Next Article in Journal
SMEs’ Innovativeness and Technology Adoption as Downsizing Strategies during COVID-19: The Moderating Role of Financial Sustainability in the Tourism Industry Using Structural Equation Modelling
Previous Article in Journal
University Incubator Support and Entrepreneurial Intention among Tourism Graduates: Mediating Role of Personal Attitude
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/su142316043
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

University 4.0 Sustainable Development in the Way of Society 5.0

by
Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka
1,*,
Simona Andrea Apostu
2,3,
Jamshid Ali Turi
4 and
Arifa Tanveer
5
1
Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-201 Częstochowa, Poland
2
Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010552 Bucharest, Romania
3
Institute of National Economy, 050711 Bucharest, Romania
4
College of Business Administration, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 47512, Saudi Arabia
5
Applied Economics Department, College of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(23), 16043; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316043
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 18 November 2022 / Accepted: 25 November 2022 / Published: 1 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue University 4.0 Sustainable Development in the Way of Society 5.0)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Universities can contribute to economic and sustainable development (SD) in a variety of ways, such as mediating social debates, educating citizens on scientific and technical issues, fostering communication among various agents (politicians, businesspeople, higher education institutions’ managers, and citizens), and advancing socioeconomic progress. By teaching the current and next generations of decision-makers, universities have a role in “shaping the ideals of society”. Numerous publications address the topic of sustainable development, but they do so from the standpoint of how its responsibilities are implemented and how students are prepared and aware of it. This manuscript addresses this vacuum by looking at how students assess university activities and specific pillars of sustainable development, which is an unique approach. The investigation used the CAWI questionnaire. The sample consists of 115 Pakistani respondents, and information was gathered between February and August of 2022. The research built a logistic regression model. Our research’s findings and their analysis revealed that University 4.0s should take initiatives for sustainable development, and that these issues are top priorities for them. The analysis revealed that Society 5.0 is active in University 4.0s’ sustainable development initiatives, and that these initiatives are vital for Society 5.0.

1. Introduction

A university exists in the Society 5.0 era. Society 5.0 is an intelligent society that is well interwoven with the physical and digital worlds [1]. The goal of Society 5.0 is for everyone to actively take part in integrating digital technology into numerous processes to accelerate their adoption [2]. The way society addresses and governs social concerns has changed from many earlier conceptions. With such innovative initiatives as Society 1.0 (hunger gatherer), Society 2.0 (agricultural), Society 3.0 (industrialized), and Society 4.0, society has progressed from many of these earlier conceptions (information) [1,3]. It is anticipated that the Society 5.0 period will be able to fill in any gaps and fix any issues with the systems of the social and virtual worlds. In order to advance humanism, Society 5.0 places a high priority on the advancement of scientific and technology advancements that primarily serve the economics sector’s development needs [4]. The characteristics of Society 5.0 are as follows: (1) complete information and communication technology utilization; (2) community focus; (3) engagement from people; (4) shared ideals of sustainability, inclusivity, effectiveness, and intellectual power; and (5) growth of economic disruption. Sustainability in Society 5.0 emphasizes maximizing the capacity of individual technology interactions to advance societal benefit [5]. Higher education institutions are essential to a sustainable society’s growth and development, and may function as transforming forces [6,7]. Students need to be able to thank critically, constructively, and creatively, as well as have a suitable awareness of their learning styles in order to actualize or prepare for the Society 5.0 era, especially in the area of education [5,8]. Institutions of higher education play a crucial part in sustainability.
Higher diagonally across the many academic fields. A strong and teaching methodologies brought about by Industry 4.0 (known as an Education or Edu 4.0) [9,10,11,12]. According to Marques et al. [13], the superior education sector has been considerably impacted by the growing demand for a more sustainable society. The university’s traditional function as a knowledge institution and as an actor in society has been evolving [14]. Academics, students, and policymakers in this sector face a growing challenge related to sustainability [15]. Recently, social responsibility and sustainability have attracted more of the university system’s attention [15,16,17,18]. Demands for higher education institutions (HEIs) to disclose how they incorporate and support sustainability are rising [19,20] as a result of quality management systems or by taking part in voluntary programs, such as the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME, 2016). Many authors have noted the relevance of higher education institutions in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [21,22,23,24,25]. They play a significant role in preparing future leaders who will support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) implementation [26,27]. Universities serve as “shapers of the values of society” by educating the present and the next generation of decision-makers [28]. Universities can contribute to economic and sustainable development (SD) in a variety of ways, such as: (1) mediating social debates, (2) educating citizens on scientific and technological issues, (3) fostering communication between different agents (politicians, businesspeople, HEI managers, and citizens), and (4) advancing socioeconomic progress. [29,30].
Many articles discuss the issue of sustainable development but from the perspective of implementation of its tasks, readiness, and awareness of students in relation to sustainable development [26,31,32,33,34,35,36]. This article fills the gap by examining how students evaluate initiatives taken by universities and individual pillars of sustainable development, which is novel at work. We believe that this article contributes to the development of literature by being a good guide for universities in implementing the pillars of sustainable development. The article analyzes the literature on sustainable development in the university field, including Society 5.0. The research aims at investigating how students evaluate university initiatives and individual pillars of sustainable development. So far, various studies on the issue of sustainable development have been carried out at universities in different countries. However, we have not found a study that assesses a student’s perspective on the activities undertaken in the field of sustainable development at a university. To achieve the manuscript goals, we have ordered the article as follows: Section 2 is devoted to a brief review of relevant literature. Section 3 presents data and methodology. Section 4 presents empirical results. Section 5 presents the discussion, and Section 6 presents the conclusion. There are some limitations connected with our manuscript, and we present them at the end of our manuscript.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Higher Education with Respect to Technology

