development’’ organized at
the International Association of Universities’ (IAU) Conference
on Education for a Sustainable Future, held in Prague in 2003
[42] and 2) the report of the Dutch Advisory Council for
Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment
(RMNO), on ‘‘Sustainable Development in Education and
Research’’ [43].
3) A one-day workshop titled ‘‘University Research for Sustainable
Development’’ was held at the University of Antwerp in
September 2006.
The purpose of the workshop was twofold. First, from a theoretical
perspective, the workshop aimed to gather information from
participants regarding their perceived understandings of charac-
teristics of university research for sustainable development.
Second, the workshop aimed to be action-oriented, involving
academic and non-academic personnel of the University of Ant-
werp in the developing of a shared vision of university research for
sustainable development. This had the potential to increase
support within the university, to develop collaborations and to help
in (re)orienting participants’ research or related practices towards
sustainable development.
Because of financial and temporal constraints, the initial workshop
was open only to internal stakeholders of the university. Participants
were invited to attend the workshop by way of an open call on the
university website and various listserves. Additionally, some indi-
viduals from within and outside the university were purposively
selected to receive invitations due to their expertise in university
research for sustainable development. A total of twenty-four people
attended the workshop, with approximately two thirds being iden-
tified as an expert and one third as administrative staff dealing in one
way or another with university research for sustainable develop-
ment or simply interested in the topic. Half of the group was from the
University of Antwerp, with the remaining participants coming from
other universities, colleges and public research institutions. Partici-
pants came from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds including
biology, economics, sociology and engineering.
The workshop employed the focus group method for data gath-
ering. A focus group is a social research method that collects data
through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher
[44]. Participants were split into four focus groups. Each group had
a moderator who guided the discussion. Participants were asked to
identify characteristics of university research for sustainable
development from their own practices and experiences, in an open
and emergent manner, considering the Brundtland definition as
reference for sustainable development and with the least possible
influencing of the moderator.
At the end of the day, a plenary closing session had each moderator
briefly present the outcomes of their group and participants had
the opportunity to discuss these outcomes.
1
http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires.html.
2
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/rtf/sd_dswansea.rtf.
3
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/sd_dkyoto.html.
4
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/sd_declarations.html.
5
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/rtf/sd_dluneburg.rtf.
6
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/rtf/sd_dubuntu.rtf.
7
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/rtf/sd_dthessaloniki.rtf.
8
http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/rtf/sd_dhalifax.rtf.
632 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636

A draft report was created and participants were given the oppor-  international collaboration
tunity to submit feedback. After consideration, participants  local focus
received a copy of the final report [45].  local knowledge
 problem oriented
4) The final phase of the research involved the integration of the  sustainability link.
results of the previous three research phases to develop a single
and preliminary set of characteristics.
7. Characteristics from SHE declarations and reports
Throughout the four research phases, data were analyzed using
open coding techniques of grounded theory [24]. Open coding aims
From the SHE declarations and the report of the IAU workshop
to open up the data to as much potential as possible in order to
‘‘University Research & Sustainable Development’’ we identified six
‘‘discover’’, in this case to identify a number of characteristics.
characteristics of university research for sustainable development
‘‘Open’’, implied that we did not use any pre-elaborated coding list
(Table 1).
imposed as a straight jacket on the data, but instead coded the data
Multi-/interdisciplinarity appeared from the Talloires and Kyoto
in an emergent way, starting from the data. Through constant
Declaration, the Copernicus Charter and the IAU workshop report.
comparisons, similar data were grouped and each group – repre-
The Copernicus Charter states:
senting a characteristic – was named. Names came directly from
the data (‘‘in vivo’’) or were attributed by us. ‘‘Interdisciplinarity: Universities shall encourage interdisciplinary
and collaborative education and research programmes related to
sustainable development as part of the institution’s central mission.
6. Characteristics from the SHE literature Universities shall also seek to overcome competitive instincts
between disciplines and departments.’’
