Theoretical framework for Education for Sustainability to accelerate transition to low-carbon circular economy

A theoretical framework to address Education for Sustainability for an earlier
transition to a just, Low Carbon and Circular Economy
Scalabrino, Chiara, Navarrete Salvador, Antonio, Oliva Martínez, José María
Department of Didactics, University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6291-6693
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7487-5617
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2686-6131
Abstract
The evolution to a just, Low Carbon and Circular Economy could be accelerated if additional education
and training professionals embraced the practical implications of terms such as Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD) or for Sustainability (ES).
Therefore, this study identified the numerous elements of Environmental and Sustainability Education
that are relevant to effectively encourage the implementation of Sustainable Consumption and Production
(SCP). The identification of these elements was based on the available literature in the fields that have
stemmed from the ‘Environmental Education (EE)’ and ‘Sustainable Development (SD)’ movements. Finally,
their synthesis was proposed as a ‘Theoretical Framework for an ES as Transformative Education for
Sustainable Consumption and Production (ESCP) from a complex, critical and constructivist perspective’.
This framework is intended as a basis for the reflection on current ES practices and to inspire the
realisation of the full potential of ES in formal, non-formal and informal settings, from early childhood to old
age learning. Especially, given the Agenda 2030 and the climate emergency, it could serve to improve Adult
Learning and Education, Vocational Education and Training and Organisational Training for Sustainability
(e.g.: courses on energy or water saving, Green Public Procurement, Sustainable Product Design), in public
and private organisations.
Keywords
Lifelong learning for Sustainability
Sustainable Consumption and Production
Education for Sustainable Development
Professional and business training for Sustainability
Adult Learning for Sustainability
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in
“Environmental Education Research” on 25 Mar 2022, available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504622.2022.2031899.

Introduction
New knowledge and concerns on the socio-economic-environmental challenges that humanity faces
began to spread more than half a century ago (Carson 1962; Hardin 1968; Schumacher 1973; Meadows,
Meadows, Randers, and Behrems 1972). However, most recent data on inequalities, climate change,
extinctions of species or plastic and air pollution (IPCC 2007, 2013, 2018, 2021; Anthropocene Working Group
-AWG- 2019; World Economic Forum 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company 2016;
World Wildlife Found 2020; Oxfam 2020; World Health Organisation 2018), suggest that the actions to revert
global unsustainable trends are still not sufficient.
This could be due to an insufficient understanding of the basic causes of these challenges that results in
an underestimation of their real magnitude. Therefore, although some problems are noted and recognised,
they are seen as ‘ordinary’ environmental and societal issues that can be dealt with later (Broman and Robért
2017).
For these reasons, education is crucial to help individuals to engage with sustainability related issues and
become change-makers (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -UNESCO- 2017).
However, not all kinds of education support sustainable development. Education that promotes economic
growth alone may well also lead to an increase in unsustainable consumption patterns (UNESCO 2017). As a
matter of fact, the Rio+20 Education Group (2012) maintains that the global crisis is also a crisis of lifelong
education because it has become the preferred means to meet the markets’ needs, which are labour force
for production and consumption. Furthermore, that education has been stripped of its potential to train
citizens able to think a different social and economic order in which it would be possible to overcome the
increasing inequality, lack of dignity and of justice.
In brief, just like “Business As Usual (BAU)” is being questioned in light of global sustainability challenges,
the same applies to “Education As Usual” (Wals, Mochizuki, and Leicht 2017). Indeed, an improvement in the
quality of education, in addition to quantity, is critical to advance the Sustainable Development agenda (Ofei-
Manu and Didham 2018).
In 2015 the United Nations (UN) identified 17 global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved
by 2030 to ensure the well-being of humanity and the planet. In the authors’ opinion, SDG 4 ‘Quality
education’, SDG 12 ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’ and SDG 16 ‘Partnership for the goals’ are
particularly important because they contribute to the achievement of all the others. Especially Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD), referred to in SDG 4.7, can be seen as a key instrument to achieve all SDGs
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - UNESCO 2017).
In this study the focus is on the connection between SDG 12 and 4 for the following reasons:
• On one side, ‘the main root of our current challenges, is our hyper-consumeristic lifestyle in the
richest countries, related to the dominant consumption and production model’ (Scalabrino 2017, 23).
In fact, in the case of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC (2018)
estimates human activities to have caused approximately 1°C of global warming above pre-industrial
levels.
• On the other side, to limit the increase to 1.5°C, as the IPCC (2019) continues, would require a rapid
strengthening of the capacities for climate action of all authorities, civil society, the private sector,
indigenous peoples and local communities. Accordingly, lifelong learning (‘from cradle to grave’ and
across all aspects of life) must be put at the centre of the debate (Lifelong Learning Platform - LLLP
2020) and made more relevant to the social, environmental and economic challenges that the world
faces (Buckler and Creech 2014).

Notably, many agree that quality ESD reinforces people’s sense of responsibility as global citizens (Buckler
and Creech 2014). Notably, many agree that quality ESD reinforces people’s sense of responsibility as global
citizens. However, for capacity-building and training in the business sector for example, technical know-how
will not be sufficient to advance towards sustainability (Buckler and Creech 2014). Overall, formal, non-formal
and community learning for sustainable development should be much more than information transmission,
awareness raising or even the promotion of informed and skilled behaviour. It should also build the capacity
to think critically and to test sustainable development ideas, exploring the contradictions inherent in
sustainable living (Vare and Scott 2007).
These ideas can be resumed in the following example.
Taking in consideration a sedentary person eating too much food, excessively high in fat, sugar and salt,
it can be perceived that the mere transmission of technical information on the traits and advantages of a
healthy diet and of daily exercise, will not be sufficient to stimulate a long-term change in lifestyle. Thus, the
same would apply to the irresponsible and hyper-consumeristic behaviours of privileged rich societies, driven
by the dominant consumption and production model. Accordingly, we should invest in the development of
skills and competencies for critical whole-systems analysis, decision-making and collaborative problem-
solving. Education programs should broaden the narrow focus on teaching consumption issues in formal
learning settings like classrooms (Barth 2012). Nevertheless, dominant forms of environmental education
and consumer education practices focus on the transmission of information and the enhancing of students’
knowledge (Räthzel and Uzzell 2009; Fischer 2011). Unsurprisingly, especially when it comes to adult formal
and informal training for Sustainability (e.g.: courses on Green Public Procurement, on Sustainable Product
Design, on energy or water saving and efficiency), the authors of this article have observed that trainers and
professors are usually specialised in some discipline related to sustainability but rarely also in education.
In brief, the key role of education in realising sustainable development is often ignored, downplayed and
underestimated or viewed in isolation from the other instruments of change like policy instruments, for
example (Sterling 2014). A fundamental reorientation of education at all levels and in all areas is required.
Not only in formal education, but specially in non-formal and informal learning processes (Wals, Mochizuki,
and Leicht 2017).
However, the institutionalizing of ESD will require strong political leadership to put the resources in place,
to create the organizational climate necessary for change and to provide encouragement for all actors to
experiment, take risks, learn and adapt in order to move societies towards sustainability (Buckler and Creech
2014).
The urgency for leadership and adult learning FOR sustainability
To prevent humanity from raising global temperatures to a disastrous extent, drastic cuts in greenhouse
gas emissions must be achieved before 2030 (IPCC 2021). Never like before, a mass transformation in the
worldview of adults is needed, as there is no time to wait for our children to undo the damage that our ways
of being in the world have produced (Griswold 2016). Coherently, if the environmental education of children
is to have credibility, adults also must change (National Institute of Adult Continuing Education 1993, quoted
by St. Clair 2003). Moreover, by building the foundations of cultural, social, political, economic and ecological
change, adult learning is key for the achievement of all SDGs (European Association for the Education of
Adults -EAEA- 2018).
The need for a synthesis of what ESD implies
From the previous pages, it can be briefly concluded that:

• To address environmental-socio-economic challenges accordingly to their scale and urgency,
considerable progress should be made in the coming years.
• The knowledge, skills, values and attitudes required by citizens to assume active roles in facing and
resolving global challenges can be acquired through Education for Sustainable Development
(UNESCO 2016).
• ESD is a powerful tool to grow adults’ sustainability leadership and to strengthen organisational
processes towards sustainability, as in the case of the Hai Hua Circular Economy Pilot Zone project
described by Gao et al. (2006).
• However, although ESD has gained recognition as target 4.7 of SDG4, its implementation remains
weak (LLLP 2020).
• ESD implies far more than people working outside the field often perceive it to mean. It offers a
renewed vision for educational policy and practice in tune with the needs of the 21st century (Sterling
2014).
Precisely these conclusions nourished the desire to portray in this article what ESD really implies, because
if more sustainability and education professionals embraced the ‘practical implications’ (Vare et al. 2019, 2)
of Education for Sustainability (ES), the evolution towards a more responsible consumption and production
model could be accelerated. To succeed in this, both the sustainable development and the education
communities should start benefiting from the substantial amount of work and useful research carried out in
the past five decades by the ‘Environmental Education (EE)’ and ‘Sustainable Development (SD)’ movements.
Specifically, the studies that describe the numerous approaches and educational tools that are currently
available for Education for Sustainability.
The framework building process, structure of the article and key terms
In this essay paper the authors, firstly present an overview of the most relevant features of Education for
Sustainability that could effectively encourage the implementation of Sustainable Consumption and
Production (SCP). Then, a synthesis of the resulting theoretical framework is presented in Table 2.
To build the framework, a literature review of the fields that have stemmed from the ‘Environmental
Education (EE)’ and ‘Sustainable Development (SD)’ movements (e.g.: Education for Sustainable
Development, Sustainable Consumption and Production1
) was carried out. More specifically, the essay
synthesises a part of a more extensive study that, to better explore the field of Sustainable Consumption and
Production, included the analysis of the scientific and grey literature on the topics of Education for
Sustainability, but also of the companies moving towards sustainability, the integration of sustainability in
the organizational culture, change and organizational learning, Sustainable Economy and Sustainability in
general.
A combination of searches in Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC and Google were carried out using the
following keywords in English and in Spanish: education or training or raising or awareness or engagement;
sustainab* or Social responsibility or consumption or production; organi*ation or company or business or
enterprise; adult; framework or model.
No time limits were set for the selection of the documents. The building of the framework started by the
most relevant documents of Environmental Education. Specifically, to understand the evolution of the
1
The history and definitions of the terms Sustainable Consumption and Production (nowadays the SDG 12 term “Responsible Consumption and
Production” is preferred), Education for Sustainable Consumption and Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production, may be found in the
Annex. It was considered important to include these historical definitions collected in 2017, because they are disappearing from the web, maybe
along with the shift of the discourse to concepts such as the Circular Economy and the SDGs.

