Keywords

Mobilizing the hundreds of individuals who make up the complex institution of a higher education institution (HEI) to take action on a single issue is no easy task, as these institutions are historically sites that foster constructive debate at best, and unproductive disagreement at worst. Indeed, Caston (1977, p. 3) notes, “at the heart of the university purpose are dissent, disagreement, dissonance.” The often-turbulent reality of the HEI is different to its ideal (and popular) conceptualization as a place “for caring relations, a sense of community, an atmosphere in which ideas … [are] shared and refined” (Getman, 1992, p. ix). Yet, dissent within the context of HEIs is not necessarily a negative thing. A major report by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1971) memorably highlights the fact that, as dissent is vital in helping to advance thinking and practice, it is essential not only to a university, but also to democratic life more broadly.

However, tackling the growing challenges connected to sustainability, including combatting climate change and its panoply of negative consequences, requires new levels of collaboration and cooperation from HEI members. These institutions—often viewed as occupying positions of leadership in their societies—increasingly need to model, and share models of, the implementation of successful sustainability efforts (Haddock-Fraser et al., 2018). Stronger action on the part of HEIs and their members to nurture sustainability, in their immediate vicinities and further afield, is especially needed in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic. This worldwide health crisis served, on a broad level, as a tragic reminder of the fragility of communities and the ecosystems around them, as well as the complexity of coordinating global emergency responses; more specifically, it also highlighted the fact that the population growth and urbanization contributing to climate change also facilitate “zoonotic spillovers” (i.e., transfers of diseases from wild animals to humans) (Rodó et al., 2021). Without more effective and widespread measures to tackle these problems with sustainable solutions, catastrophic events like pandemics will increase in frequency and scope.

This chapter argues that an “engagement orientation” can help HEIs foster sustainability. Johnston (2018a) defines an engagement orientation as a way of thinking, acting, and bringing about social benefits that entails the deliberate involvement of diverse social actors. HEIs can use this orientation to achieve strategy development and decision-making for organization-wide sustainability that is more successful and longer-lasting by virtue of its inclusion of both multiple stakeholders and their diverse perspectives. Additionally, the orientation enables an organization’s funding to be directed toward widely supported activities that emerge from stakeholders’ interactions (and that, consequently, have stakeholder approval); as such, the activities have a higher chance of having positive long-term impacts. However, an engagement orientation faces limitations. Specifically, over time, it is impacted by organizational changes, external turbulence, and “executive creep” (Buerkle et al., 2017), which refers to the decision-making of executive management encroaching on the orientation.

To illustrate this argument, the chapter presents original research gained through two methods: a case study of Macquarie University and a conventional qualitative content analysis (of the university’s publicly available organizational communication collateral). I chose the case study method because it provides a way of exploring one context in depth and gaining detailed insights from it that can be applied elsewhere. In other words, this single instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) provides a robust way of understanding the principles that apply from it in other settings (Yin, 1981): in this instance, other HEIs. Macquarie University—a public research university located in Sydney, Australia—provides a rich example of the engagement orientation in action, as well as its benefits and limitations. This chapter employs conventional qualitative content analysis (following Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), as it is the most suitable method for gaining the required insights from the university’s publicly available communication collateral. This method involves locating content—words, phrases, and clauses (or sentences)—relating to a topic in texts and allowing “categories and names for categories to flow from the data” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1279). Here, the method has been used to find content in Macquarie University’s collateral that shows the ways (in terms of patterns or categories) in which the institution fostered an engagement orientation for sustainability. The goal is not to undertake a detailed textual analysis (to understand meaning-making or the construction of the collateral); rather, it is to locate content relating to the orientation and gain insights into how it evolved. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine (available at https://archive.org/web/) has allowed for the location of collateral that the university had previously published online.

