GREENCOMP
and
THE ROADMAP FOR
SUSTAINABILITY COMPETENCES

The process toward sustainability in a school or university begins when someone becomes engaged in improving sustainability. This engagement may stem from personal concern about the state of the planet – shaped by societal zeitgeist, media, and public discourse – knowledge of ecological crises, or personal experiences, such as local impacts of climate change (e.g., droughts, floods, biodiversity loss of once-common and cherished species). It may also arise from practical knowledge, such as environmental measurements at the school that reveal the institution’s or an individual’s impact on climate change. Engagement can also be triggered by administrative or peer pressure, prompting actors to prioritise sustainability. When a contradiction arises between sustainability engagement and existing practices the motivation to promote sustainability increases. In the best-case scenario, engaged teachers, headmasters, students and the institution as a whole are willing to transform the aims and values of education to reflect a new understanding of the planet’s condition. Without such contradictions, motivation to promote sustainability remains low – business as usual is easier when there is no genuine drive for change.

Awareness of sustainability’s importance leads to scrutiny of current practices. What are the connections between these practices and sustainability? What are the root causes of unsustainable practices? What problems exist in current activities? These discussions foster an understanding of contradictions between current activities and sustainability goals. Such contradictions may manifest in individual behaviours, collective practices, or technical-material arrangements – highlighting the gap between traditional methods and new sustainability aims. For example, subject-based teachers may wish to incorporate sustainability content into their teaching but struggle with limited time and the importance of existing content.

Once unsustainable behaviours, practices or structures are identified, the next step is to seek solutions: What changes are important in our context? A participatory approach helps identify the best models for each context through collaborative elaboration. However, contradictions with other institutional activities often arise. For instance, promoting multidisciplinary teaching at a university challenges traditional administrative and financial structures, as funding is typically allocated through faculties. Deciding which faculty receives funding when multiple faculties are involved can be difficult, creating pressure to reform these structures. In secondary schools, the desire to teach in natural surroundings may conflict with rigid schedules, making it hard to travel to and from natural settings between lessons.

Ideally, after navigating these contradictions, the school or university enters the action phase, establishing new practices. However, a new contradiction often emerges: the institution’s activities may not align with the broader system it operates within. For example, a school may set up recycling stations, but if the waste management service collects all waste in a single plastic bag, the effort fails to achieve its goal. In the best case, this contradiction motivates the service provider to change its practices and to enter its own transformation cycle.

The development cycle does not end here. New challenges will arise, prompting the process to begin again. Members of the school or university community can join this transformation cycle at any point, experiencing their own mini-cycles of engagement, reflection, change, and action.