movements and of the concepts, although not quoted in this paper, the search considered publications that
are available online, starting from Stapp et al. (1969)2
and the documents of the first United Nations
Environmental Education conferences, documents of UNESCO, UNEP (United Nations Environmental
Program), IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and articles and books of the most
historically authoritative authors. At the same time, with a snowball technic, other documents were added.
In total, more than a hundred documents from the academic and grey literature, from the sixties to 2019,
were examined.
The authors, that have very extensive experience in teachers practice and training, Science Didactics, EE,
ES and ESCP, through dialog, discussion and debate, analysed the variety of perspectives, pedagogical
approaches and contents provided by the literature (more details in the subsequent sections “Structure of
the literature review and of the article” and “The elements of an ES as Transformative Education for
Sustainable Consumption and Production (ESCP) from a complex, critical and constructivist perspective”).
The general guiding principles of the critical analysis were:
• To highlight the traits of ES that are important to be more effective in accelerating the transition to
a more sustainable economy. Notably, the ones that could improve formal, non-formal and informal
Adult Education for Sustainability (e.g.: courses on Circular Economy, energy or water saving, Green
Public Procurement, Sustainable Product Design).
• To draw a picture of the panorama the most global, complete, and authoritative as possible, that had
to take in consideration different perspectives and currents of thought coming from diverse
geographical areas, cultures, backgrounds and experiences.
A particular attention was put in detecting:
• all the elements of ES that could help lifelong learning educators that are not from the field of ES, to
truly embrace its ‘practical implications’ (Vare et al. 2019, 2);
• the aspects of ES described in the scientific literature that are not usually considered in numerous
policies and funding criteria that still promote education and training courses that focus only on the
transmission of environmental and sustainability contents (e.g.: many courses funded by the
European Union).
The latter kind of education, “Education about or on sustainability”, as pointed out by Tilbury (1993),
differs from “Education for sustainability” because the latter provides people with not just the knowledge
and understanding to engage with sustainability issues but also with the competences to plan, motivate and
manage change towards sustainability (Tilbury, Crawley and Berry 2004). In short, the eco-literacy and
ecological intelligence that will help them forging more sustainable patterns (Griswold 2016) in their personal
and professional life.
To sum up, the theoretical framework in this article is intended as a basis for debate and reflection.
Together with its sources and other existing frameworks presenting other dimensions of ES (e.g.: theoretical
models, sustainability competences, pedagogical aspects, specific contents…), it may provide ideas and
guidance to sustainability, education and training and ES professionals, policy makers and leaders in general.
Structure of the literature review and of the article
To better view the content of this article, the information has been organised in five main parts (Figure
1). These represent the five focus areas that guided the literature review and correspond to the headings of
2
For the first time, the authors defined “Environmental Education” in The Journal of Environmental Education.

the main sections of the article. In Figure 1 they are represented in the five rectangular blocks with the white
background.
•
Figure 1. Diagram of the organisation of the contents of this article and of the focus areas of the review.
The five focus areas also relate to the planned stages of the literature review, that mainly developed
simultaneously. In particular, the first four guided the selection of keywords used to search the literature.
The last one (the block at the bottom of Figure 1) originated from the synthesis of the diverse elements that
are important to address ESCP, based on the analysis of the literature.
During the review of the academic and grey literature, special attention was put in including the three
perspectives listed on the left of the figure. For example, the academic, mainly came from the scientific
journals; the institutional is represented in reports of institutions as IUCN or UNESCO. The information on
the perspective of the education professionals (e.g.: ES professionals) is not as comprehensive as the previous
two perspectives, mainly because the academic literature is more focused on formal education and because,
except for university professors, usually educators do not produce research. For these reasons, the education
professionals’ perspective mainly came out from the previous two categories, for example in reports of
institutions in which the experiences or ideas of various work groups of educators and experts have been
Sustainable
Development (SD) and
Sustainability (S)
Environmental
Education (EE) and
Education for
Sustainable
Development (ESD) or
Sustainability (ES)
Sustainable
Consumption and
Production (SCP)
Education for
Sustainable
Consumption and
Production (ESCP)
Stages 3 and 4
The academic
perspective
The
institutional
perspective
The
professionals’
perspective
Stages 1 and 2
≈>
≈>
Parte 1
Education for Sustainability (ES) as
Transformative Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production
(ESCP) from a complex, critical and constructivist perspective
Stage 5
Order chosen for the presentation of the
contents of this article

collected (e.g.: the Marrakech Task Force on Education for Sustainable Consumption3
– Marrakech Task
Force on ESC). Sometimes, the three perspectives merge in the literature (e.g.: when, in publications of
international institutions, researchers from the academic sector report on educational practices).
In short, the authors sought to merge the academic, institutional and educators’ perspectives in the final
framework and in the article. Hence, in Figure 1 the three must be seen as transversal to the five blocks with
the white background.
Terms and concepts originated in the ‘Environmental Education (EE)’ and ‘Sustainable
Development (SD)’ movements4
There are a variety of perspectives and currents of thought that originated from the ‘Environmental
Education (EE)’ and ‘Sustainable Development (SD)’ movements. Surely, many different and sometimes
overlapping concepts, terms and meanings have stemmed from both.
On one side, a vast diversity of wordings has been used to describe what is needed to address socio-
environmental-economic challenges. Among the oldest are Sustainability and Sustainable Consumption and
Production. Among the more recent Green, Blue, Common Good, Low carbon and Circular Economy5
. On
the other side, a variety of labels have been used to propose the education needed to build a thriving future.
For instance, Environmental Education (EE), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) or for
Sustainability (ES), Sustainable or Sustainability Education (SE) and Education for Sustainable Consumption
(ESC).
Because of this enriching variety of concepts and interpretations, in this article, to describe the
information in the literature in the most rigorous way, each author is mentioned using the exact author’s
wording6
.
However, since the wordings of the above-mentioned concepts all suggest an Education for a sustainable
future that is critical to spread with high levels of quality, in all education systems and lifelong learning
contexts, as Cañal de León and Vilches (2009) suggest, we can assume that there is no opposition between
EE, ESD and ES. Therefore, to look beyond labels and for a better comprehension of the text, the authors
invite the reader to consider as equivalent the following terms:
• "Sustainable Development" and "Sustainability" on the one hand, and
• "Environmental Education", "Education for Sustainable Development", "Education for Sustainability"
and “Sustainability Education” on the other hand.
3
This Task Force is one of seven instituted by UNEP in the context of the Marrakech Process, launched in 2003 in response to Chapter III of the
Johannesburg Implementation Plan, the final document of the 2002 World Summit, held in Johannesburg.
4
Respect for the environment has ancient roots in human cultures. For example, the popular saying "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children" is attributed to the indigenous culture of North America (Engelman, 2013). Caradonna (2014) states that the history
of sustainability can be traced back to the late 17th century, to the criticism of the impact of industrialisation and to the efforts to solve issues
impacting on forestry. However, it is since the 60s and 70s of the last century that concerns about the state of the environment and poverty, and
criticism to the prevailing development model originated the Environmental Education and Sustainable Development Movement.
5
As many definitions of the various “sustainable economy” labels exist, we here by provide the definitions of the two terms in the title of the article:
the concept of Low-Carbon economy arises from the need to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions into the atmosphere of all Greenhouse
Gases (GHG). The Circular Economy, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, is based on the principles of designing out waste and pollution,
keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems.
6
For example: Environmental Education if the author uses Environmental Education, Education for Sustainability if the author uses Education for
Sustainability, etc.