An examination of the international SHE literature revealed no
Participation emerged from the Talloires and the Lüneburg
study that dealt specifically with characteristics of university
Declaration. Also the IAU workshop report refers to this charac-
research for sustainable development.
teristic, and states:
Only Hassan [46] dealt with research for sustainable develop-
ment as a central theme. Hassan [46] reports on the statement of ‘‘The group identified four major needs: [.] to foster collaborative
the Worlds’ Scientific Academies on the contribution of science and and cooperative research with local communities’ stakeholders;
technology in the transition to sustainable development in the 21st [.]’’ ‘‘A new collaborative paradigm is needed to foster cooperation
century, following on the World Conference of Scientific Academies between [.] researchers and society stakeholders. [.] Partici-
held in Tokyo, in 2000. According to the academies, for sustainable pants agreed that researchers and their partners should create
development research should be strengthened in four areas: 1) spaces of shared responsibility and of social dialogue to determine
sustaining long-term basic research and linking it to societal goals, the research objects, [.].’’ [42]
2) coupling global, national, and local institutions into effective
Knowledge transfer is a third characteristic which we identified
research systems, 3) linking academia, government, and the private
in the Lüneburg Declaration and the IAU workshop report. The
sector in collaborative research partnerships, and 4) integrating
Lüneburg Declaration states:
disciplinary knowledge into interdisciplinary, locally focused,
problem-driven research and application efforts. ‘‘Higher education has a catalyst role vis-à-vis education for
In addition, in his introductory article on SHE, Michelsen [47] sustainable development and the building of a learning society. It
argues that research can only contribute to sustainable develop- has a special responsibility to conduct the scholarship and scientific
ment in an interdisciplinary way and with reference to problems research necessary to generate the new knowledge needed and
and possible actions in practice. In turn, Huckle [48] discussing train the leaders and teachers of tomorrow, as well as communi-
critical realism as a philosophical framework for SHE, argues that cate this knowledge to decision-makers and the public-at-large.’’
a unified science for sustainable development should combine
The fourth characteristic, problem orientation, emerged from
scientific knowledge with local knowledge that people develop in
the Ubuntu Declaration and the IAU workshop report. The IAU
their everyday lives. This limited discussion on university research
workshop report states:
for sustainable development and its characteristics was not unex-
pected given the small amount of attention dedicated to this ‘‘They all agreed that university research is responsible towards
subject within SHE to date. From the literature we identified the society and stakeholders: [.] it should be geared to the needs of
following eight characteristics of university research for sustainable the community.’’ [42]
development:
Both action orientation and being proactive are characteristics
that we identified from the IAU workshop report:
 action oriented
 interdisciplinary ‘‘A major concern with participants was how to link scientific
 sectoral collaboration research to practical implementation.’’ ‘‘The group identified four

Table 1
Characteristics of university research for sustainable development in SHE declarations and IAU workshop report.

Talloires Kyoto declaration Copernicus charter Lüneburg Ubuntu declaration IAU workshop
declaration declaration report
1) Multi-/interdisciplinarity x x x x
2) Participation x x x
3) Knowledge transfer x x
4) Problem oriented x x
5) Action oriented x
6) Proactive x
 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636 633

major needs: [.] to promote change of practices, enhancing characteristics of university research for sustainable development
collaboration & evaluation.’’ ‘‘Research results should be used to [45]:
promote policy and programmes.’’ [42]
‘‘They all agreed that university research is responsible towards  action oriented
society and stakeholders: it should therefore be proactive in  continuity
contributing to the future development of society [.]’’ [42]  environmental, safety and security management
 independence
In addition, RMNO [43], in their report ‘‘Sustainable Develop-
 knowledge transfer
ment in Education and Research’’, proposes eleven characteristics
 local–global level of scale
of university research for sustainable development:
 local knowledge
Content characteristics:  multidimensionality
 multi-/interdisciplinarity
 coherence of economic, environmental and social aspects  participation
 long term perspective (inter-generational links)  precautionary principle and uncertainty
 global  public interest
 north–south  short, medium and long term perspective (intergenerationality)
 distribution aspects  societal peer review
 dealing with uncertainties.  sustainability impact
 sustainability relevance
Process characteristics:  transparency.