The application of education technology throughout the educational process contexts, where the current teaching paradigm is being modified, is what is referred to as “Education 4.0.” [26,37]. One such example is the use of massive open online courses (MOOC), online learning platforms, devices that may assist teaching and learning, and the improvement of lecturer and staff abilities as developing technologies. For the aforementioned reasons, the higher education institution has to start establishing its learning plan in line with the digital revolution of education [38,39]. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the university from University 1.0 to University 4.0.
University 4.0 now engages in the emerging technology markets. The significance of information and communication technology (ICT) is seen in this. Hawaii is one example of an area that makes use of its distinctive geographic characteristics to foster the growth of enterprises and talents that have the ability to be of the highest caliber and to lead the growth of high-tech industries like robots, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning. Here, collaboration with universities and research institutes is crucial. The University of Hawaii cluster, for instance, is a significant center for the creation, manufacturing, and research of cutting-edge technologies and services, and it shares characteristics with Hawaii Island, which is located on the island of Oahu [40]. This kind of institution of higher learning places a strong emphasis on the improvement of students’ academic talents. ICT generally works with a broad variety of partners from the public sector, commercial sector, and education sector. Additionally, ICT strengthens students’ capacities to acquire technical and English abilities. Utilizing hybrid technology and collaborative intelligence, 4.0 universities would be manifestations of a “cognitive society” [9,41].

2.2. Sustainable Development from an Interdisciplinary Perspective

Higher education institutions (HEIs) might play a crucial role in promoting sustainable development (SD) at a time of global climate action. The demands of massification, globalization, marketization, and digitization are only a few of the more complicated factors that HEIs must address at the same time [42]. The idea of sustainable development (SD) is the following: “Development that satisfies the wants of the present without sacrificing the capacity of the future generations to satisfy their own” [43]. As a result, they develop into “a highly open environment—a hub for various communications, a node at the junction of different networks.” In addition to academics and students, a broad spectrum of outside partners are involved in these communications, research projects, and development initiatives [9]. Since education is a key tool for communication and the foundation of the “sustainable mentality,” it is the driving force behind developing sustainability. According to this idea, “a systemic approach to knowing, one which goes beyond technical knowledge and even grasping the fundamentals of a healthy environment and a functioning society,” is necessary. Numerous studies have emphasized the strategic role that higher education plays as a promoter of local economic progress [33,44,45,46,47]. In addition, it is a notion based on the economic, social, and environmental foundations [12,48]. Universities may support sustainability both internally (as an entity) and externally (as a regional actor) [49]. A significant number of national and international declarations concerning higher education institutions and sustainability have been created [34,50], which further supports the relevance of sustainability on universities’ agendas. The realization of the SDGs depends on education, which also plays a crucial role in creating a society that is supportive of various SDGs components [26]. Geographic disparities exist in the formation of sustainability education, and global disparities must be lessened via increased efforts [12,36]. Innovating, producing knowledge, and developing human capital are three key ways that higher education institutions may contribute to the attainment of the SDGs [35]. The influence of universities on the SDGs will mostly depend on two factors, according to [51]: (1) Collaborations between local institutions of higher learning; and (2) Obtaining funds for community research. Higher education institutions are responsible for cultivating the next generation of sustainability leaders. The next generation of sustainability leaders must be developed at higher education institutions, leading important global, regional, and local efforts, and playing a crucial role in achieving the SDGs’ aspirations [52]. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) focuses on SD concerns [53].

