Goal: Align learning outcomes with green competencies and global greening indicators.

Innovation in content involves moving beyond adding isolated topics to reshaping the entire curriculum through a "spiral curriculum" approach, where key concepts are revisited with increasing complexity (UNESCO, 2024b).

This step initiates the holistic transformation of higher education by transitioning from the fragmented insertion of environmental topics to a systematic restructuring of the educational experience. Innovation in content centres on the "spiral curriculum" approach, ensuring that core concepts—such as climate science, resilience, and post-carbon economics—are revisited across all levels of study with increasing depth and complexity.

The Global Greening Curriculum Indicator (SDG 4.7.1) supports institutions with moving beyond subjective reporting to objective, evidence-based mainstreaming of green themes in the official intended curriculum. The following table outlines core actions and innovative practices recommended to achieve alignment.

Goal: Shift from passive transmission to learner-centred, action-oriented experiences.

The transition from knowledge acquisition to the cultivation of sustainable agency requires a fundamental shift in how learning occurs. This second step of the Learning Pillar focuses on moving beyond the passive transmission of climate facts toward learner-centred, action-oriented experiences (UNESCO, 2024b). By adopting transformative pedagogies, higher education institutions empower students to evolve from recipients of information into active agents of change capable of navigating complex, real-world socio-ecological challenges.

Innovation in this step addresses the socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of learning, ensuring that climate knowledge serves as a catalyst for positive attitudinal shifts and collective resilience rather than inducing eco-anxiety or powerlessness (GEM Report UNESCO, 2024) see Table 3.

The shift towards transformative and applied pedagogies represents a necessary evolution from knowledge transmission to competence formation and agency development. In line with international guidance on Education for Sustainable Development, this step recognises that sustainability learning must engage cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions simultaneously. Experiential and project-based approaches link theory to real-world challenges, enabling learners to apply systems thinking and problemsolving skills in authentic contexts. Digital innovations, including AI-supported personalisation and immersive simulations, further extend these possibilities by creating adaptive and ethically guided learning pathways that allow students to explore complex sustainability scenarios without real-world risk.

Equally critical is the emphasis on co-creation and reflexive inquiry. Participatory methods such as dialogic gatherings reposition learners and educators as partners in knowledge construction, fostering shared responsibility and democratic engagement. The Jornadas Pedagógicas at the University of Lisbon (see Box 3) exemplify how structured, institution-wide dialogue can catalyse pedagogical renewal by creating horizontal spaces for reflection and exchange across the academic community. Such practices operationalise transformative learning principles, embedding sustainability not only in curriculum content but also in institutional culture.

Goal: Transform campuses and digital platforms into living laboratories.

The environment must model the sustainability principles being taught, bridging the gap between classroom knowledge and civic life (UNESCO, 2024b). Thus, the third step of the Learning Pillar shifts the focus from pedagogy to the physical, digital, and communitybased settings where learning occurs. Consistent with the Whole-Institution Approach (WIA), this step recognizes that the learning environment is not a neutral backdrop but an active mediator of educational experience – see Table 4. To get every learner "climateready," the institution must "walk the talk" by transforming its own operations and platforms into living laboratories for sustainability. Transitioning to green learning environments requires cross-sectoral collaboration between academic departments and facilities management. This integrated model provides high-impact outcomes by allowing students to acquire hands-on skills in real-world systems, such as biodiversity mapping or lifecycle assessments of campus buildings. As highlighted by the Greening Education Partnership, these environments foster a culture of inquiry and responsibility, preparing graduates to navigate the complexities of the Anthropocene with humility and critical reflexivity.

The third learning step consolidates the Whole-Institution Approach by positioning the campus and its ecosystem as active pedagogical actors. In line with international guidance that calls on institutions to “walk the talk,” green learning environments operationalise sustainability through institutional practice, ensuring coherence between what is taught and what is lived. The Campus-as-Lab model exemplifies this integration: by embedding student research within operational systems—energy monitoring, waste audits, biodiversity mapping or lifecycle assessments—institutions convert infrastructure into educational capital. This approach strengthens applied competences and also institutional accountability, as benchmarking tools and participatory planning frameworks connect learning outcomes with measurable sustainability performance.