 multi- and interdisciplinary approaches

 international collaboration (sustainable development is an
international issue, therefore we should develop and integrate
knowledge and insights at an international level)
 open to different normative visions on sustainable development
 problem oriented approaches (problem solving research from
a societal perspective) oriented towards the learning and
development of skills required to act in the context of sustain-
able development
 interaction between science and practice (transdisciplinarity)
through active participation of stakeholders (societal organi-
zations, governments and the private sector) in the formulation
of the research question and the execution of the research.
9. Synthesizing the characteristics
After comparing and merging the characteristics of the three
sources of data, a preliminary set of twenty two characteristics of
university research for sustainable development was developed
(Table 2). As with RMNO [43] our set of characteristics distinguishes
between content and process. Content characteristics are related to
Table 2
Preliminary set of characteristics of university research for sustainable development.

Characteristics identified SHE SHE University of

The distinction this report makes between content and process literature documents Antwerp
characteristics was useful in conceptualizing university research for and reports Workshop

sustainable development and will be further considered in the Content

1) Different levels of scale x x x
conclusion of this study.
(local–global)
Together, the examination of the SHE declarations, the report of 2) Different time x x
the IAU workshop and the RMNO report revealed the following perspectives (short,
fourteen characteristics of university research for sustainable medium and long term)
development: 3) Distribution aspects x
4) Multidimensionality x x
(economy, environment,
 action oriented institutional, social)
 distribution aspects 5) North–south x
 global aspects 6) Precautionary principle x x
 international collaboration Process
 knowledge transfer 1) Action oriented x x x
 long term perspective (intergenerationality) 2) Collaboration x x
(international and sectoral)
 multidimensionality
3) Continuity x
 multi-/interdisciplinarity 4) Environmental, x
 normativity safety & security
 north–south perspectives management
 proactive 5) Independence x
6) Knowledge transfer x x
 problem oriented 7) Multi-/interdisciplinarity x x x
 stakeholders participation 8) Normativity x
 uncertainty. 9) Participation x x x
(including local knowledge)
10) Proactive x
11) Problem oriented x x
8. Characteristics from the University of Antwerp workshop 12) Public interest x
‘‘University Research for Sustainable Development’’ 13) Societal peer review x
14) Impact monitoring x
From the University of Antwerp workshop ‘‘University Research 15) Relevance check x x
16) Transparency x
for Sustainable Development’’, we identified the following seventeen
634 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636
the subject that is being researched (what), while process charac-
teristics are related to the way the research is conducted (how).
In terms of content, this study suggests that university research
for sustainable development should take into account the interplay
between various levels of scale (from the local to the global) and
various time perspectives (from the short term, over the medium to
the long term) and should consider harmoniously various dimen-
sions of sustainable development (such as economy, environment,
social and institutional). It should also deal with aspects of equal
distribution of welfare, including north – south aspects. Distribu-
tion and north – south aspects are related to the social justice
dimension of sustainable development and as such could be inte-
grated in multidimensionality. Further, university research for
sustainable development should apply the precautionary principle.
This includes dealing with uncertainties.
Second, with regard to process, this study proposes sixteen
characteristics of university research for sustainable develop-
ment. It should be action oriented, in the sense that it aims for
interventions in practice in the pursuit of sustainable develop-
ment and that it should be accomplished in a collaborative way
both internationally and sectorally (with research partners of
different sectors such as higher education, private sector and
government). Further, because sustainable development is an
ongoing process of change the continuity of the research and the
research expertise involved should be preserved. Also, while
conducting the research, university research for sustainable
development should manage its environmental, safety and secu-
rity aspects. Because, sustainable development favours the public
interest, university research contributing to the sustainability
transition should serve this transcendent purpose. Therefore,
being as independent as possible from particular stakeholders
and interests (for example as a consequence of research funding)
is proposed to be essential. Transferring knowledge in various
ways and for different target groups (for example students,
the public, policy makers) is required. Probably, best known is the
need for multi-/interdisciplinary and participatory (including the
local knowledge requirement) university research for sustainable
development. In particular multi-/interdisciplinarity requires
close collaboration between social and natural sciences. In addi-
tion, university research for sustainable development should deal
with the inherently normative nature of sustainable development
and as such should be open to various sustainability visions.