2.3. Training Process at a University in Connection with Sustainable Development

Students are acutely aware of the issue of sustainability; they value ecology and sustainability as major facets of their education, and actively pursue information in these areas. With this mindset, integrating sustainable and ecological design components into the curriculum may enhance student happiness and engagement [54,55]. According to Cottafava et al. [26], in order to ensure that students really understand the SDGs, active student involvement must be fostered.
Mulà et al. contend that, rather than fostering sustainable thinking and behaviors, today’s educational institutions reward unsustainable ones. According to those writers, attempts to change society must concentrate on educators, who must increase their knowledge of sustainability and their capacity to alter curricula and expand learning opportunities [56]. This demonstrates the critical role that academics play in incorporating sustainability into educational programs and the necessity for them to continue their professional development in the sustainability sector [57,58].
The implementation of education for sustainability depends on higher education institutions for three reasons: (1) projects developed by teaching and research centers that integrate sustainability principles across disciplines can improve sustainability; (2) outreach activities can help different teaching methods influence broader opinions; and (3) an institutional culture of sustainability raises awareness among university staff and the local and wider communities (for instance, promoting biodiversity, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, using energy more effectively, and minimizing the ecological impact). Institutions of higher learning may set an example for students and have an impact on them. The campus’s diverse activities, including institutional framework and assessment, research, teaching, experiences, and outreach, have a big impact on the outside world, namely on stakeholders’ awareness of sustainability concerns in the environment, economy, and society [55,59,60]. According to studies [58,61,62,63], higher education institutions in different nations are addressing the sustainability problem and may be adjusting the teaching programs they provide in a variety of subjects. Both teachers and pupils need to get significant attention [64]. A technical understanding of inter- and trans-disciplinarity is one thing that educators must possess [63,65]. On the other hand, students must understand their place in the world and their obligation to it [66].
Online technology, particularly in the present special environment, has become a priority, and is seen as the future path of educational progress. Numerous studies and revisions have been made regarding the effects and inclusion of sustainability concepts in degrees and course materials [26,67,68], as well as learning methodologies [69], in higher education institutions. In higher education, environmental problems are increasingly being included and accepted [70]. However, in other instances, they are not equally developed and unevenly distributed among degrees, in Spain [71], or they are not completely included into the programs, as noted by Stough et al. in Belgium [32]. This is despite the fact that a number of courses incorporate promoting or using sustainable practices in their curriculum learning goals [72,73]. Systematic review has been very successful in teaching sustainability-related topics if they are included in obligatory core courses rather than elective courses (mandatory disciplines) [68].

3. Data and Methodology

In order to analyze how students assess university activities and specific pillars of sustainable development, a survey method was adopted by employing a questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on the students’ opinions regarding sustainable development in order to achieve Society 5.0. The sample consisted of 115 respondents who were students from universities located in Pakistan, with data collected from February to August of 2022.The survey was based on a three-stage probability sampling procedure. The respondents were selected using a random walk procedure. The survey consisted of 21 questions to obtain information regarding the important factors for a career or job type in order to achieve sustainable development, while considering demographic characteristics, level of education, and education domain. To achieve our research objective, we chose to use logistic regression, because it allows for investigating the factors that influence respondents’ opinions on sustainable development in order to achieve Society 5.0, while considering careers or types of jobs in the future.
The supervised multiple linear regression model known as logistic regression (LR) employs a linear weighted computation as its input to derive the weight coefficients for the model [74]. The dependent variable is represented by the characteristics important for career or type of job in the future sustainable development context. The independent variables are the demographics, such as gender, age, place of residence, country, and university type (public or private), level of education (from bachelor to PhD), and field of study.
The conditional mean of the regression model is written as follows:
E (y|X) = 1⋯P(y = 1|X) + 0⋯P(y = 0|X) = P(y = 1|X)
According to (1), the probability can vary between 0 and 1; therefore, the linear regression function cannot be used, and it is necessary to respect the model response:
p = P ( y = 1 | X ) = f ( α + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + ⋯ + β k x k ) ,   with   p ∈ [ 0 ; 1 ]
The link between the explanatory variables and probabilities in the case of logistic regression is reflected through the following equation:
p = f ( α + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + ⋯ + β k x k ) = exp ( α + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + ⋯ + β k x k ) 1 + exp ( α + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + ⋯ + β k x k )
As this function can oscillate between 0 and 1, it can also be written as follows:
l o g p 1 − p = α + β 1 x 1 + β 2 x 2 + ⋯ + β k x k
The link between probability of success (p) and the probability of failure (1 − p) is reflected by p/(1 − p), called the odds of success. The value log [p/(1 − p)] is the logit of p and represents the log odds of success. In this context, the logistic regression model becomes a linear function for the odds of success that uses the logit transformation to model a binary response variable as a linear function of the explanatory variables.