The concepts of Sustainable Development (SD) and Sustainability (S)
As Engelman (2013) reminds us, respect for sustainability may go far back in human cultures. However, it
was in the 60s and 70s that concerns about the state of the environment and about poverty, and criticism to
the prevailing development model began to spread globally (Scalabrino 2017).
The concept of Sustainable Development impregnated all discussions on development and the
environment since 1987, when the Brundtland Commission officially defined the concept. Nevertheless, this
definition (in Table A) was never fully shared, and many authors sought new definitions until, according to
Lozano (2008) at least 70 were compiled in 1992, and according to Dobson (1996) more than 300 in 1996.
The debate has been very lively and authors like Räthzel and Uzzell (2009) affirm that frequently SD has
come to mean whatever we want it to mean, enabling even antagonistic groups to formulate their goals
within it. As Engelman (2013) specifies, we live in an age of ‘sustainababble’, a cacophonous profusion of
uses of the term ‘sustainable’ that sometimes even lends itself to the corporate behaviour often called
greenwashing.
In the attempt of clarifying, to present the interrelated basic concepts found in many of the definitions of
SD and S, a varied sample of definitions has been collected in table A.
Nowadays, the principles found in many of these definitions are at the heart of the 2030 UN Agenda for
Sustainable Development. We could say that they have been more accurately classified and defined in 17
interconnected Sustainable Development Goals. As Kioupi and Voulvoulis (2019) suggest the SDGs help
understand sustainability and may be used by individuals and communities to envision sustainable futures.
In brief, inspired by these concepts and others such as “Prosperity” (Jackson 2011) and “desirable future”
(World Business Council for Sustainable Development – WBCSD- 2010), the authors conclude that fostering
sustainability consists in the pursue of a world in which human beings regain a more harmonious relationship
with the planet and all its inhabitants. This implies promoting respect to all species, including all human
beings, whether living close or far, whether at sight or not. In this world the authors envision, nature thrives
and there are no inequalities and injustices, nor premature deaths, abuses, violence, wars and extreme
migrations. There is no waste of natural resources for the pursue of a false sense of comfort, of happiness or
of wealth (Scalabrino 2017).
Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
or for Sustainability (ES)7
Many believe that achieving Sustainable Development is essentially a process of learning and a catalytic
vision, rather than a neatly defined technical concept (UNESCO 2002, 7). The field of Environmental Education
(EE) arose in the 1960s out of the growing awareness of the threat of environmental degradation and the
need for greater public awareness of the growing scientific and ecological problems of the environment
(Gough, 2013). Unlike most education movements, it was initiated by people outside of the education
community (McKeown 2002), mostly environmentalists and conservationists. Then it evolved in a multitude
7
To shorten, the more comprehensive wording “Environmental and Sustainability Education” could have been used both in Figure 1 and in this
heading. Yet, the authors did not because it is a more recent terminology, not often found in the older literature. Furthermore, because it can’t be
precisely translated to all languages (e.g.: the Latin ones). Nevertheless, to complete the picture, this wording also includes other encompassing terms
such as Sustainability education (not translatable in many languages) and Sustainable education. The latter calls for a shift in educational culture
based on critical awareness and deep change in educational values, assumptions and practice, that goes beyond integrating sustainability-related
topics and principles into curricula (Sterling, 2015. In practice, as at present, education often contributes to unsustainable living, probably because of
a lack of opportunity for learners to question their own lifestyles, the recasting of development calls for the reorientation of education towards
sustainable development (ECE group on competences on ESD, cited by UNECE, 2011).

of currents and perspectives. In 2002, García (2002) classified the different existing paradigms in three main
trends:
• The initial naturalistic model, focused on understanding the environment and ecological concepts.
• The environmentalist and conservationist model, with a focus on protection.
• An emerging model, close to Sustainable Development and social change, with a diversity of
positions, from those that do not question the established system to those that demand a profound
change in socioeconomic structures.
In the 1990s, Tilbury (1995), calling this emerging model ‘Environmental Education for Sustainability’
(EEFS), said that it built upon much of the principles of the EE of the 1980s, by adding relevance to the
curriculum, adopting an issue-based approach, by stressing the participation and action-orientated
dimensions in learning and by placing emphasis on values education. Further, it focused more sharply on
developing closer links between environmental quality, ecology and socioeconomics, and the political
threads which underlie it.
Sterling (2010) explains that Brundtland and the Rio Summit had a profound effect on the debate
concerning education for change. Thus, since 1992 the terms ES and ESD emerged internationally. Since then,
many different perspectives on their relationship emerged as well (Hesselink, Van Kempen and Wals 2000).
Nowadays, Education for Sustainable Development may be understood as an umbrella term for education
approaches centred on the wellbeing of people and planet, as environmental education, climate change
education, consumer education and global citizenship education (UNESCO 2012).
One of the most encompassing definitions underly that ESD:
• allows human beings to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a
sustainable future;
• empowers learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity,
economic viability and a just society, for present and future generations;
• is a holistic and transformational education that addresses pedagogy and the learning environment,
the learning content and outcomes;
• achieves its purpose by transforming social institutions so that they can respond creatively to global
sustainability challenges (UNESCO 2018).
The concept of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)
Since 1987, the definition of SD laid the basis for the coining of the concepts of SCP. Along with the main
milestones of the evolution of the notions of Sustainable Consumption (SC) and SCP, which correspond to
the most important international summits that started in 1992 (Table B in the Annex), about a dozen of
different definitions emerged (Table C in the Annex).
A re-elaboration of the basic concepts of SC, based on the definition of the Oslo Symposium on Sustainable
Consumption and Production summarized by UNEP (2010), is displayed below:
• To satisfy human basic needs (not desires and luxuries) and to promote a good quality of life through
decent standards of living.
• To share resources between everyone, rich and poor.
• To act with attention to present and future generations.
• To respect the equilibrium of ecosystems, minimize the use of natural resources and toxic
substances, the production of waste and pollution, through the adoption of a ‘life cycle’ perspective.

• To promote lifestyles that give greater value to social cohesion, local traditions and non-material
values.
• To promote peace, equity and justice.
• It involves the economic sector, governments, communities, families, individuals.
According to the United Nations Environmental Program - UNEP (UNEP 2011, 2012a), the key principles
of SCP are:
• Improving the quality of life without increasing environmental degradation and without putting at
risk the resource needs of future generations.
• ‘Decoupling’ economic growth from environmental degradation and the excessive use of natural
resources in the economic activities, applying "Life Cycle Thinking".
• ‘Leap frogging’, which refers to the fact that societies do not need to imitate other in their
development process.
• Protect from the rebound effect, where efficiency gains are reduced due to increased consumption.
Despite the many reformulations, the concept of “decoupling” economic growth from environmental
degradation, reducing the materials and energy necessary for products production, has still not given the
expected results. Jackson (2009) talks about ‘Myth of decoupling’, or myth of growth that has disappointed
the billion people who live on half of the cost of a coffee a day, and that has betrayed the fragile ecological
balances that sustain our lives.
UNEP (2012b), to accelerate the shift towards SCP, recommends all decision-makers to adopt and apply
alternative measures of progress, beyond GDP, aware that SCP offers opportunities such as creating new
markets, decent and green jobs (for example, organic markets, fair trade, sustainable housing, sustainable
transport and tourism, renewable energy, etc.), as well as a more efficient management of natural resources
capable of generating greater well-being. Furthermore, it constitutes an opportunity to leap towards more
efficient, environmentally friendly and competitive technologies (UNEP 2010, 13), such as for example energy
efficient appliances, energy saving light bulbs or construction insulating materials.
Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)
Räthzel and Uzzell (2009) assert that in a transformative Environmental Education the relations of
production, consumption and the political relations are the processes which produce the specific
environment and therefore, they are part of a transformative EE.
‘The origins of Education for Sustainable Consumption (ESC) lie in the development of EE… and Consumer
Education...’ (UNEP and the Marrakech Task Force on ESC 2010, 11), and they seem to be quite recent8
.
Aware that in the beginning, terms such as Responsible, Critical or Conscious Consumption were used,
and that the search in literature may not have been exhaustive enough, as displayed in table D of the Annex:
• The authors of this article found the first official definition of ESC only in 2008, in a document of the
Italian National Work Group on Sustainable Consumption.
• On ‘Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production (ESCP)’ they found only the definition of
the Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production (2011) of UNEP/MAP (Mediterranean Action
Plan) and almost no documentation.
8
Probably, the terms “Education for Sustainable Consumption” were used for the first time in 2003 […Author/s]. Then, “ESC” probably began
circulating globally in the Environmental Education sector, in 2007 after the launch, […Author/s] of the Working Group on "Education for Sustainable
Consumption", created within the framework of the Marrakech Process […Author/s].

UNEP and the Marrakech Task Force on ESC (2010) compiled the main aims of ESC, the general and specific
skills it encompasses, the many pedagogic methods and tools that characterise it and a great variety of its
topics.
In particular, on the topics of Education for Sustainable Consumption, the Marrakech Task Force on ESC
(2010) presents a ‘List adapted from the Guidelines of the Consumer and Citizenship Network vol. 1 (2008)’,
the ‘Topics of the Trainer's Guide on Sustainable Consumption: Youth for Change (YouthXchange) of UNEP-
UNESCO’ and ‘the ESC Issues as they currently appear in curriculum or in existing bibliography’.
These lists present innovative topics with respect to the traditional ones of EE. Among others, in addition
to mainly environmental issues: the history of social and economic development, the symbolic roles of
consumption, the consequences of production and consumption, financial services and instruments,
consumer protection policies, advertising and persuasion, global interdependence, human and worker rights,
health, safety, fashion...
In short, ESC (as well as the ESCP) in practice:
• Is an excellent starting point for ESD, as it addresses issues of concern such as identity, food, energy,
water, housing, transport, communication, work, fashion, entertainment, tourism...
• Is a means to develop human resources and to promote an active citizenship, critical, reflective and
capable of making informed decisions.
• Is essential to address the changing issues that appear on the agenda of modern society.
• Is part of the ongoing debate of values on what is ‘quality of life’.
• It should be part of formal, non-formal and lifelong education and adapt accordingly to the context
in which it is carried out, since its greatest challenges are promoting people's awareness of the crucial
role they play and their empowerment to choose responsible and sustainable lifestyles (UNEP and
the Marrakech Task Force on ESC 2010).
The elements of an ES as Transformative Education for Sustainable Consumption
and Production (ESCP) from a complex, critical and constructivist perspective
To spotlight the deepest meanings of the characteristics of the ES that better described the idea of
education portrayed in this article, the analysis of the literature was initially based on the four dimensions
that García (2002) proposed to classify the limits of EE and to organise the debate. According to the author,
these were: the aims, the contents, the psycho-educational aspects, learning contexts and recipients.
Nevertheless, interrelated sub-elements emerged from the literature review. This resulted in three
interlinked key dimensions and various sub-elements: Aims and learning outcomes (“Competences for
Sustainability”); Contents and Psycho-educational aspects (“Contexts, recipients, approaches and
components of ES” and “ES methods, resources and activities”).
To facilitate the reading, the majority of these “elements of Education for Sustainability” give name to the
sub-titles of this section. Yet, sometimes this is not completely possible. Remarkably, because the labels
chosen to name the elements of ES are the result of a complex comparison of a variety of terms and concepts
that evolved in the history of Environmental Education. Examples of the variety of wordings used to classify
the elements of ES, can be found in the case of the concepts of systemic thinking, values thinking, critical
thinking, future thinking, participation and collaboration, that can be traced back to the 1990s. Firstly they
have been seen as ‘elements/components’ (Tilbury 1995; Tilbury and Wortman 2004) of ES, later as ‘quality
criteria’ (Breiting, Mayer and Mogensen 2005) or as ‘approaches’ and ‘learning outcomes’ (Tilbury 2011). On
the other hand, in the scientific literature in Spanish, concepts such as complexity, the critical perspective,