The Living Laboratory Seed Fund at University College Cork (see Box 4) demonstrates how structured funding mechanisms can catalyse this model by linking crossdisciplinary research with campus operations and open knowledge sharing.

Goal: Measure transformation across cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural domains.

Assessment must evolve beyond simple knowledge testing to evaluate the development of green agency (UNESCO, 2024a, 2024b).

Assessment serves as the final mechanism for validating the transition from theoretical knowledge to demonstrated green agency. In alignment with the OECD’s focus on "agency in the Anthropocene" and UNESCO’s transformative learning agenda, this step moves beyond traditional testing of scientific facts to evaluate a learner’s capacity for complex problem-solving, ethical reasoning, and collective action. Assessment must be holistic, capturing not only intellectual mastery but also the socio-emotional dispositions—such as empathy and resilience—and the behavioural commitment required to navigate climate uncertainties. To ensure high-quality outcomes, assessment practices must transition from a "one-size-fits-all" model to an adaptive framework that recognizes diversity in learner backgrounds and contexts. Actionable implementation requires institutions to move away from "about" learning to "for" sustainable development, using validated, reliable measures to track long-term behavioural shifts.

The fourth learning step consolidates curriculum transformation by aligning assessment with the development of green agency. Assessment is, thus, repositioned as a mechanism for evaluating learners’ capacity to apply systems thinking, exercise ethical judgment and act collectively in conditions of uncertainty. Measuring sustainability competences therefore requires tools that capture cognitive mastery alongside socioemotional dispositions—such as empathy and resilience—and observable behavioural commitments. Aligning audits and evaluation criteria with frameworks such as GreenComp strengthens coherence and comparability, while ensuring that learning outcomes are anchored in recognised sustainability competences.

The shift toward authentic and adaptive assessment practices operationalises this ambition. Evaluating portfolios, action plans and project-based outputs moves assessment from abstract testing to situated problem-solving, while peer review and deliberative formats assess relational agency and collaborative capacity. Digital badging and competency-based recognition systems further connect sustainability learning with employability and international standards, reinforcing the workforce relevance of green competences. Continuous feedback loops, including social-emotional self-assessment, support iterative learning and well-being monitoring, ensuring that transformation is sustained rather than episodic.

The experience of TU Dublin’s competency mapping initiative ( Box 6) illustrates how structured, evidence-based audits can inform curriculum redesign. Specific sustainability competences are identified and integrated with co-creation practices.

Goal: Build educator capacity, motivation, and collaborative structures

Educators are the primary catalysts of sustainability learning. This step focuses on enabling them to teach differently, collaborate meaningfully, and innovate confidently (Table 6).

The core actions proposed in eSTEP 1 reflect the complementary conditions required to build educator engagement as a foundation for curriculum greening. Providing structured training in transformative and sustainability pedagogies is essential for equipping educators with the epistemic, methodological and affective capacities demanded by sustainability learning. Yet pedagogical upskilling alone is insufficient without organisational arrangements that support collective work. Cross-disciplinary teaching teams (see Box 7), for example, respond to the inherently systemic and transdisciplinary nature of sustainability challenges, enabling educators to transcend disciplinary silos and co-construct integrative learning experiences. Incentive structures—including time allocation, recognition and microgrants—further signal institutional commitment, addressing well-documented barriers related to workload, legitimacy and competing academic priorities.

Equally important are communities of practice (see Box 8), which provide the social infrastructure for sustained professional learning, enabling educators to share practices, negotiate meaning and normalise innovation in a supportive environment.

Finally, co-design processes ensure that sustainability teaching is not developed in isolation but emerges through participatory collaboration with students, colleagues and external stakeholders, enhancing relevance, ownership and pedagogical coherence ( Box 9).

