Teaching Sustainability Complexity: A Systematic Review

Research Paper Recommended citation: Sen, M., Palmer, I., El-Said, T., & Jones, E. (2025). Teaching Sustainability Complexity: A Systematic Review. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631517. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. TEACHING SUSTAINABILITY COMPLEXITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW M. Sen a, I. Palmer b, 1 , A.T. El-Said c, E. Jones d a University of Warwick Coventry, UK b WMG, University of Warwick Coventry, UK c WMG, University of Warwick Coventry, UK d WMG, University of Warwick Coventry, UK Conference Key Areas: Sustainability and society in engineering; Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills Keywords: sustainability, complexity, ABSTRACT In a rapidly evolving educational landscape, integrating sustainability complexity into higher education is pivotal for addressing global challenges and preparing students as transformative leaders (Sterlin, 2010). This paper explores insights from a systematic review conducted on global best practices for teaching sustainability in the manufacturing engineering sector. This study presents best practices for teaching sustainability complexity, focusing on interdisciplinary integration, stakeholder engagement, ethical responsibility, and fostering innovation. For instance, the research emphasizes the incorporation of lifecycle assessment tools (Aurandt and Butler, 2011), real-world capstone projects (Amini-Rankouhi and Huang, 2021), and problem-based learning (Li et al, 2015) to tackle sustainability challenges. Furthermore, it outlines strategies to balance global sustainability standards with local contextual needs, demonstrating how higher education can become a driver of transformative change (Yarime et al., 2012). Adopting a scholarly approach by grounding its findings in relevant literature and global challenges such as achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this study will provide real-life examples, and practical takeaways that can inspire curriculum development in diverse educational contexts. This research aims to create a deeper understanding of how to create transformative learning environments that enable students and institutions to thrive while addressing sustainability complexity in higher education. This would be particularly relevant to educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers seeking to foster sustainable practices in manufacturing and beyond. 1 Corresponding Author I. Palmer [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Sustainability education is increasingly recognized as a crucial component in equipping students to address the complex challenges of the 21st century. The demand for sustainable development is not just a global imperative but a fundamental transformation that requires rethinking how education systems prepare students for the complexities of the modern world (Sterling, 2011). Michelsen (2017), outlines the relationship between education and sustainability as: “Educational processes should promote a greater awareness of issues concerning the sustainable development of society and develop competences allowing individuals to participate in coming up with innovative solutions to the economic, social, technological and cultural problems threatening the earth’s ecosystem.” Incorporating sustainability into engineering education presents several complex challenges and opportunities. These complexities are multifaceted, involving social, economic, and environmental dimensions, as well as the interplay between them (Caeiro et al., 2020). Traditional educational models often fall short of addressing these multifaceted challenges, as they tend to focus on isolated disciplines without fostering the systems thinking necessary for sustainability (Lozano et al., 2017). Complex problem theory suggests that complex problems cannot be solved but must be continually reviewed and worked at. (Bayne, 2019) Sustainability is one such complex or wicked problem, due to the large number of moving and disconnected parts. Sustainability complexity requires new ways of thinking and approaches to engagement (Bronn & Bronn, 2018). As educators it is our role to prepare students with the knowledge and skills required to tackle such problems. Sustainability complexity is therefore defined as the interplay of the many and varied considerations that contribute to sustainability in all its forms. Addressing sustainability complexity in engineering education is an emerging focus driven by the pressing need for future engineers and leaders to effectively tackle environmental and societal challenges. The multifaceted nature of sustainability, which encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions, requires a holistic educational approach (Sterling, 2011). Different engineering domains all have different sustainability dimensions, such as using design for environment principles in product design or focusing on electrification in transportation. This project is therefore significant as it addresses a critical need for educational institutions to adapt their curricula to prepare students for sustainability complexity. By developing an understanding of sustainability complexity this project contributes to the broader discourse on how universities can better equip students with the skills and knowledge needed to tackle global sustainability challenges (Wiek et al., 2011). 