values and action are described as elements of the ‘theoretical foundations’ of Education for Sustainability
(Bonil, Junyent, and Pujol 2010; García 2002). Nowadays all these concepts are mostly collected in
frameworks of ‘competences’.
Another example are the cognitive, emotional and behavioural learning outcomes defined by UNESCO
(2019) that recall what Bonil et al. (2010) call the dialogue among action, thinking and values that is necessary
to get closer to sustainability.
Aims and learning outcomes of ES
Generally, in formal education, aims and learning outcomes tend to emphasize the acquisition of
knowledge. Thus, it is clear that knowledge alone is not sufficient to enable individuals to take informed
action.
Among the countless aims of ES, it is important to highlight García’s (2002), who differentiates between
‘ultimate’ goals and the objectives he calls ‘mediators’. In the first category there are goals such as
environmental protection, change of the socio-economic structures or, as an anonymous stakeholder
(quoted by Buckler and Creech 2014, 17) concludes, to make of the world a better place to live. An example
of the second category, referencing UNESCO (1975, 3), is ‘to develop a world population that is aware of, and
concerned about, the environment and its associated problems, and which has the knowledge, skills,
attitudes, motivation and commitment to work individually and collectively towards solutions to current
problems, and the prevention of new ones’.
Hence, as UNESCO (2019) summarises, to achieve effective teaching and learning, ESD should offer a
holistic learning experience that puts learners on a pathway of empowerment and transformation. Therefore,
three interlinked learning dimensions need to be developed in conjunction:
▪ Cognitive: To acquire knowledge, understanding and critical thinking about local and global issues,
the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development, as well as the
interconnectedness and interdependency of different countries and populations.
▪ Social and emotional: To nourish a sense of belonging to a global human community, the sharing of
values and responsibilities, empathy, solidarity and respect for differences and diversity, as well as
responsibility for the future.
▪ Behavioural: To act effectively and responsibly individually and collectively at local, national and
global levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world.
Therefore,
ESD aims to develop competences that enable and empower individuals to reflect on their own actions by
considering their current and future social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts from both a local and a
global perspective. It requires individuals to act in complex situations in a sustainable manner (UNESCO 2017, 7).
Hence, as competences provide frameworks for operationalising educational goals (Klieme su TCO
certified, 2004), a focus on competences is appropriate (Vare su TCO certified 2019).
Competences for Sustainability
Sleurs (2008) defines ‘competence’ as what should be learned, as the abilities for action, concepts and
problem-solving strategies people should acquire through the learning process rather than what should be
taught.

While 'competences for Sustainability' expresses the attributes and qualities required by learners such as
actionable knowledge and relevant thinking skills. In addition, the willingness to take responsibility for one's
action to be able to engage in and address sustainability-related issues (Ofei-Manu and Didham 2018).
There is a recognised need for professionals who can deal with pressing sustainability challenges and, in
the case of educators, who know how to effectively involve their students in processes of positive societal
change (Mochizuki and Fadeeva 2010).
Many efforts have been made to identify, define and organise Sustainability and Education for
Sustainability competences. The resulting sustainability key competences identified, although presented in
laundry lists, should be considered interlinked and interdependent, as all of them contribute to the
sustainability problem-solving processes (Bianchi 2020). In their framework for educators, Vare et al. (2019)
propose the idea of an artist’s palette as a means of demonstrating the fluid and flexible nature of
competences as they might be combined by the educator in creative ways depending on the demands of the
context.
While in general there is a great extent of convergence on what key competences in sustainability are
(Bianchi 2020), there is still no consensus on a selection of them (Sahakian and Seyfang 2018).
The first attempts of selection of sustainability competences, such as Sleurs’ (2008), have been influenced
by the ‘Competencies We Need for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society’, identified in the DeSeCo
(Definition and Selection of Competencies) Project of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development - OECD (2005). In a recent literature review published by the European Commission, Bianchi
(2020) concludes that the most influential frameworks (Brundiers et al. 2020; Trad 2019; Lozano et al. 2017;
Wiek et al. 2016; Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman 2011) mainly focus on Higher Education.
Rieckmann, in two reports by UNESCO (2017, 2018) that address lifelong learning, concludes that an
agreement within the international ESD discourse can be found on the following key sustainability
competencies: systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic, collaboration, critical thinking, self-
awareness and integrated problem-solving.
For this theoretical study, among other frameworks of competences, the authors dedicated special
attention to the Competences of Education for Sustainable Consumption, selected by UNEP and the
Marrakech Task Force on ESC (2010). This Task force led by the Italian Ministry of Environment classified the
competences for Sustainable Consumption in general (Table 1) and subject specific competencies.
Table 1. The general competences for Sustainable Consumption drawn up by the Marrakech Task Force on Education
for Sustainable Consumption
General competences of Education for Sustainable Consumption
• Appreciation of nature and of human diversity and multiculturalism.
• Concern for justice, peace and cooperation.
• Self-awareness.
• Concern for quality.
• Appreciation of the interrelatedness of individuals and society.
• Capacity for empathy/compassion.
• Ability to make critical, reflected decisions.
• Ability to apply knowledge in practice.
• Ability to cope with one’s emotions.

• Information management skills.
• Capacity for generating new ideas.
• Capacity to adapt to new situations.
• Willingness and ability to be of service to others.
• Ability to recognize global perspectives
Note: List created by UNEP and the Marrakech Task Force on Education for Sustainable Consumption (2010, 29).
Contents of ES
The most common belief is that EE consists in the inclusion of biology and ecology in education and that
ES addresses key issues of sustainable development, such as climate change, biodiversity, energy, waste or
poverty. However, both EE and ES imply wider ranging teaching-learning processes (Scalabrino 2017).
There is no “one size fits all” ESD as political and socio-cultural realities and specific environmental and
ecological challenges make a contextual grounding of ESD essential (UNESCO, 2014b). Huckle and Wals
(2015) assert that sustainable citizenship embraces the private sphere of lifestyle and consumption patterns.
It requires a keen awareness of the connections, which exist between social actions, economic practices and
environmental processes. Thus, Education for Sustainability must encourage learners to explore the links
between their lives and wider environmental and development concerns by dealing with issues like
consumerism and how the practices of business and industry influence their lives. In doing so, it prepares
learners for contemporary reality (Tilbury, 1995) and helps them to cope with its complexity. Comprising
matters of life on Earth, with its natural, social, economic and cultural components, and the connection
among these components, anything can become the content of Education for Sustainability.
In practice, addressing the challenges of our time means to bring together the relationship between
different disciplines of knowledge. From the paradigm of complexity, the concept of “disciplinary dialogue”
is proposed (Bonil, Junyent and Pujol 2010). This dialogue should develop among the disciplines that usually
frame the contents (e.g.: physics, chemistry, biology, economy or engineering), but as well among the
disciplines that can contribute to more effective teaching-learning processes (e.g.: education, psychology,
sociology or anthropology).
Psycho-educational aspects of ES
Contexts, recipients, approaches and components of ES
In the literature, the term EE is associated to diverse concepts, such as informing, persuading, raising awareness,
knowing, disseminating, communicating, training, capacity-building, educating, participating, researching,
evaluating, teaching, developing, etc. without a clear indication of the learning models we are referring to in each
case (García 2000).
‘Learning’ for ESD refers to what is learned by those engaged in ESD (learners, facilitators, coordinators
and funders), and it occurs in a wide variety of contexts. It includes what happens in formal education, as
well as in daily and professional life. However, experiences that take place outside school are not at all well
documented in literature (Tilbury 2011). Yet, some interesting studies to approach adults ES do exist. For
example, the ones on the integration of sustainability across the university curriculum. Surely, these
experiences are very valuable for future professionals to develop their work from a sustainable perspective.
Furthermore, they entail a deep transformation of the education system (Azcárate, Navarrete and García
2012).