Goal: Expand green learning beyond the university walls

Sustainability becomes transformative when HEIs collaborate with the community and external partners. UNESCO stresses that greening education must be inclusive, participatory, and community rooted.

eSTEP 2 focuses on strengthening the role of higher education institutions as anchoring actors within regional sustainability ecosystems. Moving beyond internal capacity-building, this step addresses how universities deliberately engage with municipalities, civil society organisations, industry, and other external partners to co-create meaningful sustainability learning opportunities. The core actions defined in eSTEP 2 reflect a shift from episodic collaboration toward structured, long-term, and pedagogically embedded partnerships. This approach aligns with international policy frameworks that emphasise community-rooted, participatory, and action-oriented education for sustainable development. UNESCO’s Greening Curriculum Guidance highlights that sustainability learning becomes transformative when learners engage with real-world actors, contexts, and challenges, while GreenComp underscores the importance of collective action, political agency, and systems thinking as key sustainability competencies.

The first core action in eSTEP 2—identifying and mapping relevant stakeholders— establishes the foundation for effective collaboration. Rather than relying on informal or ad hoc partnerships, institutions are encouraged to adopt a strategic approach that recognises the diversity of actors shaping local and regional sustainability transitions. Systematic stakeholder mapping enables institutions to prioritise partners whose expertise and mandates align with pressing sustainability challenges, while formal collaboration agreements help ensure continuity, clarity of roles, and mutual commitment over time. The example in Box 10 illustrates how different institutions have operationalised stakeholder mapping and long-term engagement to support curriculum-relevant collaboration, demonstrating the value of intentional partnership design.

Furthermore, the stakeholders become co-designers of learning. Involving partners in defining project briefs and supervising student work ensures that learning activities respond to real-world needs and policy priorities, while formats such as living labs and challenge-based learning provide structured environments for collaboration. This practice supports learners in developing applied sustainability competencies by engaging with complexity, uncertainty, and competing interests. It also reinforces the role of higher education institutions as contributors to regional climate strategies and SDG implementation, as illustrated in the accompanying box ( Box 11) showcasing co-created projects linked to urban resilience, education innovation, and regional development agendas.

A further core action in eSTEP 2 is the integration of stakeholder expertise into teaching. This goes beyond occasional guest lectures to encompass sustained pedagogical involvement through joint seminars, practitioner-led case studies, and stakeholder-inresidence or mentoring roles. Such practices diversify epistemic perspectives within the curriculum and expose learners to applied knowledge, professional practices, and lived experience (see Box 12).

Moreover, facilitating experiential, community-based learning—recognises that sustainability learning is deeply contextual. Fieldwork, service-learning, site visits, and community-based challenges allow learners to engage directly with local sustainability dynamics, including social, environmental, and cultural dimensions. Importantly, this action also foregrounds the role of community and Indigenous knowledge in contextualising academic learning, thereby promoting epistemic plurality and social justice.

The final core action in eSTEP 2—establishing stakeholder advisory boards— supports the long-term alignment of teaching and learning with societal needs. Advisory boards create structured spaces for dialogue between universities and external actors, enabling regular reflection on curriculum relevance, responsiveness, and impact. Including diverse representatives—such as youth, NGOs, policymakers, and industry—ensures plural perspectives and strengthens accountability.

Goal: Mobilise students, staff, and partners as catalysts of sustainability engagement and innovation

eSTEP 3 focuses on mobilising people as agents of change by activating a Network of Green Learning Ambassadors across the institution and its partner ecosystems. While eSTEP 2 establishes structured partnerships with external stakeholders, eSTEP 3 concentrates on human agency, leadership, and peer-driven innovation, recognising that sustainability transformation depends not only on formal structures but on empowered individuals who can catalyse change from within.

This step reflects growing evidence that student and staff leadership, when meaningfully supported, plays a critical role in embedding sustainability across teaching, learning, and campus life. International frameworks such as GreenComp or the Learning Compass emphasise competences related to political agency, collective action, and individual initiative, highlighting the importance of enabling learners and educators to move from awareness to action eSTEP 3 operationalises these competences by creating formal pathways for participation, leadership, and recognition.

The following section, The Living Component: Network of Green Learning Ambassadors, operationalises eSTEP 3 by detailing the core actions, key practices, and illustrative examples through which such networks can be established, supported, and sustained.

Goal: Embed engagement into policies, decision-making, quality assurance, and long-term institutional systems.

eSTEP 4 represents the transition from activation to institutional permanence. While earlier steps focus on building partnerships (eSTEP 2) and mobilising people as change agents (eSTEP 3), eSTEP 4 addresses the conditions required to ensure that sustainability engagement becomes embedded, sustained, and resilient beyond individual projects, champions, or funding cycles.