4. Empirical Results

In order to achieve sustainable development, the universities and colleges provide opportunities for students to get involved in action that limits the negative impact it has on the environment and society. When considering the career or type of job in the future, accountability and ethics are very important. The students’ opinions on this were not influenced by demographic characteristics, place of residence, or type of university. Instead, they were significantly influenced by education. There are also differences according to countries and the field of study (Table 1).
Furthermore, students registering a higher level of education agreed less with this opinion. For example master students were 0.97 less likely to agree with this compared with bachelor’s students, and PhD students were 0.99 less likely to agree with this compared with bachelor’s students. For the universities and colleges take enough action to limit the negative impact they have on the environment and society, students agreed with this, without noticing significant differences according to other variables. Therefore, regardless of gender, education, type of university, field of study, or country, the students agreed that universities and colleges should contribute to limiting the negative impact on the environment and society. When considering the career or type of job in the future, an important aspect is being suited to its personality, and no significant differences were noted according to other variables.
Job security is another important aspect in choosing the career. The students’ opinions on this were significantly influenced by age (Table 2).
Furthermore, compared to people less than 22 years of age, people aged 23–26 were 0.92 less likely to agree more, people aged 27–30 were 0.921 less likely to agree more with this opinion, people aged 31–34 were 0.97 less likely to agree, and people more than 35 years of age were 0.932 less likely to agree.
Using skills developed through the course is an important factor considered for the career or type of job in the future, and people agreed with this. Some differences were noticed according to gender, with men agreeing less with this opinion (Table 3).
For the career or type of job in the future must be associated with the course and subject, the factors significantly influencing this opinion on it were: age, place of residence, type of university, education, and field of study (Table 4).
Compared to people less than 22 years of age, people aged 23–26 were 0.074 less likely to agree more with this opinion, people aged 27–30 were 0.41 less likely to agree more with this opinion, people aged 31–34 were 0.905 less likely to agree more, and people more than 35 years of age were 0.327 less likely to agree. For considering the importance of opportunities for progression for the career or type of job in the future, the factor significantly influencing this opinion was age (Table 5). People aged 23–26 were less likely to agree more than people less than 22 years of age. People aged 27–30 were 0.985 less likely to agree more, people aged 31–34 were 0.999 less likely to agree more, and people more than 35 years of age agreed as much as people less than 22 years of age.
For if the job has or contributes to a social purpose presents a high importance for the career or type of job in the future, results were significantly influenced by gender, age, place of residence, university type, education, country and field of education (Table 6). Men and people less than 22 years of age were more likely to agree with this opinion. People graduating from a public university and people living in cities agreed more with this opinion. Regarding the field of study, people studying environmental studies agreed more compared to other fields. People registering MS/MPhil or Bachelor’s and people from China were more likely to agree more with this opinion.
Benefits, qualification requirements, and if the company or organization contributes to helping the environment were also important for the career or type of job in the future. The importance of starting salary for the career or type of job in the future was significantly influenced by place of residence, type of university, education, and field of study (Table 7). The people living in the country side were 0.863 less likely to agree more than people living in cities. People graduating from a private university were 0.555 less likely to agree more than people graduating from a public university. People with a higher level of education were less likely to agree more, and people studying other fields than environmental studies were less likely to agree more.
Also, the program flexibility is important when considering the career or type of job in the future. Considering the importance of the job contribution to helping the environment, the factors significantly influencing this opinion were age and type of university (Table 8). People aged 23–26 were 0.341 less likely to agree more than people less than 22 years of age, people aged 27–30 were 0.938 less likely to agree more than people less than 22 years of age, people aged 31–34 were 0.174 less likely to agree more than people less than 22 years of age, and people more than 35 years of age were 0.592 less likely to agree more than people less than 22 years of age.
People also agreed with the importance of how well-respected the job is for the career or type of job in the future, and the significantly influencing variable was education (Table 9), with a higher level of education being associated with less agreement with this opinion.
For considering the experience when considering the career or type of job in the future, respondents agreed with this, without noticing significant differences.
Thus, students consider accountability and ethics as being very important in order to achieve sustainable development, with the differences being registered between domains and education. These results are normal due to the fact that different measures are being considered in order to achieve sustainable development. Also, the domain generated different results, with accountability not being associated with all programs considered by the universities. It is critical to match personality with a career or type of job in the future. Job security is also important in choosing a career, and was significantly influenced by age. The skills developed through the course are seen as important factors for a career or type of job in the future question had different opinions according to gender, with women appreciating their importance more. The opportunities for progression are also important for the career in the future question was significantly influenced by age, place of residence, type of university, education, and field of study. The question for a future career or type of job is a response to the job’s contribution to a social purpose was heavily influenced by gender, age, place of residence, university type, education, country, and field of education. Benefits, qualification requirements, and whether the company or organization contributes to helping the environment are also important for a future career or type of job. The importance of the starting salary for the type of career or job in the future question was significantly influenced by the place of residence, type of university, education, and field of study. Also, when deciding what type of career or job to pursue in the future, program flexibility is critical. For considering the importance of the job’s contribution to helping the environment, the factors significantly influencing this opinion were age and type of university. Respondents also agreed that how well-respected a job is was important for a future career or type of job, with education being a significant variable. In this context, the transition through sustainable development is realized with the help of universities. Their strategies are influencing the future careers of the students to achieve sustainable development.