Tilbury and Wortman (2004), in presenting a study on ESD initiatives in schools, communities and
companies from around the world, highlight five ‘core components’, ‘recognised throughout the literature
as key elements of education for sustainability practice’ (Fien 1993, quoted by Tilbury and Wortman 2004,
pg. 11): imagining a better future, critical thinking and reflection, participation in decision-making,
partnerships and systemic thinking. Later, in a report prepared for UNESCO, Tilbury (2011) reiterates that
learning in ESD in addition to gaining knowledge, values and theories related to SD, ‘also means learning to:
ask critical questions; envision more positive futures; clarify one’s own values; think systemically; respond
through applied learning opportunities; and to explore the dialectic between tradition and innovation’ (13).
From the personal perspective of a professor of Sustainable construction and Sustainability, Murray
(2011) identifies six attributes or qualities for sustainable living (awareness, motivation, empowerment,
knowledge, skilful means and practice) which enable human beings to live and work with sustainability in
mind.
Similarly to other previously mentioned authors, García, Rodríguez and Solis (2008), suggest an integrative
model of EE, based on the epistemology of complexity, a critical perspective and constructivism.
Systemic thinking and the paradigm of complexity
‘As the world becomes more complex and interconnected, incremental change is giving way to the
instability of feedback loops, threshold effects and cascading disruptions…’ (World Economic Forum 2019,
65). Our global problems arise directly from the fact that we treat the world, a complex, interconnected,
finite, ecological–social–psychological–economic system, as if it was divisible, separable, simple and infinite
(Meadows 1982).
As a matter of fact, we could say we are not the knowledge society as we think, but the society of separate
knowledges, so that if we look only at the threads of the tapestry, we will not be able to see the whole
drawing (Morin 2011).
The formal education experience of most of us could be summarised as moving from a multi-disciplinary
approach in our early years, to an increasingly reductionist experience in which we have become more
specialised (e.g.: Ph.D. or Vocational Education and Training studies) and less prepared for the inter-
connected complexity of the world (Strachan 2009). According to the most popular view of science, in
principle everything is predictable and controllable; if some event is not in the present, it will be in the future
(Bateson 1979).
In brief, the complex nature of sustainability challenges requires moving from a reductionist culture to
one of complexity (Mayer 1998). It needs, using Kuhn’s (1962) wording, a ‘paradigm shift’, a revolutionary
change in our worldview. However, as Bonil and Pujol (2005) claim, to understand the world phenomena as
complex systems it does not mean to progress towards sustainability. It is through the dialogue among an
action model, a way of thinking and a value framework that we can get closer to sustainability. EE has to
prepare individuals to be able to build their way of feeling, thinking and acting on the world, bringing the
three elements into play simultaneously (Bonil et al. 2010).
The critical perspective and values
It allows learners to analyse the tensions between their own and other people’s objectives, interests and
personal values, to the point of enabling them to deconstruct rooted social values and question their world
view (Scalabrino 2017).
Already in 1973 Schumacher maintained that there can be little doubt that mankind is in mortal danger,
not because of a shortness of scientific and technological knowhow, but because we tend to use it without
wisdom. More education can help us only if it produces more wisdom. The essence of education is the

transmission of values that have to become our own, so that we think and feel with them. So that, through
them, we look at, interpret, and experience the world (Schumacher 1973).
Mayer (1998) reminds, as pointed out by Posch (1993, as quoted in Mayer 1998) in a conference, that it
is necessary to distinguish between ‘exposed’ values and really used ones. The author adds that in order to
face the difficulties of values education, one could assume that values, as knowledge, can be constructed.
However, to do this, as in any case of deep change, we have to offer time and occasions to discuss and reflect.
You have to renounce to change behaviours in short periods of time and try to set the conditions for longer
term change.
Constructivism
From a constructivist perspective, Ausubel (1963) claims that the most important factor influencing
learning is what learners already know and their past experiences. Sure enough, ‘Meaningful learning’ occurs
when learners relate new concepts to existing familiar ones. This permits longer retention than rote learning.
Thus, educators should explore learners’ prior knowledge in order to make the best use of it in their
education practices.
However, in 2002 García (2002) asserted that in Spain, EE was developed as if learners’ minds were blank.
He (García 2002) attributed it to the lack of awareness and to a weak establishment of the constructivist
perspective. He argues that this may be part of a broader problem: the polarization in the environmental
aspects to the detriment of the educational ones. The fact that the traditional promoters of EE were
naturalists, ecologists or technicians of the administration, outside the education sector, has led to a very
simplistic and incomplete idea of EE.
Hence, it is essential to adapt ES interventions to the apprentices, based on the analysis of their previous
knowledge, interests, values and concerns, and to provide constant feedback to the interventions through
the exploration of their reactions and learnings (Scalabrino 2017). The educator must start from what the
student knows, and not only from what he does not or is considered he ‘knows wrong’ (Oliva 1999).
ES, through constructivist methodologies can facilitate the discovering of the interconnections between
socio-economic-environmental problems, solutions, personal feelings and interests. To see these
interconnections can lead to deep reflection and to motivate apprentices to apply their learning in everyday
life. Hence it is essential also to foster a more systemic and complex (cognitive and affective) worldview
(Scalabrino 2017), considered that the weakening of the global perception leads to the weakening of the
senses of responsibility and solidarity (Morin 1999).
The transformative approach in education
Often ‘education’ is associated with what occurs in the classroom, nevertheless learning occurs in a variety
of everyday life contexts (e.g.: media, family and social relations).
Referring especially to formal education, Schumacher (1997) points out that the volume of education
increased but also socio-environmental problems did. In general, there is no correlation between high levels
of education per se and sustainable behaviour, as highly educated people have created or contributed to the
challenges that threaten our survival (Orr 2004)9
. If still more education is to save us, it would have to take
us into the depth of things (Schumacher 1997).
9
Generalising, the authors here refer to the widespread formal education mentioned in the section “Systemic thinking and the paradigm of
complexity”. See Strachan (2009), Meadows (1982) and Morin (2011).

ESD is generally understood as an education which empowers learners to take informed decisions and responsible
actions for environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society... It is about lifelong learning and it is an
integral part of quality education… It achieves its purpose by transforming society (UNESCO 2014a, 12).
The concept of transformative learning arose from the work of the adult pedagogist Mezirow (1978), and
initially it was not linked to the big challenges of social change and sustainability (Sterling 2011).
To explain what transformative learning is, Sterling (2011) draws on Bateson‘s (1972) model of learning
levels. In practice, the author (Sterling 2011) describes the first order of learning as being content-led. This,
concerned fundamentally with ‘information transfer’, does not normally challenge the assumptions or beliefs
of the learner, as in most of the learning promoted in formal education. The second refers to significant
changes in the way of thinking due to an examination of personal assumptions and values. Transformative
learning instead, refers to a third level of learning, which permits seeing our worldview rather than with our
worldview (Sterling 2011).
This shift in worldview, although for someone is inspiring, often involves resistance on the part of the
learner, as it can be deeply uncomfortable or traumatic. For this reason, transformative learning can be
difficult to facilitate or design, and can be a lengthy process over time (Sterling and Baines 2002, quoted in
Sterling 2011).
Ultimately,
transformative environmental education should be about finding new forms of democratic participation that aim
not to answer given questions but to formulate new questions and redefine problems from the point of view of
those who have so far been the objects of education, but need to become its subjects (Räthzel and Uzzell 2009,
275).
ES methods, resources and activities
Awareness of a problem, accessibility of extensive information on its origins and impacts, and, even, stated concern
about it do not guarantee action. Nor they imply that, if taken, the action(s) will be appropriate or effective (Glasser
2007, 42).
The pursuit of sustainability demands new approaches, different from the ones traditionally used in
education. It calls for processes that, rather than convey just a body of knowledge, facilitate people’s
involvement (Tilbury, Hamú and Goldstein 2002, quoted by Tilbury and Wortman 2004).
Many scholars suggest that educators generally associate ESD with active and participatory learning
processes (Tilbury 2011). These have to ‘engage the learner and make a real difference to the learner’s
understanding, thinking and ability to act’ (Sterling 2012, 36).
A common teaching method, to be used for all types of topics or educational goals, does not exist (Blake,
Sterling and Goodson 2013). Diverse methods must be chosen depending also on the target learners and the
learning context. These methods have to see learners as active agents of change rather than passive
recipients of pre-defined knowledge. In this way, the development of transformative learning, pedagogy or
andragogy (in the case of adult learners) can be supported (LLLP 2020).
Various authors identified and grouped the main ‘active, participative and experiential learning methods’
(Sterling 2012, 36). Under this premise, for this study synthesized in table 2, the following classifications were
analysed: the differences between transmissive and transformative approaches (Sterling 2001; Consumer
Citizenship Network 2008), the pedagogical approaches discussed in ESD (Missimer and Connell 2012), the
pedagogic methods used for the ‘Schumacher College’ case study (Blake et al. 2013), the ESD pedagogies
commonly adopted in higher education, grouped by Tilbury (2011) adapting a study by Cotton and Winter

(2010, quoted by Tilbury 2011), and the synthesis of ESD pedagogical approaches done by Lozano su TCO
certified (2017).
Synthesis of a theoretical framework to address ES as ‘Transformative Education
for Sustainable Consumption and Production (ESCP) from a complex, critical and
constructivist perspective’
Definitively, conversely to the transmissive education on Sustainability issues, the authors of this article
believe that an ESCP, whose design, implementation and evaluation integrates the contributions of the
authors quoted in this article, would be more effective in fostering the skills, knowledge, values and attitude
needed for individual and collective change towards sustainability. This is especially true in those
organizations engaged in some sort of sustainability process, such as the implementation of energy saving
and efficiency, Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Public Procurement and Life Cycle Thinking.
A synthesis of the diverse elements that are important to address ES as a transformative ESCP from a
complex, critical and constructivist perspective, are represented in table 2.
It is to be stressed that the term ESCP has not been chosen to add fuel to the debate on what term is the
best one to use to indicate an ‘education for a prosperous future’. As anticipated, ESCP is not a new term in
the panorama of what Sterling (2010) calls the adjectival educations10
. It has been preferred because it better
expressed the final vision towards which, in the opinion of the authors, education should innovate: a truly
just and healthy world. In other words, as ‘the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development… failed
to acknowledge or challenge neoliberalism as a hegemonic force blocking transitions towards genuine
sustainability’ (Huckle and Wals 2015, 491), the researchers wanted to emphasize that to build a prosperous
future for all, ESD has to play a vital role in changing Business As Usual.
Furthermore, it is to be emphasized that not all the important contributions that exist in the literature
could be collected in table 2 (neither in the previous pages). In some cells, the most comprehensive ideas
selected from the literature have been displayed with the citation to their source. In others, a very personal
synthesis based on the literature and on the professional educational experiences of the authors. For
instance, existing countless topics that, according to the needs and the time available, you may deal with in
a teaching-learning process for SCP, the authors propose some indispensable ‘Thematic organisers’ that
include the concepts that, in their opinion, are the most important for SCP.
10
E.g.: Peace, Development, Global and Environmental educations.