At this stage, sustainability engagement is no longer treated as an add-on or an experimental initiative. Instead, it is integrated into the formal systems that shape how the institution plans, governs, evaluates, and allocates resources. This reflects a core insight from international frameworks on education for sustainable development: transformative change in higher education requires alignment between pedagogical innovation and institutional governance.

The core purpose of eSTEP 4 is to translate the momentum generated through educator engagement, stakeholder collaboration, and ambassador networks into durable institutional arrangements. This includes embedding sustainability engagement within strategic plans, policy frameworks, and key performance indicators, thereby signalling longterm institutional commitment and accountability. Alignment with broader policy agendas— such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the EU Green Deal, and national climate education strategies—further situates institutional action within wider societal transformations. Unlike eSTEP 2, where external stakeholders are primarily engaged as co-creators of learning, eSTEP 4 positions stakeholders, students, and ambassadors within governance and oversight roles. Sustainability councils, steering committees, and advisory bodies provide structured spaces where diverse perspectives inform decision-making, curriculum priorities, and institutional direction. This shift from collaboration to governance is a defining feature of eSTEP 4.

A central dimension of institutionalisation concerns curriculum governance. eSTEP 4 emphasises the need to systematically align programme approval, review, and quality assurance processes with sustainability goals. Tools such as sustainability mapping, GreenComp-aligned audits, and dedicated quality indicators enable institutions to move from isolated examples of good practice toward coherent, institution-wide curriculum transformation.

Goal: Adopting verified curriculum greening models to ensure scientific and pedagogical rigor.

The first Action Step consolidates transformation by replacing ad hoc sustainability initiatives with validated, transferable models. Institutions are encouraged to embed proven approaches—such as Campus-as-Lab or structured service-learning partnerships—within formal curricula, assessment systems and governance mandates. Establishing measurable learning outcomes, operational key performance indicators, and stakeholder responsibilities at the outset ensures pedagogical rigor and operational accountability.

The use of structured replication protocols and cross-functional implementation teams strengthens scalability and institutional coherence. Moreover, leveraging shared repositories such as the GREENUS Digital Catalogue enhances strategic learning across institutions. The use of structured replication protocols and cross-functional implementation teams strengthens scalability and institutional coherence. Moreover, leveraging shared repositories such as the GREENUS Digital Catalogue enhances strategic learning across institutions. Table 10 operationalises aSTEP 1, specifying the core actions required to embed validated greening models and the corresponding practices that ensure their consistent, scalable, and quality-assured implementation across the institution.

aSTEP 1 makes explicit that greening models only become effective when they are institutionally anchored and operationally defined. Integrating approaches such as Campus-as-Lab into formal assessment, governance structures, and partnership frameworks shifts them from optional innovation to core academic practice. The emphasis on KPIs, defined roles, and cross-functional teams reflects a move toward managed implementation, where sustainability is treated as a performance domain rather than an experimental add-on.

The inclusion of pilot-to-scale protocols further signals a change in logic: successful initiatives are not only evaluated for impact, but for their capacity to be replicated and sustained across the institution. In parallel, the GREENUS Digital Catalogue introduces a shared reference system that enables benchmarking, comparability, and strategic reuse, reducing fragmentation and duplication of effort.

Box 16 illustrates how this logic operates in practice. The TU Delft model shows how Campus-as-Lab initiatives can be embedded within institutional processes, supported by governance mechanisms, and tested at scale. It demonstrates that the value of such models lies not only in the innovation itself, but in the conditions that make it transferable, accountable, and scalable.

Goal: Institutionalise sustainability reform by embedding structured tools, guidance frameworks and digital instruments into routine academic processes.

The second Action Step translates strategic commitment into operational capability by equipping institutions with concrete instruments that support consistent implementation. While evidence-based models provide direction, practical resources ensure that reform is feasible, scalable and embedded within everyday academic work. This step recognises that sustainable transformation depends not only on vision but on accessible tools, clear procedures and aligned incentives.