This chapter contributes to existing scholarship on sustainable practices in higher education and, specifically, to current knowledge about the engagement orientation in relation to HEIs and their sustainability initiatives. Although higher education scholarship discusses institutions’ engagement in various ways—as for example, Sandmann and Jones’s (2019) field-surveying collection of essays marking the 20th anniversary of the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement chronicles—discussions of the engagement orientation are much fewer, especially in connection with sustainability. In this respect, Buono (2017), draws on research from business studies to note the importance of an engagement orientation that serves multiple stakeholders in his discussion of the implementation of the Principles for Responsible Management Education. In a related vein, Haski-Leventhal (2014) highlights the need to consider the engagement orientation of students, as a critical HEI stakeholder group, for a more sustainable world. Beyond these sustainability-related studies, other research—notably, by Dostilio and Welch (2019) and Gale et al. (2019)—encourages community engagement professionals to adopt a democratic engagement orientation for HEI activities. Alpaydin et al. (2018), as well as Šima et al. (2017), also argue that regional universities need to adopt different engagement orientations for their different local communities. Building on this scholarship allows for further insights into the implications of developing engagement orientations in HEIs, especially in nurturing sustainability. This scholarship excludes research into student engagement, as this is a different area relating to students’ learning.

This chapter divides its discussion into four sections as follows. First, I outline the engagement orientation in relation to sustainability. Second, I discuss the implementation of such an engagement orientation, especially in relation to the case study (Macquarie University). Third, I critically examine the challenges and limitations of maintaining the orientation (again, in connection with the case study). Fourth, I conclude by presenting final observations and directions for future research.

1 The Engagement Orientation for Sustainability

To grasp the engagement orientation, it is crucial to understand the broader underpinning concept of social engagement. This term is theorized and practiced in a rich variety of ways. Indeed, different fields take strikingly different approaches to this concept. For example, in the domain of healthcare, social engagement refers to tools for the maintenance of social connections and participation in social activities for health (Bassuk et al., 1999). In educational psychology, it relates to the social interactions in which students engage as part of their academic instruction (Patrick et al., 2007). In gerontology, it describes the involvement of older individuals with productive activity and social networks as crucial components of successful aging (Rowe & Kahn, 1997). These three definitions suffice to illustrate the diversity of approaches that associate to this concept.

In terms of HEIs, the most relevant approach to social engagement relates to organizations and their efforts to build relationships with various stakeholders. Johnston (2018b, p. 20) points out that generating “authentic, appropriate, and timely” responses to all types of social expectations is a priority for organizations. At the same time, proactive and self-benefiting actions are also a priority; in other words, organizations are forever seeking to advance their own visions and goals, and, to that end, continue to build relationships and communicate with diverse parties. For this reason, Johnson defines social engagement comprehensively as a “dynamic multidimensional relational concept featuring … attributes of connection, interaction, participation, and involvement, designed to achieve or elicit an outcome at individual, organization, or social levels” (Johnston, 2018b, p. 19). All three outcomes are important for HEIs. Even though the achievement of outcomes at social levels (for local, national, and international communities) is increasingly a significant priority for institutions, the achievement of outcomes at individual levels (for students and staff), as well as organizational levels (for faculties, centers, and central offices), remains a primary concern.

An engagement orientation is a vital component of organizations’ efforts to achieve particular outcomes. It underpins these efforts, as it creates the basis for working collectively toward the mutually supported achievement of those efforts. In other words, setting up an engagement orientation is necessary if an organization and its leaders want to pinpoint and tackle an issue, or otherwise achieve an outcome, together with all members in an authentic way. This approach involves pursuing full and meaningful involvement with all possible parties (within, but also outside of, the organization); the involvement can take a variety of forms, ranging from town hall meetings to group problem-solving sessions. Therefore, the engagement orientation involves “synthesizing meaning and value that evolves from dialogue, interaction, and connection with diverse stakeholder views and perspectives” (Johnston, 2018a, p. 4). Johnston (2018a) also notes that intention is a key component in the orientation, as the various parties need to have the intention and willingness to engage with each other and deal with the issue that needs to be addressed or pursue the identified desired outcome.

The orientation is not designed to benefit the organization alone; the intention is, instead, to help the organization “engage at the social or civic level” (Johnston, 2018a, p. 4). This aspect of the orientation reflects the recognition that organizations can (and should) contribute to the maintenance, and enhancement, of civil society and the creation of social capital (Taylor & Kent, 2014). Building this type of capital, which refers to individuals’ interpersonal connections, helps to create the “norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). For HEIs, engagement at the social and civic level often requires considerable program development, as well as the careful management of various partnerships; Hoy et al. (2012, p. 185) also point out that it often necessitates HEI members “identifying themselves as being from and part of the community, be that of place or of a chosen identity.” Although such self-identification is not an issue for many students, academics, and other staff, who feel comfortable in acknowledging their connections with particular communities, it may be an issue for others.