Although, as Lélé [49] argues, sustainable development has clear
interpretational limits and it is imperative to distinguish between
trivial or less useful and useful sustainability conceptualizations.
University research for sustainable development is proactive,
trying to anticipate on rising or future sustainability problems. It
is also problem oriented. As it aims to contribute to various
sustainability problems, the sustainability problem is central in
developing the research. Additionally, university research for
sustainable development should also be reviewed by society,
complementary to scientific peer reviews as a vehicle to gear
research with societal needs and considerations. Further, the
sustainability impact of the research in practice should be
monitored and in trying to couple university research with
sustainable development, the sustainability relevance of research
should be checked. Transparency is the last characteristics we
identified and implies that researchers should be clear about
among others their stance, attitude, vision, position, method-
ology, realization and results of their research.
Comparing the characteristics from the SHE literature with
the ones of the SHE declarations and reports, and the University
of Antwerp workshop shows that we identified fifteen new
characteristics, regarding content: 2) different time perspectives
(short, medium and long term), 3) distribution aspects, 4)
multidimensionality, 5) north–south, 6) precautionary principle,
and regarding process: 3) continuity, 4) environmental, safety &
security management, 5) independence, 6) knowledge transfer,
8) normativity, 10) proactive, 12) public interest, 13) societal peer
review, 14) impact monitoring, 16) transparency.
Other characteristics were similar, regarding content: 1)
different levels of scale (local–global), and regarding process: 1)
action oriented, 2) collaboration (international and sectoral), 7)
multi-/interdisciplinarity, 9) participation (including local knowl-
edge), 11) problem oriented, 15) relevance check.
10. Conclusion
Acknowledging the urgent need for sustainable development and
the importance of research in this process, universities and their
researchers bear the fundamental and moral responsibility to
contribute with their research to sustainable development. Moreover
they should consider this responsibility as a full part of the academic
mission and not merely as an ‘‘add on’’. However, to succeed new
ways of research practicing are needed. While there is little doubt
that conventional research practice still prevails within universities,
various efforts have been undertaken to match research with the
scientific requirements of sustainable development. Nevertheless,
within SHE this theme is little explored.
Considering the worldwide acknowledged definition of the
report ‘‘Our Common Future’’ as normative sustainability reference,
we defined university research for sustainable development as ‘‘all
research conducted within the institutional context of a university that
contributes to sustainable development’’ – meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.
We operationalized this concept by proposing a set of twenty-
two preliminary, content and process related characteristics, which
as a frame of reference intends to be useful, in particular for various
university stakeholders, and those of higher education in general,
willing to (re)orient their research towards sustainable develop-
ment. However, given the normative nature of sustainable devel-
opment and its derived concepts (e.g. sustainable agriculture,
sustainable higher education or university research for sustainable
development), such a frame of reference should never be conclu-
sive and always open for adaption, in particular to deal with the
views of local, internal and external stakeholders. But, this does not
leave the door open to all interpretations and conceptualizations.
As with sustainable development [49], it is imperative that one
distinguish between trivial or less useful conceptualizations and
useful ones. Additionally, such a set of characteristics is a logic
sequential step towards the development of proper sustainability
indicators.
Nevertheless, at least two tensions remain:
1) Mono-disciplinarity versus multi-/interdisciplinarity:
Although, multi-/interdisciplinarity is a characteristic of
university research for sustainable development, mono-disci-
plinary research is still needed. Disciplines do form a framework
and are a ‘‘conditio sine qua non’’ for multi-/interdisciplinary
research. A balance should be found depending on the desired
insights and solutions [42]. For example, mono-disciplinary
economic research on carbon taxes or emission trading system
(ETS) to mitigate climate change reveals relevant insight for
sustainable development.
2) Compulsory versus non-compulsory:
On the one hand the set could be considered non-compulsory,
in a flexible way. Because no two kinds of research are ever the
same, it is arguable that the characteristics are not at all times
 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636
equally relevant and that university research should not meet
all characteristics simultaneously to contribute to sustainable
development. The Dutch Advisory Council for Research on
Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO) [43]
argues that, given the scope of sustainable development, one
should determine, for every single research project, which
characteristics are relevant, to what extent and how to handle
them in an operational way. An issue of further concern here is,
who is going to determine which characteristics are relevant or
to what degree, the researcher or society? At least as important
is the argumentation behind any selection of characteristics, in
favour of transparency.