5. Discussion

Due to review and ongoing improvement, the teaching and learning processes at universities are continually evolving [46,75]. A university’s strategic choices or an outside interruption making sustainable development a reality includes the provision of high-quality education [76,77]. In terms of the advancement of sustainability, universities have evolved into crucial players [78,79]. Universities themselves must practice sustainability in order to create effects for the SDGs [80,81]. To paraphrase Gandhi, they should “be the change [they] desire to see in the world” and lead by example [82]. Last but not least, universities should broaden their definition of success. Success involves more than just financial gain, recognition in the media, and student learning; it also involves fostering a sustainable society. Students should be familiar with how to run their lives on renewable energy, do away with the idea of trash, transform every waste product into a resource or nutrition for another species or activity, and recycle resources back into the natural cycles [83,84,85]. Universities are hubs for knowledge creation where the evolution of the human person and its surroundings are continuously assessed from the many fields of study [46,86]. The institution has been evolving throughout the years, which necessitates the development of fresh strategies for advancing culture and knowledge [87,88,89]. However, these initiatives must be connected to research, innovation, and technological development to achieve the training of professionals who meet the needs of their environment and can thereby contribute to sustainability management, in order to clearly achieve the fulfillment of the goals of sustainable development, including quality education, decent work, economic growth, industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as well as the reduction of inequalities, peace, justice, and indifference [90,91]. Due to the universal need to eradicate poverty, safeguard the environment, and ensure that all people experience peace and prosperity, promoting the articulation from all stakeholders and the feedback of the various procedures undertaken is necessary [91]. Academic sustainability’s main goal is to provide both teachers and students with the capacity to engage in sustainability research and problem-solving techniques that are based on (a) value systems and critical thinking, (b) anticipatory/normative thinking, (c) strategic thinking, and (d) interpersonal abilities. Interdisciplinary work has taken on a major role in the university sustainability domain in order to develop sustainability diagonally across the many academic fields. A strong cooperation with many stakeholders is essential. In this new paradigm, intellectual property is crucial, and partnerships between governments, universities, and businesses must foster sustainable growth. Universities strive to present themselves as research hubs on a worldwide scale, and as a result often draw collaborations. As Lozano et al. [34] discovered, universities must make sure that the needs of the present and future generations are better understood and addressed in order for professionals who are knowledgeable in SD to effectively educate students of “all ages” to aid them in the transition to “sustainable societal patterns.” [92,93].