With its focus on both the internal members and external communities connected to an organization, the engagement orientation can go a long way toward assisting HEIs in successfully developing and implementing long-term strategic planning and financing for sustainability. This assistance is vital given the important roles that HEIs themselves play in terms of sustainability. Although all institutions need to help societies and their members meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1991, p. 87), HEIs have signal contributions to make. This is because they are path-breaking leaders and role-models for other institutions, as well as key agents in the education of future leaders who will be vital to the successful implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As the SDSN (2017) argues, none of the SDGs will be achieved without HEIs; these institutions support the implementation of every SDG in a variety of ways, including SDG-related learning and teaching, research supporting the implementation of the SDGs, the provision of sustainable campus services and facilities, and external leadership facilitating wider dialogue, policymaking, and action. At the same time, Žalėnienė and Pereira (2021, p. 99) have pointed out that HEIs particularly contribute to the implementation of seven SDGs: Goal One (ending poverty in all its forms everywhere), Goal Three (ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all, at all ages), Goal Five (fostering gender equality), Goal Eight (ensuring decent work and economic growth), Goal Twelve (encouraging responsible consumption and production), Goal Thirteen (mitigating climate change), and Goal Sixteen (bringing about peace, justice and strong institutions). More broadly, the higher education sector is a transformational agent that has a “tremendous impact” on students’ habits and contributions to more prosperous societies; this impact is demonstrated in a variety of ways, ranging from mindset changes in students to broader cultural changes brought about by alumni and their communities (Žalėnienė & Pereira, 2021, p. 99).

Despite the important roles that they play, HEIs (and particularly their leaders and staff) continue to face multiple obstacles to nurturing sustainability successfully (in both the short and long terms). The barriers include unchanging curricula, insufficient institutional support, and inadequate professional development for staff (Lozano et al., 2017; Sibbel, 2009). More broadly, O’Brien (2016) notes that many aspects of current educational systems—from pedagogies to infrastructure—are simply not set up to nurture sustainability (or related priorities, such as sustainable wellbeing). Indeed, a UNESCO (2005, p. 59) report memorably asked: “Is education the problem or the solution in working toward a sustainable future? At current levels of unsustainable practice and over-consumption, it could be concluded that education is part of the problem.” Whole educational systems (including their pedagogy and infrastructure) needed to be redesigned, the report argued, to shift societies’ thinking beyond unsustainable activities. The implementation of an engagement orientation for sustainability can help institutions play their part in gradually reshaping the education system by starting to nurture change close to home and implementing localized initiatives. The orientation can aid members of HEIs—students and staff, at various levels, as well as other stakeholders—to recognize the importance of sustainability, promote mutual efforts to foster it, and implement initiatives driven by dialogue and cooperation. The following section discusses one such implementation effort and its benefits.

2 Implementing an Engagement Orientation

Macquarie University provides a rich case study of the implementation and nurturing of an engagement orientation for sustainability. Conventional qualitative content analysis reveals that the institution describes itself as having a “proud tradition of discovery”, evidenced by its innovative teaching and collaborative research activities—that include, among others, pioneering open admissions procedures and medical research activities based at Australia’s first fully integrated health precinct—but the university does not claim to have had a founding or historical focus on sustainability (Macquarie University, 2022a, para. 14). At the same time, the university—whose community comprises 44,000 students and 3000 staff—actively highlights its nonconformist nature; the organization states that:

Since our foundation in 1964, we have aspired to be a different type of university: one unbound by ivory towers and sandstone walls. Rather, we are focused on fostering collaboration between students, academics, industry and society, encouraging all to traverse the boundaries of their own perspective and affect change. (Macquarie University, 2022a, para. 6)

This description highlights the fact that the university has an orientation that enables it to embrace change, including the type of change needed to foster sustainability.