In contrast, it is arguable that all characteristics should be
compulsory, rendering the set more stringent. As such, any study
should meet all characteristics simultaneously. If not, it is arguable
that the set undermines it aims and its reason for existence, facil-
itating ‘‘business as usual’’ or less sustainable or even unsustainable
university research. For example, disciplinary geology university
research on oil exploration, destroying sensitive ecological systems
and endangering local communities and accordingly not taking into
account the environmental, institutional and social dimension of
sustainable development, but including knowledge transfer is
definitely not sustainable.
To move forward the proposed set of characteristics should be
further developed, the in-depth meaning of the characteristics
should be elaborated and it should be studied how to handle the
characteristics operationally in a real university research context.
The latter offers a mutual strengthening opportunity to move
forward in (re)orienting university research towards sustainable
development in practice and to elaborate the characteristics’ in-
depth meaning from practice. It is assumed that the latter increases
the practical relevance of the characteristics and strengthens their
applicability.
Additionally, the above mentioned tensions should be explored
and anticipated in developing and applying characteristics of
university research for sustainable development.
Further, it would be clarifying to study how the concept of
university research for sustainable development relates to other
concepts in the field of (university) research for sustainable
development (for example ‘‘sustainability science’’).
References
[1] Wright T. The evolution of environmental sustainability declarations in higher
education. In: Wals A, Corcoran P, editors. Higher education and the challenge
of sustainability: problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Press; 2004. p. 7–19.
[2] Bartlett PF, Chase GW. Sustainability on campus. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004.
[3] Unesco-Icsu. Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge,
<http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm>; 1999.
[4] McMichael A, Butler C, Folke C. New visions for addressing sustainability.
Science 2003;302:1919–20.
[5] Gallopin G, Funtowicz S, O’Connor M, Ravetz J. Science for the twenty-first
century: from social contract to the scientific core. International Journal
Social Science 2001;168:219-229. <http://sustsci.aaas.org/files/gg_sci21
century_ijss.pdf>.
[6] Lubchenko J. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract
for science. Science 1998;279:491–7.
[7] Funtowicz S, Ravetz J. Science for the post-normal age. Futures
1993;25(7):739–55.
[8] Gibbons M. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature
1999;402:c81–4.
[9] Leroy P. Wetenschap, samenleving en politiek: een debat met voorbeelden uit
de milieusfeer. In: Funtowicz S, Goorden L, Grin J, Leroy P, editors. Weten-
schap, maatschappij, politiek: wie stuurt wie? Delft: Eburon; 2007. p. 69–97.
[10] Filho WL. Handbook of sustainability research. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang;
2005.
[11] Clark W, Dickson N. Sustainability science: the emerging research program.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America
2003;100(14):8059–61.
635
[12] Kates R, Clark W, Corell R, et al. Sustainability science. Science 2001;292(5517):
641–2.
[13] Komiyama H, Takeuchi K. Sustainability science: building a new discipline.
Sustainability Science 2006;1:1–6.
[14] Kajikawa Y. Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain-
ability Science 2008;3:215–39.
[15] Mulder K, Jansen L. Evaluating the sustainability of research of a University of
Technology, towards a general methodology. In: Proceedings conference on
the international launch in higher education: education for sustainable
development – committing universities to sustainable development. Graz;
2005.
[16] Mulder K, de Werk G. Increasing the value of sustainable education by
improving sustainability of research. In: Proceedings conference engineering
education in sustainable development. Graz; 2008.
[17] de Werk G, Mulder K. Towards sustainablising university research. In:
Proceedings Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) –
a new knowledge culture – universities facing global changes for sustainability.
Barcelona; 2008.
[18] Waas T, Verbruggen A. University research for sustainable development:
characteristics identified. In: Proceedings Environmental Management for
Sustainable Universities (EMSU) – A new knowledge culture – universities
facing global changes for sustainability. Barcelona; 2008.
