Can quality assurance ensure real sustainability learning?
Sustainability is now everywhere in higher education. It appears in university strategies, reports, websites, international projects and student-facing communication. Many universities are no longer asking whether they should talk about sustainability. They already do. The harder question is whether this language has changed what students actually learn.
This question was at the centre of the recent ENQA-UNECE discussion on Quality Assurance and Learning for Sustainability. The discussion made one point very clear: sustainability has already entered the quality assurance agenda. But it has entered it in different ways, at different speeds and with different levels of clarity.
This is why the next stage matters. Quality assurance agencies do not only need to ask whether sustainability is visible. They need to ask whether it is real, reviewable and connected to learning.
Some countries have started national or thematic evaluations. Some agencies have worked on indicators. Some systems have prepared curriculum guidance. International networks are also creating space for discussion. But there is still no single common method for evaluating sustainability in higher education.
Definitions are different. Expectations are different. Experts do not all have the same background. Universities are also at very different stages.
So the next step is not only to raise awareness. The next step is to build a more practical and reliable approach.
From visibility to evidence
The first challenge is to separate visibility from evidence. Many universities are good at making sustainability visible. They publish strategies, organise sustainability weeks, share green campus projects and present their contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. These activities can be useful. They can create awareness and show that the institution cares. But visibility does not prove learning.
A university may have a strong sustainability strategy. But a student may still complete a programme without clearly understanding how sustainability relates to the field they are preparing to enter.
For example, a business student may hear about sustainability in general terms but may not be asked to analyse responsible finance, supply chain transparency or the risk of greenwashing. An engineering student may learn technical design but may not be asked to consider long-term resource use, environmental impact or social consequences.
These examples show the main issue. Sustainability cannot remain only in institutional statements. It must be connected to study programmes, learning outcomes, curriculum design, assessment, stakeholder engagement and continuous improvement.
This is already the normal logic of quality assurance. Quality assurance asks whether a programme does what it says it does. It looks at the connection between aims, learning outcomes, courses, teaching methods, assessment, resources and improvement. The same logic should apply to sustainability.
If a programme says it deals with sustainability, where can we see this in the learning outcomes? Where is it taught? How is it assessed? Which stakeholders are involved? What evidence shows that the programme is improving? These are not political questions. They are quality questions.
Different countries, different paths
One reason this topic is difficult is that sustainability is entering quality assurance in different ways.
Sweden is one important example. In 2017, the Swedish Higher Education Authority carried out a national thematic evaluation of sustainable development. This was important because sustainability was reviewed as a system-level topic. It was not only treated as a university slogan or a single course.
Andorra and Aragon offer another example. AQUA and ACPUAworked on indicators to connect the Sustainable Development Goals with institutional quality assessment. This approach tries to translate sustainability into the language of quality assurance. It looks at areas such as governance, strategy, leadership, quality processes, programmes, resources, campus, students, staff and external quality assurance.
The United Kingdom provides a different example. QAA and Advance HE developed guidance on 'Education for Sustainable Development'. This guidance focuses more directly on curriculum design, teaching, learning and assessment. It asks how sustainability can become part of what students experience in their programmes.
These examples are not the same. That is the point.
A national thematic evaluation, an SDG indicator framework and curriculum guidance are different tools. But they all try to answer the same question: how can sustainability become something that can be taught, reviewed and improved?
At the European level, the future of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) principles also matters. ESG has been a common framework for internal and external quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. If sustainability becomes more visible in future quality assurance expectations, the challenge will be to include it without making the framework too heavy or too mechanical. This is a delicate balance.
If every agency develops its own language, the result may be confusion. But if the sector moves too quickly to one standard model, the result may be superficial compliance.
Why one formula is not enough
A single formula will not work. Sustainability does not mean exactly the same thing in every discipline. It will not appear in the same way in law, engineering, teacher education, health sciences, tourism or the arts.
This does not mean that each programme can ignore the issue. It means that each programme must explain what sustainability means in its own field. In business and management, this may involve responsible decision-making, finance, supply chains and accountability.
In engineering and design, it may involve energy use, materials, safety, resilience and the long-term effects of technical choices.
In health sciences, it may involve climate-related health risks, disaster preparedness, healthcare waste and unequal access to protection.
In tourism, it may involve the balance between visitor growth, local communities, cultural heritage and environmental limits.
These examples should not become fixed indicators for every programme. They are only starting points for reflection.
Quality assurance should support this reflection. It should not force every programme to use the same words or the same model. But flexibility should not become an excuse for doing nothing.
A programme should not claim sustainability only because it uses the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) logo or mentions social responsibility in a strategy document. It should show how students meet, practise and are assessed on relevant knowledge, skills and competences.