The institution implemented various sustainability measures over the years, though 2008 was the year in which it developed its engagement orientation. In 2001, the university won a New South Wales state government sustainability award for the cogeneration plant that it installed the previous year (with the plant using gas to fuel two generators producing electrical energy and recovering heat both to run an absorption chiller and to supply heating to two buildings). In 2006, the organization opened a new building that incorporated mixed-mode ventilation (Denby, 2009, p. 5). However, 2008 marked the year in which the institution “began to make a strenuous professional and coordinated effort” to become “a model of sustainability” (Schwartz, 2009, p. 3). This shift took place as a result of “dialogue, interaction, and connection” among the university’s members (Johnston, 2018a, p. 4). Specifically, it evolved through events, small and large, held on campus; as Schwartz (2009, p. 3) recounts:

At Town Hall meetings, at sustainable development group meetings and in response to our Divisional consultations, the Macquarie University community has made it clear that it wants the University to become a model of sustainability. Our researchers have revealed the impacts of climate change and our economists and scientists have modelled what can be done to combat its effects. It is only fitting that the University, as an institution, works towards sustainability through all that it does, from building to teaching.

A guiding intention to implement this engagement orientation for sustainability is also evident in the comment that, at the time, “we [the university community] have come to understand that sustainability is not a program, nor even a set of priorities. Rather, it requires changes to our way of thinking, decision-making and to our actions,” and that “[a]t Macquarie, we have acknowledged this and are seriously beginning to challenge our organizational patterns, attempting to work across structures and embody the principles of sustainability into all that we do” (Schwartz, 2009, p. 3).

Through the engagement orientation, the university began to foster a range of sustainability initiatives. Various actions—undertaken in specific divisions, as well as central offices—were set in motion through the orientation. In the initial stages alone, in 2008, the university hired several staff, including a full-time Director of Sustainability, to manage the challenge. It undertook discussions with as many staff and students as it could, including its most senior leaders, in order to develop its goals and objectives. Over 100 meetings, ranging from departmental meetings to on-campus union meetings, were held in 2008. The largest of these meetings, a university “town hall” event, was attended by approximately 350 members of the university community. No less than 15 external meetings with stakeholders—including the City of Ryde (a local municipality), Sydney Water, and the Department of Environment and Climate Change—were also held that year (Denby, 2009, p. 22). These discussions revealed that key issues raised during stakeholder engagement sessions included: waste management practices being below standard, paper usage being excessive, lights being left on unnecessarily, biodiversity being lost as a result of development projects, and facilities for cyclists being inadequate (Denby, 2009, p. 23). Consequently, the university undertook water, waste, and transport audits, in addition to developing key documents—such as a sustainability policy and strategy—to guide further work. It also recruited students and staff into its Action Groups that focused on campus operations, education, development, procurement and human resources (Schwartz, 2009, p. 3). Denby’s (2009, p. 4) reflection that, “[u]tili[z]ing a holistic approach, we are ensuring that our commitment to a sustainable future is evident in our activities and in our curricula. … We accept our responsibility to do this because we recogni[z]e we are a place of learning” echoes the unique role of HEIs in nurturing sustainability. In this respect, one might argue that peer-learning is another key aspect of the engagement orientation, as the members of a community learn from each other in further strengthening the orientation and encouraging further, and progressively more effective, action.

The initiatives brought to life in 2008 continue to grow through the engagement orientation. Annual sustainability reports show numerous resources and practices—too many to list individually—being implemented, ranging from campaigns (such as an initiative to encourage the use of reusable water bottles) to the creation of infrastructure (including large structures, such as environmentally friendly buildings, as well as small resources, like a permaculture garden used in teaching) (Macquarie University Sustainability, n.d.). Other major achievements include the development of a Sustainability Representative Network, comprising “Sustainability Champions” from all departments and faculties; the implementation of sustainability staff induction and on-boarding programs; the creation of the Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Finance Research Centre, which develops market applications to solve environmental and social problems; the provision, for students, of community engagement-oriented work experience and leadership programs relating to the SDGs; the construction of an Arboretum, which contains remnant areas of endangered forests and provides a habitat for native birds; and the establishment of the Bushcare@MQ team, which comprises volunteers who work to regenerate the rare natural habitats found on the campus (Macquarie University, 2022b). Sustainability is now centrally integrated into long-term planning and strategic documents. For instance, in creating and implementing its Campus Master Plan in 2014, the organization established significant commitments to “target the reduction of energy and water use, minimi[z]e emissions, and divert waste from landfill by 2030” (Macquarie University, 2021a, para. 3). Reporting on its progress in 2021, the university noted that it had made significant advances, especially in switching to a 100% renewable electricity source for its main campus, and in reducing energy use (by 33% against a 40% target for 2023), minimizing emissions (by 32% against the same target), reducing water use (by 34% against the same target), and diverting waste from landfill (by 84% against a 90% target for 2023) (Macquarie University, 2021b). The long-term strategic plan, Our University: A Framing of Futures, developed to help mark the 50th anniversary of the institution, also states unequivocally that the university “will … adhere firmly to our commitment to the principles of sustainability in all we do” (Macquarie University, 2013, p. 20).