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Literature Review This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (PRISMA, 2020), focusing on various teaching methodologies, including systems thinking, interdisciplinary approaches, stakeholder engagement, ethical approaches, and the inclusion of advanced technologies, to address sustainability challenges. The search was conducted using the electronic database Scopus, selected due to its rigorous selection criteria for inclusion. The search, completed in summer 2024, included studies published between January 2008 and January 2024. The search used the following statements in combination: "sustainability education", "teaching complexity", “Manufacturing sector” and “Higher education”. Inclusion criteria included a focus on higher education, teaching methodologies and learning outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were based in non-higher education settings, were not published in English, were not peer reviewed or covered an irrelevant topic. The initial search identified 141 studies, of which 44 were deemed eligible for inclusion. 2.2 Thematic Analysis A thematic analysis was applied to the literature found, to identify common themes, strategies, and gaps in current teaching practices. This grouped the data into six categories with overlap where papers related to more than one theme. 3 RESULTS The six themes and the papers associated with them can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. Themes and associated studies Theme References Interdisciplinary Integration Agogino et al. (2008); Amini-Rankouhi and Huang (2021); Aurandt and Butler (2011); Brown et al. (2016) ; Butt et al. (2022); Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011); Cowan et al. (2010); Cram et al. (2023); Desai and Thomassian (2009); Ertekin et al. (2014); Esmaelian et al. (2018); Estela Peralta et al. (2016); Fox et al. (2009); Friberg et al. (2021); Grasso and Burkins (2010); Ijassi et al. (2024); Joyce et al. (2013); Kanu et al. (2012); Kinane et al. (2023); Leung et al. (2021); Li et al. (2015); Martinich and Polito (2010); Mueller et al. (2024); Perpignan et al. (2021); Schwarzman et al. (2019); Tom et al. (2013); Tseng et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2015); Systems Thinking Aurandt and Butler (2011) ; Brown et al. (2016) ; Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) ; Chiou et al. (2013); Cowan et al. (2010); Cram et al. (2023) ; Desai and Thomassian (2009) ; DuPont and Wisthoff (2015) ; Fox et al. (2009) ; Grasso and Burkins (2010) ; Ijassi et al. (2024); Joyce et al. (2013); Kanu et al. (2012) ; Kinane et al. (2023) ; Lagorio and Cimini (2023); Mueller et al. (2024); Perpignan et al. (2021) ; Tasdemir et al. (2020) ; Tseng et al. (2016) ; Weiss et al. (2024) ; Stakeholder Engagement Aurandt and Butler (2011); Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) ; Cowan et al. (2010) ; Desai and Thomassian (2009) ; DuPont and Wisthoff (2015); Edinbarough et al. (2014); Esmaelian et al. (2018); Estela Peralta et al. (2016); Fox et al. (2009); Grasso and Burkins (2010) ; Husanu et al. (2017); Ijassi et al. (2024) ; Mueller et al. (2024) ; Tseng et al. (2016) ; Weiss et al. (2024); Ethical and Social Responsibility Agogino et al. (2008); Brown et al. (2016) ; Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011); Cowan et al. (2010); Desai and Thomassian (2009); Edinbarough et al. (2014); Esmaelian et al. (2018) ; Fox et al. (2009); Grasso and Burkins, (2010); Joyce et al. (2013) ; Kinane et al. (2023) ; Lagorio and Cimini (2023); Mueller et al. (2024); Schwarzman et al. (2019); Innovation and Technological Advancements Agogino et al. (2008); Amini-Rankouhi and Huang (2021); Aurandt and Butler (2011); Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011); Chiou et al. (2013); Desai and Thomassian (2009); Fox et al. (2009) ; Friberg et al. (2021); Grasso and Burkins (2010) ; Ijassi et al. (2024); Joyce et al. (2013); Mueller et al. (2024); Wang et al. (2021); Global Perspective and Local Context Agogino et al. (2008); Amini-Rankouhi and Huang (2021) ; Brown et al. (2016); Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011); Chiou et al. (2013); Cowan et al. (2010); Desai and Thomassian (2009); Fox et al. (2009); Grasso and Burkins (2010) ; Ijassi et al. (2024); Mueller et al. (2024); Reise and Phan (2015); Weiss et al. (2024) ; Tools and techniques taken from the research and aligned to each theme can be seen in table 2. Table 2. Tools highlighted by research theme Theme Tools highlighted Interdisciplinary Integration Network of sustainability educators; UN SDG framework; Guest lectures; Carbon footprint software; Competence framework; Technology enhanced learning; Soft skills development; Project based learning; Team capstone projects; Citizen science; Problem based learning; Systems Thinking Life cycle assessments; Hands on projects/mini design projects; Lean and Six-Sigma; Agent based simulations; Triple bottom line; competence framework; Project based learning; Industry specific case studies; Eco-audit; Design for Environment principles; Stakeholder Engagement External partnerships; Collaborative