Findings of the SEPHE IIstudy

1
Findings of the SEPHE II-study

• Sustainable entrepreneurship in Professional
  Higher Education in Europe

2
Objectives of the study

• Make a comparative description of contribution of
  PHE as corporate and educational organisations in
  Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
  Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
  Romania to sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) or
  corporate social responsibility (CSR)
• Contribution of Eurashe to the discussion on ESD
  and Copernicus Guidelines during Bologna meeting
  in London.

3
Objectives of the study

• Make analysis of
• Mission, vision and strategy on SD
• Activities in the field of SD, SE and CSR
• Strengths and weaknesses in the field of SD
• Involvement of stakeholders

4
Objectives of the study

• Give
• Examples of good practice in the field of ESD
• Recommendations
• Lists of organisations active in the field of ESD
• Evaluation tools for SDE

5
Background to the study

• Key definitions for SD, SE, CSR
• Context of the study
• Brundtland report (1987)
• Rio Conference Agenda 21 (1992)
• World Conference on SD in Johannesburg (2002)
• UN decade for ESD (2005-2014)
• SD in the EU
• Copernicus Guidelines for the European Higher
  Education Area

6
Methodology

• Questionnaires in English, French and German sent
  to 429 (P)HEd.Institutions and 355 departments
• Repeat mails to institutions and departments
• Separate mailings to members of Businet and SPACE
  and several networks for SD
• Telephone interviews and desktop research for
  examples of good practice.

7
Methodology

• Questionnaires along the lines of the Deming
  Quality Cycle Plan, DO, Check, Act.
• Focusing on elements of Planet, People, Profit
  (Triple P)
• Institutional level focusing on institutions as
  business organisations
• Departmental level focusing on institutions as
  education providers

8
Difficulties met

• Insufficient response rate due to
• Difficulties to contact correct people
• Aversion to filling in questionnaires
• Apparent apathy concerning SD in certain
  countries, especially France, Germany and Poland
• Biased sample
• Responses from the majority of countries are not
  representative (except Finland, Portugal, Ireland
  and the Netherlands).

9
Findings of the questionnaires1. At
institutional level

• Much more interest at institutional level than in
  SEPHE-1 study
• PLAN
• Nearly 90 of respondents have SD in their
  educational mission and more than 80 in their
  corporate mission. (Nearly half explicitly in
  their pedagogical mission)
• More than 97 focus on People aspect, 60 on
  Planet aspect and 45 on Profit in
  corporateMission.

10
Findings of the questionnaires1. At
institutional level

• DO
• 95 of respondents claim to do sth. In field of
  SD
• Mainly Planet aspect (nearly 95)
• 85 of respondents take actions in the field of
  sustainable energy!
• People aspect (87)
• Profit aspect (75)

11
Findings of the questionnaires1. At
institutional level

• CHECK
• Institutions are aware of strengths and
  weaknesses
• More than half of respondents assess their
  efforts in the field of SD, SE or CSR
• 80 of Finnish and Romanian respondents
• Half of the respondent (P)HEI integrate efforts
  in the field of SD in their QM
• Nearly 60 are familiar with assessment tools
• Nearly 80 in the Netherlands

12
Findings of the questionnaires2. At departmental
level

• PLAN
• Virtually all respondent (P)HEI think they have
  a role to play in promoting SD, SE or CSR
• Most focus is on changing ways of thinking and
  development of new courses
• Nearly 75 of departments surveyed mention SD in
  mission or vision
• More involvement of stakeholders (65)than at
  institutional level
• More than half of respondents have strategic plan
  
• mostly medium or long-term, 46 bottom-up, 38
  explicit
• Funding for SD activities is available (only 8
  external)

13
Findings of the questionnaires2. At departmental
level

• DO
• 90 of all respondent (P)HEI offer courses or
  programmes in the field of SD, SE or CSR.
• Subjects vary according to the departments
• 92 address global problems, 84 CSR, 70
  management systems, 65 legislation
• Less than 30 organise specialisations

14
Findings of the questionnaires2. At departmental
level

• DO
• In 86 of respondent institutions SD has its own
  position
• 70 make these courses compulsory
• 80 integrate SD in several courses
• 50 organise special modules
• Limited offering for third parties (only 30)
• But nearly half of Dutch institutions do so

15
Findings of the questionnaires2. At departmental
level

• DO
• Elements of SD, SE or CSR are present in profile
  of the graduates (80) and also in cases and in
  industrial visits or placements (67)
• 67 examine achievements of students on SD
• Nearly 80 expect teachers to act as role models
• More than 60 involve guests lecturers

16
Findings of the questionnaires2. At departmental
level

• CHECK
• Departments are aware of strengths and weaknesses
  
• Strength involvement of motivated and
  experienced staff
• Weakness lack of corporate strategy or policy
• Nearly half of respondents assess their efforts
  in the field of SD, SE or CSR
• Majority does not know specific assessment tools
  (60)

17
Overall conclusions

• Compared to SEPHE-1 results are much more
  positive
• Low response rate (especially for PL, F and D)
  might point to a biased sample
• SD, SE and CSR have found their rightful place in
  PHEI surveyed
• SD is integrated in mission and vision but also
  in actions as well at institutional as at
  departmental level

18
Overall conclusions

• Policy documents seem to be mainly developed at
  institutional level
• Implementation mainly at departmental level
• There is a budget (mainly internal) for actions
  in the field of SD 50 at institutional level
  2/3 at departmental level.
• Stakeholder involvement is stronger at
  departmental level than at institutional level

19
Overall conclusions

• Virtually all (P)HEI surveyed think they have a
  role to play in the promotion of SD
• Departments focus mainly on awareness raising and
  transfer of skills as far as SD and their main
  beneficiaries are their students
• Institutions at corporate level also refer to the
  local (business) community and future generations
  as the beneficiaries of the actions on SD
• Efforts in the field of SD are measured but
  specific assessment tools are not known.

20
Recommendations

• To PHEI
• Institutions with expertise in the field of SD
  should actively disseminate towards others and
  team up with them
• Individual institutions should submit reports of
  their activities to EURASHE
• Stakeholder involvement should be increased
• Courses should be organised for third parties
• More external sources of funding should be found.

21
Recommendations

• To Ministries of Education
• To collect examples of good practice and
  disseminate them
• Efforts in the field of SD should be taken into
  account in the national or regional QA systems
• Integration of SD into corporate policy or
  strategy of HEI should be supported by
  legislation.

22
Recommendations

• To the Commission
• To support more European projects in the field of
  SD
• To promote projects which link up universities
  and PHEI or university colleges with experience
  in SD, SE or CSR
• To give special support to projects in the field
  of teacher training.

23
Recommendations

• To EURASHE
• Set up a WG in the field of SD, SE or CSR
• Play an active role in Copernicus network and
  promote Copernicus guidelines
• Incite member institutions to introduce projects
  in the field of SD, SE or CSR
• Make a compendium of sources of funding in the
  field of SD, SE or CS
• Promote existing assessment tools on SD, SE or
  CSR
• Open a website page on SD.

24
Thank you for your attention!