The engagement orientation also helped to bring about financial decisions designed to encourage sustainability. In particular, in 2018, the university transacted a $250 million dual-tranche sustainability bond. This first dual-tranche university bond in Australian dollars—that included the longest-dated, labeled sustainability bond—was commended by the Environmental Finance (2019) news outlet for enabling the university to deliver positive environmental and social outcomes. The proceeds were earmarked for green buildings, pollution prevention and control, alternative energy and energy efficiency, sustainable water and wastewater management, and the environmentally sustainable management of living natural resources and land use. According to one banker involved in the deal, the transaction was two-times over-subscribed, and demand was dominated by high-quality asset managers and life insurance funds (Environmental Finance, 2019). The ten-year bond highlights the way in which the engagement orientation can effectively shape not only a HEI’s strategic plans, but also its long-term financing, in continuing to adapt to (and support) the institution’s needs.

3 Challenges and Limitations

Despite the successes that the previous section outlines, the engagement orientation fostered by Macquarie University also faces various challenges, beginning with organizational changes. In 2013, the institution adopted a new strategic plan (as noted, as well, in the previous section); accordingly, the Sustainability Strategy also needed to be redeveloped to align with the plan. As the conventional qualitative content analysis of the organization’s collateral revealed, the existing strategy only covered the period 2009–2014; as such, it was nearing its end when the new university-wide strategic plan was adopted (Macquarie Sustainability, 2014). As a result, the sustainability department needed to expend time and energy on tasks—including fresh rounds of extensive consultations with stakeholders—that related to the redevelopment of the Strategy. Consequently, planning for individual initiatives stalled, with the department writing in its annual report that, “[u]nfortunately the accompanying action plans which detail how we will implement the strategy were not completed on time due to incomplete stakeholder input. These action plans will be completed in 2015” (Macquarie Sustainability, 2014, p. 8). As the annual sustainability reports stopped being published online in 2014 (Macquarie University Sustainability, n.d.), details about the action plans (if they were ever completed) are unavailable.

Over the years, as well, the organizational structure of the university changed, as all organizations’ structures always do, in evolving to meet shifting requirements. The structural changes prove problematic for the sustainability staff and their visibility. In 2008, the sustainability department—then called Sustainability@MQ—sat directly within the portfolio of the senior executives. In 2014, under the new title of Macquarie Sustainability, the unit became an “Administrative Department,” alongside other departments such as the Graduation Unit, Financial Services, and the Marketing Unit. By 2022, it disappeared from the university’s structure, no longer appearing in the organizational charts (Denby, 2009; Macquarie Sustainability, 2014; Macquarie University, 2022c). Although it is not immediately identifiable in the structure—and, thus, much less approachable for staff and students—it still exists, confirmed by a careful search of the university website also revealing its new title—Sustainability Unit. This search also yields a contact email address at the bottom of one of the webpages about sustainability (Macquarie University, 2022b).

The engagement orientation also faced external turbulence: the same turbulence that many (if not most) institutions have had to endure during the past four years. The global COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, severely impacted Macquarie University. Due to domestic and international funding shortfalls, the university took “hardline budget measures” that include a freeze on the hiring of new staff, a pause in the renewal of fixed-term contracts, and the dissolution of the Faculty of Human Sciences (Baker, 2019, para. 1), among other measures. The “locking-down” of Sydney also forced the cancellation of in-person activities, such as events, at multiple universities. Macquarie’s situation during the pandemic reflected that of many other universities in New South Wales; 2020–2021 reports revealed that Macquarie had recorded a deficit of more than AUD$50 million, as had the University of Technology Sydney, while, for example, the University of New South Wales had recorded a deficit of AUD$19 million and the University of Wollongong a deficit of over AUD$40 million (Sinclair, 2021).