Table 2 Theoretical framework to address a ‘Transformative Education for Sustainable Consumption and Production
(ESCP) from a complex, critical and constructivist perspective’
Main components/dimensions of an Education for Sustainability (ES) as ‘transformative ESCP from a
complex, critical and constructivist perspective’
AIMS
AND
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
Ultimate aims The wellbeing of the Planet and all its inhabitants thanks to Sustainable
Consumption and Production for a truly just and healthy world for all.
Specific objectives ‘To develop citizens with the skills, understanding, and motivation to
address the potentially overwhelming global challenges’ (Vare et al. 2019,
18).
Additional specific objectives of educational programs or activities must be
tailored to the recipients. In this process, it is crucial to thoroughly consider
their ages and backgrounds, previous knowledge and interests, learning
needs, etc.
Below some qualities and competences that, in general, may need to be
developed or strengthen:
‘Qualities for
sustainable living’
(Murray 2011).
• Awareness: of the need of change, the understanding that sustainability
issues are complex and interconnected and the acceptance that we as
individuals can be part of the solution.
• Motivation: in the context of sustainability is the deep intention to act
sustainably, which we achieve when we recognize the connection between
our core values and sustainable behaviour.
• Empowerment: arises when we are able to override our internal barriers to
change due to our self-limiting beliefs.
• Knowledge: the information we need to be able to make effective
decisions.
• Skilful means: is about promoting positive outcomes through the wise
application of knowledge and skills.
• Practice: Sustainability practice is about integrating our values, attitudes,
beliefs, knowledge and skills in the pursuit of positive ends. Change takes
time and practice, trial and error (Murray 2011).
Competences for
SCP and to lead
change towards
greater
sustainability
• Systemic thinking (Life Cycle Thinking, local-global, cross-disciplinarity -
interrelations between economic, social, environmental and cultural
issues).
• Dealing with complexity and uncertainty (courage and conscious and risk
taking, optimistic realism, perseverance).
• Long-term vision (of alternative futures).
• Coherence between values, mission, communication and action (ethics,
sense of justice, commitment, responsibility...).
• Critical thinking.
• Ability to read data and graphics.
• Willingness and capacity to continuously update on local-global socio-
economic-environmental-cultural issues and on sustainable solutions and
alternatives (learning to learn).

• Alternative perspectives (e.g.: North-South), active listening and empathy,
emotional intelligence, non-violent communication, collaboration and
participation.
• Empowerment for individual and collective action, creativity and capacity
for positive innovation (problem solving).
• Reflection, evaluation, self-evaluation and evolution.
• Multiplying capacity (leading by example, leading for sustainability in one’s
own area of influence…).
CONTENTS
AND
TOPICS
‘Thematic
organisers’*
• What: main theme of an educational process.
• Where to: reflexion on what future do we want.
• Why SCP: global view of the challenges and interconnections among the
social, economic and environmental aspects; between the local and global;
the past, the present and the future; the risks and the opportunities.
• How SCP: solutions and good practices. Development of leadership as
change agents, motivation, critical thinking, capacity to cope with
complexity and uncertainty, vision…
• Who can act: pro-active citizens/workers (politicians, employees, students,
officers…)/volunteers/mums and dads.
• With whom: the importance of partnership and main institutional policies.
Stakeholders and their roles.
• Where SCP: spheres of daily life such as food, water, architecture, energy,
transport, goods and services (materials, waste, pollution…).
• When: an overview of the story of SD and reflection on the urgency for
change shows action has to be immediate.
* We suggest these essential ESCP ‘Thematic organisers’, that include
important topics and concepts as the ones we collected in the cell below
(among which to choose), that can help the development of Sustainability
competences.
Main topics • Socio-economic-environmental issues, risks and opportunities: value, price
and externalities, market and GDP/annual turnover, tax evasion/ illegality,
work quality, world population, poverty and undernourishment, emerging
economies and acquisitive power, hyper-consumerism, conflicts, violence,
slavery, migrations, natural resources, biodiversity, pollution
(bioaccumulation, endocrine disruptors, antibiotics…), climate change and
social-environmental-economic consequences (greenhouse effect,
anthropogenic vs. natural causes, costs, co-benefits…), opportunities,
innovation, jobs, life quality/happiness, health…
• Solutions and good practices: Sustainability, Sustainable Development
Goals, Social Responsibility, Sustainable Consumption and Production,

alternative economies (Circular, Green, Blue, etc. economies),
sustainability tools (product life cycle, eco-design and ecolabels, ecologic,
water and Carbon footprints; energy saving and efficiency, renewable
energy, bioclimatic architecture, sustainable transport, food and tourism;
fair trade; Green Procurement, sustainable events, eco-innovation…)
CONSTRUCTIVISM
AND
TRANSFORMATIVE
PEDAGOGIES
Methodological
foundations
Keeping always in mind the integrative model of EE (García, Rodríguez and
Solis 2008) that includes the complex, critical and constructivist perspective,
we suggest the following learning process general guiding principles:
• Learner-centred approaches to promote learners’ active construction of
knowledge starting from their personal interests and previous cognitive
and affective knowledge.
• Adaptation, pre-conceptions and conflict with new knowledge.
• Action-reflection oriented learning.
• Values clarification, feelings mobilisation.
• Continuous evaluation and feedback.
• Systemic view from local to global, between past, present and future.
Complexity, uncertainty, critical thinking. Seeing the interconnections
between socio-environmental-economical-cultural challenges, personal
daily choices and personal values and interests. In business it is important
to see the interconnections of global challenges, business risks and
sustainable solutions.
• Action –research.
• Problem-solving, change, conflict management and collaboration.
• Emphasis in promoting empathy and facilitating the recognition of the
others’ and the own visions.
• Attention in reinforcing motivation and inspiring action and leadership…
Pedagogical
methods, resources
and activities*
Strategic questioning, individual reflection, work groups, debate, games, role
play, mind and concept maps, knowledge modelling, images, videos, texts,
presentations, humour, music and arts, Life Cycle Analysis, guided field trips,
research, online calculators, problem solving, envisioning, back-casting,
brainstorming, case studies…
*Most of these tools can be used also in online learning, thanks to modern
online applications.
Education for
Sustainability
areas/contexts
Participation*, Education and Training, Information and Communication,
Research and evaluation (Classification of the Ministry of Environment of
Spain 1999)
*Examples are Agenda 21 and green and transition teams in organisations.
Note for the user:

Although at different extents, all the elements identified in the table, should be considered, to plan, design, adapt or
assess ES activities. The different pedagogical methods should be used in an appropriate way, so to design the
educational process according to the educator/s’ expertise, the type of recipients and the planned objectives, and
following a coherent unifying thread that gives it meaning. The contents and the methods must be tailored to the
(expressed or hidden) previous knowledge and interests of the learners. The process and its implementation must
be continuously readapted according to the feedback collected through the constant observation of the learners’
reactions and the evaluation of the results (Scalabrino 2017). To exemplify, the educator (or the group of
professionals involved in a learning process) should be like a good cook capable of chopping, measuring, and adding
the best ingredients, in the right proportions and at the right times for adequate cooking, and so that all the
combination constitutes a nutritious and tasty meal for the palate of the diners.
Note: Revision of a personal elaboration (Scalabrino 2017) based on the literature review and the cited authors. Where
there is no indication of the source, the expressed ideas are of the authors of this article, based on the literature review
and their professional experience.
The theoretical framework synthesised in table 2, already revised once, must be intended as an
instrument that can still be adapted, refined and improved.
The components/ dimensions displayed can be combined (not all at the same time) in a coherent way to
design educational activities and programs (See the “Note for the user” in Table 2 for more details). They can
serve to inspire them or to characterize them, or to reflect on educators’ own practice, for evaluation,
research and other purposes.
The challenges of an ES/ESD as ESCP
The rapidly changing social, technological and economic circumstances to which ESC is related (UNEP
2010, 24) disclose considerable challenges in realising the full potential of ESD: the need for further alignment
of the education and sustainable development sectors, for a stronger political support to implement ESD on
a systemic level, and for more research, innovation, monitoring and evaluation to develop and prove the
effectiveness of ESD good practices (Buckler and Creech 2014).
In 2007, the member states of the United Nations European Economic Commission -UNECE- reported that
the lack of competence among teachers and educators was the most significant “bottleneck” facing the
promotion of ESD in their countries (Vare et al. 2019).
Sure enough, in light of all the elements of ES identified in this article, it is to be highlighted that the good
ES professional, although at different extents, should always keep them in mind (See the “Note for the user”
in Table 2 for more details).
In addition, more challenges remain:
• As the interconnected issues of SCP are countless, evolving and renewing continuously, the educator-
facilitator must be very motivated, able and enabled to a continuous cross disciplinary update. The
cost of this is a further limit for the diffusion of ES in the present economic context, where the ‘low
cost’ culture is diffuse and the association of ES with voluntary work and NGOs is rooted.
• For the same above reasons, to put into practice sustainable lifestyles, ES learners have to develop a
positive attitude to learning to learn, to change and to constructive critical thinking.