6. Conclusions

This study aims to describe the features of 4.0 universities, assess the components of the university’s Society 5.0, and assess the degree to which universities are active in sustainable development. The results of our research and their analysis showed that 4.0 universities should take actions for sustainable development, and that the aspects of sustainable development must be a priority for them. The analysis of the results showed that for Society 5.0, the actions of University 4.0s on sustainable development are important, and Society 5.0 is involved in these actions. What the also survey found reveals how students see their future occupations and how they relate to the SDGs. In the case of education, it was shown that it is important to raise public awareness towards sustainable development. The sustainable mentality motivates us to leave behind the old management discipline silos by emphasizing management ethics, entrepreneurship, environmental studies, systems thinking, and self-awareness [94]. In student education and particular initiatives, the SDGs must be widely disseminated. Gatti et al proposal’s to teach sustainable development using business simulation games is one of the methods that may be utilized to help students get more familiar with the SDGs [55,95]. This method gives the learner a feeling of realism in their learning by exposing them to the immediate results of management choices, by encouraging sustainability, and by demonstrating how these actions have an impact on the managed organization. When getting sustainability education, a student should focus on the following three concerns, according to Wheeler: (a) Comprehend the social, economic, and environmental systems in detail. (b) Acknowledge the significance of these systems’ interdependence for a sustainable world. (c) Honor the variety of viewpoints and approaches to difficult problems. Specific curriculum are needed in order to guarantee that students can properly learn about the SDGs [96,97,98,99]. The significance of this was highlighted by André and Hastie [100] and Naik et al. [101], who documented the considerable benefits of technology-based SDG programs to supplement face-to-face learning. In order to ensure the success of sustainability education, it is crucial to adhere to specified pedagogical and content standards as described by the UN [98]. The student must understand the notions of severe and relative poverty and be able to critically reflect on their underlying cultural and normative assumptions and behaviors, such as the suggested cognitive learning goals for education in poverty reduction. In addition to behavioral learning objectives like “The learner can plan, implement, evaluate, and replicate activities that contribute to poverty reduction,” socio-emotional learning objectives, such as “The learner can collaborate with others to empower individuals and communities to affect change in the distribution of power and resources in the community and beyond” are needed. It is also essential to suggest specific workshops on subjects such as “The Interrelation of Poverty, Natural Hazards, Climate Change, and Other Economic, Social, and Environmental Shocks and Stresses,” and to use teaching strategies and instructional techniques such as “Plan and Run an Awareness Campaign about Poverty Locally and Globally” [99]. The enormous potential for leveraging social networks like Twitter to spread awareness of the SDGs is described by authors Andre et al., Naik et al., Bellantuono et al., Goritz et al., [100,101,102,103] and Killian et al. [104]. However, Cerro Velázquez and Morales Méndez [105] emphasize that a significant amount of the material that can have the most effects on students be disseminated through applications on mobile devices. By tailoring instruction to the user’s browsing tastes and lifestyle, the SDGs may be made more readily attainable via the use of education.
When it comes to promoting sustainable development (SD) at a time of global climate action, higher education institutions (HEIs) might play a crucial role. The demands of massification, globalization, marketization, and digitization are only a few of the more complicated issues that HEIs must address at the same time [42]. The intrinsic complexity of SD, which requires systemic change rather than just adaptation [103,104], is probably one of the reasons it has not permeated mainstream academics and university administration. In other words, addressing the SD problem head-on will result in more conflicts and impasses and, thus, greater complexity [105].
Our findings show that domain, personality suitability, job security, skills developed through the course, opportunities for advancement, job contribution to a social purpose, benefits, qualification requirements, whether the company or organization contributes to helping the environment, starting salary, program flexibility, job contribution to helping the environment, and how well-respected the job is, are viewed as important factors for the future career.
A large number of studies in recent years evaluated the effects of higher education on sustainability [33,47,106], and higher education institutions are typically seen as “changing agents” and “catalysts” in the development of sustainability-related issues [107]. In general, a sustainability-based education influences educational content, as well as the related procedure and results [95]. The SDGs are requiring universities to adapt in order to meet the needs of a world in crisis. In order to address the most pressing issues of our day, there is a need for a change in mindset and ethical behavior. All university curriculum should take into account vital subjects such as systems thinking, anticipating abilities, and integrated issue solving. To establish sustainable practices, a multidisciplinary approach should be the driving force [108]. The difficulties in implementing the SDGs were enumerated by Richardson [78]. Among them, it is crucial to draw attention to the following: (1) the undereducated, unmotivated, and poor teaching techniques, the unrelated content, and the audience; (2) the uneducated target audience, who is remarkably ignorant of world issues like global warming; (3) consumption habits and attitudes regarding the environment, as influenced by various cultures; (4) individual viewpoints; and (5) the exclusion of minorities and elitism. Given that it calls for combining business, the environment, and people—which are three major factors—the idea of sustainability is inherently difficult. For universities to effectively serve as sustainability models, a strong organizational culture must be created. The development of a new set of values and behaviors is essential for this to occur, and major adjustments must be made in this direction [31]. According to Howlett et al. [79], the responsibility for the present environmental problem is what drives higher education institutions’ involvement in promoting sustainability. Universities’ sustainability-related initiatives, plans, and initiatives make up their strategy. In order to comply with the SDGs, universities must incorporate sustainability-related material into their curricula, establish monitoring metrics to evaluate how well they are meeting the goals, encourage collaboration and coordination among departments to work toward common goals, and support interdisciplinary research that aims to find novel solutions that are sustainable [78].
From a pedagogical standpoint, understanding education for sustainable development has certain issues as well. The disciplinary paradigm that has developed in institutions/schools is clearly challenged by the ESD’s demands on teacher literacy, teaching material, and learning methodologies. Many educational approaches in schools are unable to accommodate the transdisciplinary character of the ESD. There would be fewer issues with organization, management, coordination, and technical operations if instructors from other disciplines could collaborate and learn from one another.
Bauer et al. [61] argue that in order to promote transformational behaviors at all levels, SD should be embraced by universities as a whole-institution approach. According to the authors [42,109] institutions should strive to increase students’ abilities to handle complexity and ambiguity as well as lean toward a more integrated viewpoint. For society to flourish sustainably, universities are important institutions. This is shown by organizations like the University Leaders for a Sustainable Future group, which was founded in 2015, as well as by how crucial it is for institutions to collaborate in this area, creating networks and clusters like sustainable campuses or macro-campuses [110,111,112,113] It is also important to develop what is referred to as sustainable thinking, as well as accountability and social commitment. The relevant integration of sustainability ideas in university study programs is also important [114]. They create an interdisciplinary understanding together of the three areas of sustainable growth and climate, economy, and society, while recognizing that they are always a part of society and through partnerships and communication. Establishing accountability with other specialized institutions while taking protection of human rights into account is necessary.
In the future, we will focus our research on teachers and the skills they will need to help students become aware of and develop skills for sustainable development in different countries.