The main problem: evaluating sustainability
The real problem is not awareness. The real problem is evaluation. How will agencies evaluate sustainability fairly? How will experts know what counts as strong evidence? How can agencies avoid rewarding symbolic actions? How can they respect national and disciplinary differences while still asking serious questions?
These are central questions.
At this stage, it may be too early to make Learning for Sustainability a strict accreditation criterion with the same indicators for all disciplines and all systems. The concepts are still developing. Agencies are not equally prepared. Review panels do not always have sustainability expertise. Universities are at different stages. But it is not too early to build the necessary foundations.
These foundations should include common language, practical guidance, reviewer training, examples of evidence and opportunities for agencies to learn from each other.
In other words, the next step should not be immediate standardisation. The next step should be capacity building for common understanding.
Experts need training
Quality assurance depends on peer review. This is one of its strengths. Experts bring academic knowledge, professional experience and judgement. But sustainability adds a new challenge.
Reviewers cannot be expected to evaluate Learning for Sustainability only with general awareness or personal opinion. They need guidance. Reviewer training should help experts understand key concepts, differences between disciplines and common risks.
It should include examples of strong and weak evidence. It should also discuss greenwashing and symbolic compliance. The aim is not to make every reviewer a sustainability specialist. That would not be realistic.
The aim is to make sure that every review panel can ask the right questions. For example:
- What does sustainability mean in this program?
- Where is it visible in the learning outcomes?
- Which courses, projects, internships or assessments support it?
- How are students involved?
- How are employers, professional bodies or community stakeholders consulted?
- How does the program use evidence to improve?
These questions do not create a rigid model. They create a serious and structured discussion.
The role of quality assurance agencies
Quality assurance agencies cannot solve the sustainability challenge alone. But they have an important role to play.
They can provide guidance without forcing one model. They can support reviewer training. They can collect and share good examples. They can help universities understand the difference between public visibility and educational evidence. They can also protect the sector from symbolic compliance by asking for evidence, not only declarations.
This role is important because many universities still work in a fragmented way. Some universities have strong sustainability offices but weak curriculum integration. Some have individual academics doing excellent work but no institutional system to support and spread it. Some have impressive projects but no clear link to programme learning outcomes or quality improvement. Quality assurance can help connect these efforts.
It can also make sustainability less dependent on a few motivated people. When sustainability becomes part of programme design, review and improvement, it becomes more permanent.
Avoiding symbolic compliance
The danger is not only that universities ignore sustainability. Another danger is that they respond only on paper.
They may add sustainability words to learning outcomes without changing teaching. They may map courses to the SDGs without assessing student competences. They may write reports that look good but do not change the curriculum. They may create committees without using feedback for improvement. Quality assurance should not reward this.
A programme should not be judged only by the presence of sustainability terminology. It should be judged by the quality of its educational design and evidence.
If sustainability is in the learning outcomes, it should also be visible in teaching, learning activities and assessment. If stakeholders are consulted, their feedback should lead to improvement. If students are asked to engage with sustainability, assessment should show whether they can analyse real problems, make responsible decisions and understand trade-offs.
The aim is not paperwork. The aim is educational change that can be shown with evidence.
A step-by-step approach
At this stage, the best approach is developmental and step by step. Instead of asking whether every programme meets a fixed sustainability standard, quality assurance can ask whether the programme has a clear and evidence-based approach to Learning for Sustainability.
A programme at the beginning of the process can be asked to define what sustainability means in its discipline and map what already exists.
A more advanced programme can be asked to show assessment methods, stakeholder involvement and evidence of improvement.
A mature institution can be asked to show systematic integration in governance, curriculum, staff development and external engagement.
This approach supports progress without pretending that the sector already has one common method.
It also fits better with the idea of quality enhancement. Quality assurance should not only control. It should also help institutions learn.
What is the next phase?
Sustainability has already entered the quality assurance agenda. The question now is whether the sector can handle it well.
If the response is too weak, sustainability will remain at the level of slogans, rankings, reports and visibility activities.
If the response is too strict, it may become another compliance exercise that creates paperwork instead of learning.The right path is between these two risks.
Quality assurance needs common concepts but not one answer for everyone. It needs evidence but not excessive bureaucracy. It needs reviewer training but not the unrealistic idea that every expert must become a sustainability specialist. It needs European and international coordination but also respect for national, institutional and disciplinary diversity.
The central question should be simple: When students graduate, are they better prepared to understand and act responsibly within the sustainability challenges of their field?
If the answer is unclear, the issue is not only sustainability. The issue is quality.
And if quality assurance is about protecting and improving the quality of higher education, then Learning for Sustainability can no longer remain a side discussion. It is becoming one of the tests of whether higher education is really preparing students for the world they will inherit.
This article was originally published in University World News on 17 July 2026. Read the original article here.