• Global issues, their interconnections and unintended consequences can be overwhelming for
students and can lead to frustration. This is a further challenge for the educator during the learning
process. Furthermore, it is key for the improvement of his own competences.
• In the case of business Education for Sustainability, the educator has to deal with the implications on
educational quality, of the different logics of business ES, classified by Andersson and Öhman (2016)
in ‘profit-, social- or radical-oriented’. This applies to ES in any kind of organisation.
• The impact of educational interventions may be long-term, rather than immediate and measurable
(O’Flaherty and Liddy 2017). For this reason, solid policies supported by appropriate funding are
urgently needed to integrate quality ESCP into all lifelong learning contexts. In a special way, the
urgent need to address global challenges in this decade, demands to boost the involvement of adults.
Conclusions
In a growing body of literature, showing the potential for the greatest return on investment, it is clear
that quality education allows people to live healthier, happier and more productive and sustainable lives
(Ofei-Manu and Didham 2018).
This theoretical analysis was undertaken to elucidate which educational processes could be more effective
to favour the development of relevant citizen knowledge and values to contribute from everyday life to a
sustainable economy and overall, a better future.
To provide a basis for engaging the debate about what should constitute EE in the 1990s, Tilbury (1995)
identified a number of components which, in 1993, represented the new focus of EE as Environmental
Education for Sustainability (EEFS). In the same way, the aspiration of this article is that the proposed
framework could serve to recall the adequate attention on the urgency for action, as humanity has less than
a decade to act against a devastating global temperature rise. Further, it is aimed to a more intensive work
to improve the quality and expand the spreading of ES, re-proposed in this study as ‘Transformative ESCP
from a complex, critical and constructivist perspective’.
The proposed framework includes the main objectives of ESCP, its pedagogical approaches, competences,
interconnected topics and pedagogical resources. Hence, although this article only draws a synthesis, the
theoretical framework for ES portrayed in these pages is one of the most comprehensive, in terms of
elements that it describes. Nevertheless, the authors are aware that an in-depth understanding of this paper
is not possible for all the stakeholders that have the potential to transform the theoretical framework in
effective practice. In many cases, only tailored training courses for its use could facilitate the implementation
of the ideas portrayed.
Other limits lie in the fact that there are many elements of the framework that would need further analysis
and reflection. Among these aspects, the practical implications of the work with values and emotions or the
contents that are fundamental to build a holistic perspective and that are rarely approached in educational
programs. Specific research in neuroscience applied to ES would be of great value to effectively assess
different approaches and methods, and the educators’ and recipients’ reactions during their cognitive and
emotional learning processes.
In practice, as we are already experiencing the negative effects of our inconsiderate behaviours (as in the
case of climate change), the framework is intended as a basis for inspiring tangible political measures to
integrate ESCP into all lifelong learning contexts and for reflection on current education and ES practices. It
can serve to innovate the more traditionally naturalistic approaches of Environmental Education or to
characterize and evaluate educational activities for sustainability. It can provide ideas for the design of

updating activities for professionals of the formal, non-formal and informal education and training sectors,
in order to develop and spread the competences that are key to the transition to a Circular and Low Carbon
Economy.
It could be useful to refocus the design of lifelong learning activities around aspects of SCP related to
adults’ life and work. For example, although extremely challenging, it could be used to design educational
programs for stakeholders such as sustainability professionals (without education in education), policy
makers and media professionals.
It could activate or accompany processes of change towards sustainability, in organizations such as
companies, public entities and NGOs, where usually if any education is carried out, it is reduced to a mere
transmission of information. The authors believe that this synergy between sustainability processes and
education, if guided and facilitated by expert professionals with all the necessary ESD competences, could
unleash the full potential of these processes and a more prosperous future could be achieved quicker and
effectively.
In short, it could serve to overcome the sustainability blunders11
(Doppelt 2003) faced by organizations
trying to integrate sustainability. The authors of this article, for example, used it for a study on the processes
of three companies towards sustainability (Scalabrino 2017) and for the design and evaluation of lifelong
learning activities, such as a training of public officers to promote Green Public Procurement (Scalabrino,
Navarrete and Oliva 2019). Thanks also to these experiences, table 2 evolved into a more comprehensive
version, which the authors wish it will inspire new revisions and adaptations, as well as new research and
innovations to address the challenges that ESCP faces.
Conflicts of Interest: The author/s declare no conflict of interest.
References
Andersson, P., and Öhman, J. 2016. “Logics of business education for sustainability.” Environmental
Education Research 22(4): 463-479. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1015493
Ausubel, D.P. 1963. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune and Stratton
Azcárate, P., Navarrete, A., and García, E. 2012. “Aproximación al nivel de inclusión de la sostenibilidad en
los curricula universitarios.” Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado 16(2): 105-119.
Barth, M., Fischer, D., Michelsen, G., Nemnich, C., and Rode, H. 2012. “Tackling the knowledge‐action gap in
sustainable consumption: insights from a participatory school programme”. Journal of Education for
Sustainable Development 6 (2), 301–312. DOI: 10.1177/0973408212475266.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco, CA, USA: Chandler.
Bateson, G. 1979. Mind and nature. New York: Dutton.
Bianchi, G. 2020. Sustainability competences. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN
978-92-76-28408-6. doi:10.2760/200956, JRC123624
11
In short, Doppelt (2003) describes the following blunders: Patriarchal Thinking That Leads to a False Sense of Security; A “Silo” Approach to
Environmental and Socio-Economic Issues; No Clear Vision of Sustainability; Confusion over Cause and Effect; Lack of Information; Insufficient
Mechanisms for Learning; Failure to Institutionalize Sustainability.

Blake, J., Sterling, S., and Goodson, I. (2013). “Transformative Learning for a Sustainable Future: An
Exploration of Pedagogies for Change at an Alternative College.” Sustainability 5: 5347-5372. doi:
10.3390/su5125347
Bonil, J., Junyent, M., and Pujol, R.M. 2010. “Educación para la Sostenibilidad desde la perspectiva de la
complejidad.” Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias (Número Extraordinario): 198-
215. doi: 10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2010.v7.iextra.05
Bonil, J., and Pujol, R. M. 2005. “La Aventura de Integrar la complejidad en la educación científica de la
ciudadanía.” Enseñanza de las ciencias Numero Extra VII Congreso: 1-4.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/13309881.pdf
Breiting, S., Mayer, M. and Mogensen, F. 2005. Quality Criteria for ESD-Schools. Guidelines to enhance the
quality of Education for Sustainable Development. The “School Development through Environmental
Education” (SEED) and the “Environment and School Initiatives” (ENSI) networks.
Broman, G., and Robèrt, K.-H. 2017. “A framework for strategic sustainable development.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 140: 17-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121
Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G.,
Harre, N., Jarchows, M., Losche, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., Zint, M.
2020. “Key competencies in sustainability in higher education: toward an agreed-upon reference
framework.” Sustainability Science 1-17.
Buckler, C. and Creech, H. 2014. Shaping the Future We Want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development (2005-2014) Final Report. Paris: UNESCO. http://doi.org/10.5363/tits.11.4_46
Cañal De León, P., and Vilches, A. 2009. “El rechazo del desarrollo sostenible: ¿una crítica justificada?”
Enseñanza de las Ciencias Número Extra VIII Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en Didáctica de las
Ciencias, Barcelona: 676-679. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/293818
Caradonna, J.L. 2014. Sustainability: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Houghton: Mifflin.
Centro de Actividad Regional para la Producción Limpia – UNEP/MAP. 2011. Inspírate Educar en consumo y
producción sostenibles. http://www.cprac.org/docs/12914-educar_en_el_consumo_cast.pdf
Consumer Citizenship Network. 2008. Education for Sustainable Development “Images and Objects”: Active
Methodology Toolkit. Hamar, Norway: Hedmark University College.
https://www.developmenteducation.ie/media/documents/ESD%20Toolkit%5B1%5D.pdf
Cotton, D., and Winter, J. 2010. “It’s not just Bits of Paper and Light Bulbs: A review of Sustainability
Pedagogies and their Potential for use in Higher Education.” In Sustainability Education: Perspectives and
Practice Across Higher Education, edited by Jones, P., Selby, D., and Sterling, S., 39-54. London: Earthscan.
Dobson, A. 1996. “Environment sustainabilities: An analysis and a typology.” Environmental Politics 5(3):
401–428.
Doppelt, B. 2003. “Overcoming the seven sustainability blunders.” The systems thinker 14 (5).