Additionally, the engagement orientation faced the challenge of executive creep from the university’s senior leaders. This type of creep refers to an executive encroaching on a particular area of an organization or community (Buerkle et al., 2017, p. 2). In this case, executive creep takes the form of the decision-making of the university’s executive management making inroads on the engagement orientation. Macquarie University records show that, despite the involvement of many and varied stakeholders in the implementation and nurturing of the engagement orientation for sustainability, the university’s senior leaders engaged in key strategic decision-making without consulting stakeholders. For example, allocation reporting for the sustainability bond shows that:

the Macquarie University Finance & Facilities Committee (F&FC), under delegation from the University Council, approved at the meeting on 27th May 2019 the nomination of the Macquarie University Central Courtyard Project to receive 100% of the proceeds totalling $250m of the Bonds raised under the Macquarie University Sustainability Financing Framework. (Macquarie University, 2019, p. 3)

This sort of decision-making goes against the ethos and practices of the engagement orientation. Top-down judgments conflict with the very idea of organizations engaging in meaningful interactions with diverse stakeholders to undertake collective action, in authentic ways, together. Multiple other consequences can arise from these sorts of actions, ranging from a cooling of the organizational climate to outright revolt on the part of the staff. In Macquarie’s case, fortunately, such unpleasant consequences seem not have eventuated.

As these challenges illustrate, the engagement orientation can entail limitations that can prevent it from continuing to flourish and guide an HEI in nurturing sustainability. I offer the following recommendations, drawing on the Macquarie University case study, to help other HEIs and their members implement an engagement orientation for sustainability of their own.

  • The executive leaders of HEIs need to be committed, at the outset, to engaging meaningfully and attentively with multiple stakeholders. The leaders need to be prepared to maintain this commitment for the long term. Staff, students, and external stakeholders need to monitor the leaders’ actions to ensure that commitments are, indeed, faithfully maintained, as well as take action (through tools such as petitions, public meetings, and even rallies) when they are not.

  • Additionally, an HEI’s leaders should avoid making unilateral decisions without wider consultation. Otherwise, as Greenwood (2007) notes, engagement can end up being reduced to an instrument for manipulation or co-optation. Leaders should bear in mind that, in an era of increasing transparency and growing online communication by “active publics” with ever-higher expectations surrounding organizational behavior (Hutchins & Tindall, 2016), unpopular unilateral decisions are likely to result in reputational damage to the leaders themselves and the institutions that they serve.

  • A HEI’s sustainability approaches should grow organically out of dialogue with as many members of the institution as possible. The approaches should meet the needs of that particular institution. To ensure that such dialogue takes place, gatherings (especially meetings) should be organized with a wide variety of individuals and groups; the gatherings should also be promoted as widely as possible in advance, in order to increase interest and maximize participation.

  • When organizational change takes place, the sustainability team or division should be retained in close proximity to the HEI’s executive leaders, in order to show stakeholders that sustainability continues to be supported at the highest levels of the organization.

  • A HEI’s sustainability resources should be prominent, easily accessible—in person (especially on campus) and online—easy to understand, and well-maintained. Their development should be continuous to refine and improve the orientation long after its initial inception. Advances in theory and practice relating to sustainability broadly, and frameworks like the SDGs specifically, should be reflected in the resources.

4 Conclusion

As the need for effective action to support successful, long-term sustainability initiatives grows each year, HEIs need more useful tools at their disposal to meet the challenges associated with this need. The engagement orientation is one such tool. As this chapter argues, the orientation can significantly help HEIs foster sustainability, as it enables collective action to grow out of meaningful connection and dialogue with diverse parties; at the same time, the engagement orientation faces limitations, such as organizational changes, external turbulence, and executive creep. As the case study of Macquarie University demonstrates, the orientation, when implemented and nurtured effectively, can helpfully shape strategic decision-making and financing (not just for sustainability, but also for other HEI areas) for many years down the line. For community members, the benefits of developing bottom-up responses, instead of being given top-down directives, are significant.

This chapter opens a range of avenues for further inquiries. I examined a single case study here; future investigations could compare other cases to understand how other HEIs implement the engagement orientation, and how those institutions develop sustainability practices in response. In that respect, researchers might employ other approaches—such as interviews with HEI community members and ethnographic methods—to examine members’ responses to the orientation and the implementation of the sustainability initiatives. Finally, stakeholders could undertake action research to establish and nurture engagement orientations for sustainability in other HEIs. Such research approaches will become increasingly important in the coming years to help HEIs provide leadership for a world that needs to address its sustainability shortfalls with growing urgency.