projects; real world projects; Guest lectures; Communicate with non-technical audiences; Industrial Advisory Board; Learning factory model; Role playing exercises; Citizen science; Ethical and Social Responsibility Volunteering; Socially beneficial projects; Social Impact Assessments; Modelling behaviours; Human centric design; Projects aligned to UN SDGs; Innovation and Technological Advancements Hands on projects; Interdisciplinary collaborations; Cutting edge research projects; Innovation labs; Virtual labs; Creating business models; Role play; Continuous feedback loops; Advanced simulation tools; Global Perspective and Local Context Local sustainability projects; Study abroad opportunities; Global engineering projects; Partnerships with international institutions; Diverse case studies; Databases of examples; 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Interdisciplinary Integration Interdisciplinary integration is a common theme among all the selected papers. All authors either explicitly or implicitly suggest the critical importance of integrating sustainability across various disciplines within higher education. Fox et al. (2009), advocate for embedding sustainability into courses related to design, engineering, manufacturing, technology, and management. They support their research by emphasising the need for engineering and technology faculty to attend workshops particularly geared towards sustainability, in order to contribute to a growing network of educators in sustainable engineering. Desai and Thomassian (2009), Schwarzman et al. (2019) and Kinane et al. (2023) present courses designed to integrate sustainability, bringing together students from various disciplines. Kinane et al. (2023) go further to focus on using the UN SDGs as an underlying framework. Aurandt and Butler (2011) and Kanu et al. (2012) discuss the benefits of introducing modules taught by faculty from different disciplines. Whereas Tseng et al. (2016) suggested targeted workshops. Kanu et al. (2012) and Butt et al. (2022) suggest using specific educational software and Leung et al. (2021) focuses on creating interdisciplinary lab courses. Grasso and Burkins (2010), meanwhile, take a more radical approach by advocating for restructuring engineering programs from specialised, narrow disciplines to a “liberal arts” approach. Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) and Perpignan et al. (2021) present the use of competence frameworks. Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) also highlight the use of technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Agogino et al. (2008) and Ijassi et al. (2024) specifically suggest the inclusion of business education in engineering projects, supported by Cram, et al. (2023) and Friberg et al. (2021), who encourage infusion of an entrepreneurial mindset. Agogino et al. (2008), Joyce et al. (2013) and Tom et al. (2013) suggest that interdisciplinary integration can be achieved through project-based learning. Similarly, Amini-Rankouhi and Huang, (2021) encourage the use of team-based capstone projects as an educational tool to foster interdisciplinary engagement. Esmaelian, et al. (2018) propose the integration of citizen science arguing that students will be more likely to spend time on citizen science projects than they would for traditional coursework. They also highlight that citizen science is a very low cost access to research-based education which they might not otherwise have access to. Mueller et al. (2024) recommend project based learning through Learning Factories (LFs) by mimicking real world challenges in the classroom setting. Similarly Li et al. (2015) encourage the use of Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Brown et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2015) and Ertekin et al. (2014) highlight the benefits of existing sustainability discourse within engineering education such as Sustainable Systems Engineering (SSE). Martinich and Polito (2010) propose integrating career development and leadership training, which is crucial for preparing engineers to adapt to changing industry demands. Estela Peralta et al. (2016) points out that sustainability education and efforts towards interdisciplinary integration will only truly be effective when included in multiple educational levels (Bachelor, Master, PhD) with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches. 4.2 Systems Thinking One of the key teaching tools discussed by many of the selected authors is life-cycle assessment (LCA), which helps students evaluate the environmental impacts of products from cradle to grave. (Aurandt and Butler, 2011) (Fox et al., 2009) Desai and Thomassian (2009) suggest using these for hands-on projects or mini-design projects. Kanu et al. (2012) and Cram et al. (2023) go further by encouraging the planned introduction of life cycle analysis (LCA) tools like the Okala Life Cycle Analysis Calculator, GaBi and SimaPro into the curriculum. Similarly Tasdemir et al. (2020) encourage the use of tools like Lean and Six-Sigma and Tseng et al. (2016) recommend agent-based simulations. Cowan et al. (2010) emphasise the inclusion of LCA and the concept of the "triple bottom line" (people, planet, profit) as a framework for evaluating the sustainability of business practices. Grasso and Burkins (2010) discuss the use of complex systems analysis to teach students about the interconnectedness of various factors in engineering projects. Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) present a competence framework which includes specific competencies related to systems thinking. Chiou et al. (2013) discuss the benefits of developing courses that specifically address systems thinking, teaching students to analyze the inputs and outputs of engineering systems, assess their environmental impacts, and make decisions that minimize negative effects while maximizing sustainability. Mueller et al. (2024) suggest Learning Factories with project-based learning. Lagorio and Cimini (2023) discuss the integration of digital twins and modular design within the LF environment. Joyce et al. (2013) provides an example of a hands-on project, forcing students to think beyond isolated components of their designs and consider how different elements interact. Weiss et al. (2024) on the other hand, emphasize the inclusion of industry-specific case studies and Ijassi et al. (2024) the inclusion of databases of best practices. Kinane et al. (2023) include eco-audits and Perpignan et al. (2021) focus on integrating planetary boundaries into technological problem-solving. Brown et al. (2016) propose a Sustainable Systems Engineering programme while DuPont and Wisthoff (2015) discuss using the Design for Environment (DFE) principles. While DFE and LCA are similar in approach, DFE focuses on the early design stages, ensuring that the product is created with minimal environmental impact from the outset, whereas LCA tends to analyze the entire lifecycle of the product after it has been designed, assessing its environmental impacts retrospectively. 4.3 Stakeholder Engagement Fox et al. (2009) and Weiss et al. (2024) emphasize the role of academic institutions in fostering relationships with external stakeholders, suggesting that universities should actively seek partnerships that can enhance the relevance and impact of their sustainability programs. Cowan et al. (2010) suggest incorporating real-world projects and case studies into the curriculum. Desai and Thomassian (2009) present real-world applications and guest lectures from industry professionals. Grasso and Burkins (2010) discuss the importance of teaching students to communicate effectively with non-technical audiences. By learning to communicate clearly and persuasively, engineers can build trust and ensure that their solutions are understood. Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) recommend skills such as communication and negotiation and social networking. Aurandt and Butler (2011) discuss industry partnerships and recommend support by an industrial advisory board. Edinbarough et al. (2014) too, advocate for the inclusion of industry representatives in curriculum development. The learning factory model too, sets a great example of stakeholder engagement, with close collaboration with consultants and clients to tailor the sustainability learning programs to the specific needs of visiting organizations. (Mueller et al., 2024). DuPont and Wisthoff, (2015) emphasise the benefits of industry-sponsored projects in fostering stakeholder engagement. While Ijassi et al. (2024) integrate real-world scenarios and role-playing exercises to simulate real industrial environments. Husanu et al. (2017) discuss the involvement of industry experts in evaluating capstone projects and Tseng et al. (2016) posit that the involvement of industry professionals in delivering workshops and creating courses is also effective. While Esmaelian, et al., (2018) does not explicitly emphasize stakeholder engagement, the citizen science approach inherently involves engagement with the public, who act as non-expert participants in the data collection process. Estela Peralta et al. (2016), on the other hand, indicate that engaging with stakeholders not only includes gleaning knowledge from industry experts and the broader community, but also disseminating sustainable practices to them. 4.4 Ethical and Social Responsibility Fox et al. (2009) encourage the inclusion of modules on corporate social responsibility, environmental stewardship, and the ethics of consumption demonstrating a commitment to teaching students about the broader societal impacts of their professional decisions. Desai and Thomassian (2009) reinforce this ethical dimension through discussions on topics such as carbon footprints, lifecycle design, and cradle-to-grave design. Brown et al. (2016) include courses such as public affairs, communication, and behavioural science that ensure students are aware of the societal implications of their work. Ethical considerations are central to the arguments presented by Cowan et al. (2010) highlighting Germany's long history of sustainable practices and suggesting that a similar ethical commitment is needed in global engineering education. In addition to formal ethics education, Grasso and Burkins (2010) emphasize the importance of fostering a culture of social responsibility, including promoting volunteerism, participation in socially beneficial projects, or social impact assessments. Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) include a commitment to corporate social responsibility, an understanding of the drivers and barriers to sustainability, and the ability to make decisions that reflect a commitment to sustainability, as critical competencies. One of Edinbarough et al. (2014)’s proposed competency clusters in the curriculum is "Environmental Ethics & Social Development," which includes topics such as health and the environment, sustainable community development, and the ethical implications of engineering decisions. Agogino et al. (2008) look to incorporate ethics and social responsibility through project-based learning. Mueller et al. (2024) argue that learning factories must not only teach sustainable practices but also embody these principles in their own operations, such as using a smart building management tool to optimize energy consumption and implementing paperless practices during workshops. Joyce et al. (2013) use a group essay to engage students with ethical dimensions of engineering. Lagorio and Cimini (2023) emphasize human-centric design and the social implications of manufacturing processes, e.g. human-robot collaboration. By aligning projects with the UN SDGs, courses inherently emphasize the importance of ethical considerations in engineering and incorporating case studies can further strengthen this (Kinane et al., 2023). Schwarzman et al. (2019) recommend students evaluating the health and environmental impacts of their proposed solutions, during problembased learning. Esmaelian et al. (2018) also explore how reporting mechanisms for bad designs, including considerations of safety and health issues, highlight the ethical responsibility of engineers to create safe and effective designs. 4.5 Innovation and Technological Advancements Innovation is a key theme in the selected documents, particularly in relation to the role of new technologies in driving sustainability. Wang et al. (2021) discuss integrating emerging technologies into the curriculum to foster innovation. Fox et al. (2009) suggest inclusion of the latest developments in green technology. By exposing students to cutting-edge technologies, the curriculum encourages them to think creatively about how these innovations can be applied. Desai and Thomassian (2009) encourage creative problem-solving by having students work on hands-on projects. Grasso and Burkins (2010) argue that holistic engineering education should encourage students to think creatively, emphasizing that innovation is not just about developing new products or processes but also about finding new ways to solve problems and improve existing systems. Aurandt and Butler (2011) discuss the use of software and tools to foster greater innovation, enabling students to focus on practical and technology-driven solutions. Cerinšek and Dolinšek (2011) promote skills related to creativity, resourcefulness, and the ability to introduce new business models and technologies, encouraging a forward-looking approach, where engineers are not only aware of current technologies but are also capable of anticipating future trends and requirements. Chiou et al. (2013) develop web-based courses and virtual laboratories that allow students to explore green energy technologies remotely. Agogino et al. (2008) on the other hand, place a strong emphasis on the entrepreneurial potential of [online] 265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121759. [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024]. Tseng, T.L.B., Akundi, A., Chiou, R., Olivarez, A. and Smith, E.D. (2016). Enhancement of sustainable manufacturing engineering education for smart generation through workshop and seminars. In: ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. [online] Available at: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2s2.084983353034&partnerID=40&m d5=cb4b7613d66a32b9ce72194ddce9d829. [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024]. Wang, K., Umar, M., Akram, R. and Caglar, E. (2021). Is technological innovation making world ‘Greener’? An evidence from changing growth story of China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, [online] 165, p.120516. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120516. [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024]. Weiss, B.M., Elnourani, M., Obilanade, D., Rönnbäck, A.Ö. and Arjoo, A. (2024). Bridging the green talent gap: a case study of product design education. In: Proceedings of the Design Society. [online] pp.2973–2982. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.301. [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024]. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L. and Redman, C.L., 2011. Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), pp.203-218. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024]. Yarime, M. et al. (2012) ‘Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations’, Sustainability Science, 7(1), pp. 101–113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0157-5. [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024]. Zhang, R., Brown, A. and Balogh, J. (2015). Baccalaureate Program of Sustainable System EngineeringObjectives and Curriculum Development. In: ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. [online] Available at: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2s2.084941998116&partnerID=40&m d5=b4905aafb50bea52a313d5f683d6b675. [Accessed 18 Sep. 2024].