Engelman, R. 2013. “Beyond Sustainababble.” State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? 3(16).
Worldwatch Institute. Doi: 10.5822/ 978-1-61091-458-1_1
European Association for the Education of Adults - EAEA. 2018. EAEA background paper: Adult education and
sustainability. EAEA.
Fischer, D. 2011. “Educational Organisations as ‘Cultures of Consumption’: Cultural Contexts of Consumer
Learning in Schools.” European Educational Research Journal 10 (4): 595-610.
Gao, C., Hou, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, H. and Gong, W. 2006. “Education for regional sustainable development:
experiences from the education framework of HHCEPZ project”. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 994-1002
García, J.E. 2000. “Modelos de desarrollo y modelos de aprendizaje en el Libro Blanco de la Educación
Ambiental.” Ciclos. 7: 33-36.
García, J.E. 2002. “Los problemas de la Educación Ambiental: ¿Es posible una Educación Ambiental
integradora?” Investigación en la Escuela. 46: 5–25.
García, J.E., Rodríguez, F., and Solís, M.C. 2008. Haciendo Agenda 21 Escolar. El caso de punta Umbría. Sevilla:
Consejería de Medio Ambiente.
Glasser, H. 2007. “Minding the gap: the role of social learning in linking our stated desire for a more
sustainable world to our everyday actions and policies”. In Social learning towards a sustainable world, edited
by Arjen E.J. Wals, 35-61. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Accessed September 2019
http://edepot.wur.nl/141070
Gough, A. 2013. “The Emergence of Environmental Education Research: A ‘History’ of the Field”. American
Educational Research Association (AERA) International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education.
London: Routledge.
Griswold, W. 2016. “Sustainability Adult Education: Learning to Re-Create the World”. Paper presented at
the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) Commission for International Adult
Education (CIAE) Annual Pre-Conference (65th, Albuquerque, NM, Nov 6-8, 2016)
Hardin, G. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science 162 (3859), 1243-1248.DOI:
10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hesselink, F., Van Kempen, P., and Wals, A. 2000. ESDebate: International Debate on Education for
Sustainable Sevelopment. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Huckle, J. and Wals, A. 2015. “The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: business as usual
in the end.” Environmental Education Research. 21(3): 491-505. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1011084
IPCC. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers”. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R.
Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC. 2013. “Summary for Policymakers”. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M.
Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
IPCC. 2018. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts
of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways,
in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development,
and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla,
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis,
E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological
Organization.
IPCC. 2021. “Summary for Policymakers”. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.
Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield,
O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Italian National Work Group on ‘Sustainable Consumption’. 2008. Documento di Firenze su (produzione e)
consumo sostenibile. http://www.arpat.toscana.it/notizie/arpatnews/2009/allegati/136.pdf
Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity without growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (1e). London: Earthscan.
Kioupi, V. and Voulvoulis, N. 2019. “Education for Sustainable Development: A Systemic Framework for
Connecting the SDGs to Educational Outcomes”. Sustainability. 11(6104)
Kuhn, T.S. 1962.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lifelong Learning Platform - LLLP. 2020. Lifelong Learning for Sustainable Societies Position Paper.
http://lllplatform.eu/lll/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/LL4SS-4.pdf
Lozano, R. 2008. “Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally.” Journal of Cleaner Production. 16(17):
1838–1846.
Lozano, R., Merrill, M.Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., and Lozano F.J. 2017. “Connecting Competences and
Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and
Framework Proposal.” Sustainability. 9: 1-15.
Mayer, M. 1998. “Educación ambiental: de la acción a la investigación.” Enseñanza de las ciencias. 16 (2):
217-231.
McKeown, R. 2002. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit. Center for Geography and Environmental
Education, University of Tennessee. http://www.esdtoolkit.org
Meadows, D.H. 1982. “Whole Earth Models and Systems.” The CoEvolution. Quarterly, Summer: 98–108.
Meadows D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., and Behrems, W.W. 1972. Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club
of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books.
Mezirow, J. 1978. “Perspective transformation.” Adult Education. 28(2): 10–100.

Missimer, M., and Connell, T. 2012. “Pedagogical Approaches and Design Aspects to Enable Leadership for
Sustainable Development.” Sustainability. 5(3): 172-181.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. 1999. Libro Blanco de la Educación Ambiental en España.
http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/ceneam/recursos/documentos/blanco_tcm7-13510.pdf
Mochizuki, Y., and Fadeeva, Z. 2010. “Competences for sustainable development and sustainability
Significance and challenges for ESD.” Int. J. Sustain. Educ. High. Educ. 11: 391–403.
Morin, E. 1999. Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO.
Morin, E. 2011. La via. Barcelona: Paídos.
Murray, P. 2011. The Sustainable Self: A Personal Approach to Sustainability Education. Oxford: Earthscan.
Ofei-Manu, P., and Didham, R.J. 2018. “Identifying the factors for sustainability learning performance.”
Journal of Cleaner Production. 198: 1173-1184.
O’Flaherty, J., and Liddy, M. 2017. “The impact of development education and education for sustainable
development interventions: a synthesis of the research.” Environmental Education Research. doi:
10.1080/13504622.2017.1392484
Oliva, J. M. 1999. “Algunas reflexiones sobre las concepciones alternativas y el cambio conceptual.”
Enseñanza de las Ciencias. 17(1): 93-107.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD. 2005. The Definition and Selection of Key
Competencies: Executive Summary. Accessed September 2019 https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD. 2008. Promoting sustainable
consumption: Good practices in OECD countries. Paris: OECD.
Orr, D. 2004. Earth in Mind. On Education, Environment and the Human Prospect. Washington DC, USA: Island
Press.
OXFAM. Extreme inequality and essential services. https://www.oxfam.org/en/what-we-do/issues/extreme-
inequality-and-essential-services
OXFAM. 5 shocking facts about extreme global inequality and how to even it up.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-it
Räthzel, N., and Uzzell, D. 2009. “Transformative environmental education: a collective rehearsal for reality.”
Environmental Education Research. 15(3): 263–277.
Rio+20 Education Group. 2012. The Education We Need for the World We Want.
http://rio20.net/en/propuestas/the-education-we-need-for-the-world-we-want/
Sahakian M., and Seyfang, G. 2018. “A sustainable consumption teaching review: From building
competencies to transformative learning.” Journal of Cleaner Production. 198: 231-241.
Scalabrino, C. 2017. El papel de la Educación para la Sostenibilidad en la evolución a una economía con
futuro. Estudio de caso. [The role of Education for Sustainability in the evolution to the future economy.
Case study.] PhD thesis, University of Cadiz.

Scalabrino, C., Navarrete, A., and Oliva, J. M. (in press). “Promoting Life Cycle Thinking: a training of public
officers for Green Public Procurement”. PLATE Product Lifetimes And The Environment 2019 – Conference
Proceedings. N.F. Nissen and M. Jaeger-Erben (Eds.). TU Berlin University Press. ISBN 978-3-7983-3124-2
(print), ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9 (online). 691-698. doi: 10.14279/depositonce-9253
Schumacher, E.F. 1973. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.
Schumacher, E.F. 1997. ‘This I believe’ and other essays. Dartington: Green Books.
Sleurs, W. 2008. Competencies for ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) Teachers, a Framework to
Integrate ESD in the Curriculum of Teacher Training Institutes.
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/inf.meeting.docs/EGC/CSCT_Handbook_11_01_08.pdf
Stapp, W.B. et al. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education,
1(1), 30-31.
St. Clair, R. 2003. “Words for the world: Creating critical environmental literacy for adults”. In D. Clover & L.
Hill (Eds.), Special Issue: Environmental adult education: Ecological learning, theory, and practice for
socioenvironmental change. New directions for adult and continuing education, 99. (pp. 69-78). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons.
Sterling, S. 2001. Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Totnes, UK: Green Books.
Sterling, S. 2010. “Living in the Earth Towards an Education for Our Times.” Journal of Education for
Sustainable Development. 4(2): 213-218.
Sterling, S. 2011. “Transformative Learning and Sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground.” Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education. 5: 17–33.
Sterling, S. 2012. The Future Fit Framework. An introductory guide to teaching and learning for sustainability
in HE. Higher Education Academy (HEA). https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-
document-manager/documents/hea/private/future_fit_270412_1435_1568036756.pdf
Sterling, S. 2014. “The importance of education for sustainable development”. University World News
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141126162856455
Sterling, S., and Baines, J. 2002. A Review of Learning at Schumacher College, Dorchester. Bureau for
Environmental Education and Training.
Strachan, G. 2009. “Systems Thinking: The ability to recognize and analyze the interconnections within and
between systems.” Chapter 11 in Stibbe A. (ed.). The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy: Skills for a changing
world. Totnes: Green Books. 84-88.
Tilbury, D. 1993. Environmental education: developing a model for initial teacher education. PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge.
Tilbury, D. 1995. “Environmental Education for sustainability: defining the new focus of Environmental
Education in the 1990s.” Environmental Education Research. 1(2): 195-211.
Tilbury, D. 2011. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning. Paris:
UNESCO.

Tilbury, D., Crawley, C., and Berry, F. 2004. Education About and For Sustainability in Australian Business
Schools. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) and Arup Sustainability for the
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Tilbury, D., Hamú, D. and Goldstein, W. 2002. “Learning for sustainable development.” In ‘Education’ Earth
Year Report on the World Summit. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Tilbury, D., and Wortman, D. 2004. Engaging People in Sustainabilit. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:
Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.
https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2004-055.pdf
Trad, S. P. 2019. “A framework for mapping sustainability within tertiary curriculum.” International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education 20(2): 288-308.
United Nations. 2015. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - UNECE. 2011. Learning for the Future: Competences in
Education for Sustainable Development.
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/ESD_Publications/Competences_Publication.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO. 1975. The Belgrade Charter.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000017772
UNESCO. 2002. Education for Sustainability, From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a Decade of
Commitment. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2012. Shaping the Education of Tomorrow: 2012 Report on the UN Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2014a. UNESCO Roadmap for implementing the global action programme on education for
sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf
UNESCO. 2014b. Shaping the Future We Want: UN Decade for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) Final
Report. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002301/230171e.pdf
UNESCO. 2016. Incheon Declaration and SDG4. Education 2030 Framework for Action. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2017. Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.
Accessed November 2020 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
UNESCO. 2018. Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO.
https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/69206/download?token=r_65VVK_
UNESCO. 2019. Educational content up close. Examining the learning dimensions of Education for Sustainable
Development and Global Citizenship Education. Paris: UNESCO
United Nations Environmental Program – UNEP. 2010. ABC of SCP: Clarifying Concepts on Sustainable
Consumption and Production. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&
nr=945&menu=1515

Theoretical framework for Education for Sustainability to accelerate transition to low-carbon circular economy

Theoretical framework for Education for Sustainability to accelerate transition to low-carbon circular economy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Theoretical framework for Education for Sustainability to accelerate transition to low-carbon circular economy

Similar to Theoretical framework for Education for Sustainability to accelerate transition to low-carbon circular economy (20)

More from Chiara Scalabrino

More from Chiara Scalabrino (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Theoretical framework for Education for Sustainability to accelerate transition to low-carbon circular economy