[19] Fien J. Advancing sustainability in higher education, issues and opportunities
for research. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
2002;3(3):243–53.
[20] Wright T. Developing research priorities with a cohort of higher education for
sustainability experts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 2007;8(1):34–43.
[21] Glasser H, Calder W, Fadeeva Z. Definition: Research in Higher Education for
Sustainability. Document prepared for the Halifax Consultation. Halifax Nova
Scotia; 2005.
[22] Weaver P, Jansen L. Defining and evaluating ‘‘science for sustainability’’. In:
Proceedings international conference on sustainability engineering and
science. Auckland; 2004. <http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/
2004/Session5/63%20Weaver.pdf>.
[23] Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J. Grounded action research: a method for under-
standing IT in practice. Accounting Management and Information Technolo-
gies 1999;9:1–23.
[24] Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research, techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. California: Sage Publications; 1998.
[25] Reason P, Bradbury H. Handbook of action research – participative inquiry and
practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2008.
[26] Greenwood D, Levin M. Introduction to action research – social research for
social change. California: Sage Publications; 1998.
[27] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
[28] Proceedings International Copernicus Conference, The role of universities for
sustainable development, Conference Programme. Utrecht; 1998.
[29] Proceedings International Cracow COPERNICUS Conference, Sustainable
universities and environment in an integrating Europe, Conference Pro-
gramme. Cracow; 2000.
[30] Proceedings International Copernicus Conference, Higher Education for
Sustainability - Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio
þ 10), Conference Programme. Lüneburg; 2001.
[31] Proceedings International Copernicus Conference, The incorporation of
sustainability into higher education in the perspective of te European
Research Area, Conference Programme. Göteborg; 2002.
[32] Proceedings Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU),
The role of Higher Education in Sustainable Development International
Conference. Grahamstown; 2002.
[33] Proceedings Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities
(EMSU) Sustainable development education, Holistic and integrative educa-
tion and management approaches for ensuring sustainable societies. Mon-
terrey; 2004.
[34] Blewitt J, Cullingford C. The sustainability curriculum – the challenge for
higher education. London: Earthscan; 2004.
[35] Filho WL. Teaching sustainability at universities. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang; 2002.
[36] Creighton SH. Greening the ivory tower. Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1998.
[37] Keniry J. Ecodemia – campus environmental stewardship at the turn of the
21st century. Washington: National Wildlife Federation; 1995.
[38] Corcoran PB, Wals A. Higher education and the challenge of sustainability,
problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2004.
[39] Filho WL. Sustainability and university life. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang;
2000.
[40] Forrant R, Silka L. Inside and out – universities and education for
sustainable development. New York: Baywood Publishing Company;
2006.
[41] van Dam-Mieras R, Michelsen G, Winkelmann HP. Copernicus in Lüne-
burg higher education in the context of sustainable development and
globalization. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag für Akademische Schriften;
2002.
[42] Roland M-C, Wright T. Report of working group 4 University research & sustainable
development. In: Proceedings international conference education for a sustainable
future of the international association of universities (IAU). Prague: 2003.
636 T. Waas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (2010) 629–636
[43] Raad voor het Milieu- en Natuuronderzoek (RMNO). Duurzame ontwikkeling
in onderwijs en onderzoek. Rijswijk: RMNO; 2000.
[44] Morgan D. Focus groups as qualitative research. California: Sage Publications;
1997.
[45] Waas T. Rapport Wetenschap en duurzame ontwikkeling. 2007.
[46] Hassan M. Transition to sustainability in the twenty-first century: the
contribution of science and technology – Report of the World Conference of
Scientific Academies held in Tokyo, Japan, 15–18 May 2000. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2001;2(1):70–8.
[47] Michelsen G. Sustainable development as a challenge for universities. In:
Filho WL, editor. Communicating sustainability. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang,; 2000. p. 69–85.
[48] Huckle J. Critical realism: a philosophical framework for higher education for
sustainability. In: Corcoran P, Wals A, editors. Higher education and the
challenge of sustainability, problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht:
Kluwer; 2004. p. 33–47.
[49] Lélé S. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development
1991;19(6):607–21.