Deploying faculty toolkits enables discipline-sensitive integration, moving sustainability beyond generic thematic inclusion toward alignment with core epistemologies and assessment standards. Embedding the LEAF Guidebook within programme validation, accreditation and reporting cycles anchors sustainability within quality assurance systems rather than voluntary initiatives. At the same time, digital personalisation tools strengthen learner-centred implementation by tracking competence development, supporting advising structures and connecting sustainability skills with employability pathways. Table 2 operationalises aSTEP 2. It defines the instruments through which sustainability reform is embedded in routine academic processes, linking institutional actions with practical tools that support consistent, discipline-sensitive, and scalable implementation.

Sustainability integration depends on the availability and institutional positioning of implementation instruments. Toolkits, guidebooks, and digital systems are not neutral supports; they determine how consistently sustainability is interpreted, applied, and assessed across programmes (see Box 17).

The shift toward discipline-specific toolkits addresses a persistent barrier: the disconnect between sustainability agendas and disciplinary epistemologies. Embedding guidance within accreditation and reporting processes, in turn, situates sustainability within formal institutional accountability structures, rather than optional practice. Furthermore, digital tools introduce a further layer by making competence development visible and traceable. This creates feedback loops between intended and achieved learning outcomes, enabling institutions to identify gaps and adjust implementation accordingly. What emerges is a move from fragmented adoption to standardised yet adaptable practice, where sustainability is carried through aligned instruments rather than individual initiative.

Goal: Ensure that curriculum greening is measurable, transparent and continuously improved through structured evidence and accountability mechanisms.

Sustainable transformation cannot rely on implementation alone; it requires systematic verification. The third Action Step embeds monitoring and evaluation as a core governance function, ensuring that progress in sustainability education is demonstrable, comparable and responsive to evidence. This step integrates indicators as strategic instruments for institutional learning.

The Greening Curriculum Indicator provides a quantitative baseline, but its credibility depends on methodological rigour. Combining automated syllabus analysis with expert review mitigates superficial keyword inflation, while longitudinal tracking allows institutions to detect stagnation or regression as well as improvement. Disaggregated data further enables targeted interventions across faculties and programme levels, strengthening precision in reform efforts.

Furthermore, competence-based audits deepen this evaluative layer by examining whether intended learning outcomes translate into graduate capabilities. Involving external stakeholders—employers, alumni and civil society—enhances relevance and legitimacy, while scenario-based assessments test learner judgment under real sustainability trade-offs. Crucially, programmes are required to respond formally to audit findings, embedding improvement planning within quality assurance cycles.

Finally, structured feedback loops ensure that monitoring remains participatory rather than technocratic. Student reflection tools, co-interpretation workshops and wellbeing indicators integrate human experience into evaluation processes. Closing the loop by documenting how feedback informs curriculum revision transforms assessment from a compliance mechanism into a driver of adaptive institutional learning.

Table 12 sets out aSTEP 3. It specifies the actions and evaluation practices through which curriculum greening becomes measurable, transparent, and continuously improved at institutional level.

Goal: Embed sustainability reform within institutional quality cycles and extend its impact beyond the single institution to national and international systems.

The fourth Action Step ensures that curriculum greening is cumulative. It consolidates prior implementation and monitoring efforts by integrating sustainability into accreditation mechanisms, scholarly practice and multi-level policy alignment. In doing so, it transforms sustainability from a project-based initiative into a structural feature of institutional development.

Aligning reform with accreditation standards leverages existing quality assurance cycles as strategic entry points for change. When sustainability evidence becomes a required element of programme self-evaluation and internal review, reform gains regulatory traction rather than remaining dependent on voluntary engagement. Training auditors and reviewers in sustainability criteria further strengthens consistency and credibility.

At the same time, long-term scaling depends on recognising educators as knowledge producers. Valuing curriculum innovation as scholarly output, establishing repositories for teaching cases and funding small-scale action research positions sustainability work within academic reward systems. Cross-institutional comparative studies, particularly through collaborative networks, support diffusion and shared learning. Moreover, scaling requires vertical integration with broader policy agendas. Translating institutional monitoring data into policy-relevant indicators and participating in coordinated reporting initiatives ensures that local practice informs systemic reform.

Table 13 defines how aSTEP 4 is enacted. It links institutional actions with practices that anchor sustainability within accreditation processes, academic recognition, and multi-level policy alignment.