7. Limitations and Future Suggestions for Future Research

Data as well as the absence of relevant working papers are the study’s shortcomings. With regards to the relevant literature at colleges in different nations, several studies on the topic of sustainable development have so far been conducted. We were unable to locate research that evaluated the viewpoint of towards the initiatives made in the area of sustainable development at a university. There is a shortage of relevant statistics about internet usage in higher education, as well as a restricted availability of data. In the future, students from EU countries will be asked to evaluate the work done by universities and the many pillars of sustainable development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.-S. and S.A.A.; methodology, J.R.-S. and S.A.A.; software, A.T. and J.A.T.; formal analysis, J.R.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R.-S. and S.A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.T. and J.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. da Costa Tavares, M.D.C.; do Carmo Azevedo, G.M. Society 5.0 as a Contribution to the Sustainable Development Report. In International Conference on Tourism, Technology and Systems; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  2. Nair, M.M.; Tyagi, A.K.; Sreenath, N. The Future with Industry 4.0 at the Core of Society 5.0: Open Issues, Future Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI), Coimbatore, India, 27–29 January 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pyöriä, P.; Ojala, S.; Saari, T.; Järvinen, K.-M. The Millennial Generation. SAGE Open 2017, 7, 215824401769715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Nugraha, A.; Aminur Rahman, F. Android Application Development of Student Learning Skills in Era Society 5.0. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1779, 12014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sudibjo, N.; Idawati, L.; Harsanti, H.R. Characteristics of Learning in The Era of Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education Technology (ICoET 2019), Padang, Indonesia, 25–27 July 2019; pp. 276–278. [Google Scholar]
  6. Salgues, B. Society 5: Industry of the Future, Technologies, Methods and Tools; ISTE Ltd.: London, UK; John Wiley & Sons, Inc: London, Hoboken, NJ, 2018; ISBN 9781119527619. [Google Scholar]
  7. Holm, T.; Sammalisto, K.; Grindsted, T.S.; Vuorisalo, T. Process framework for identifying sustainability aspects in university curricula and integrating education for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wals, A.E. Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: A review of learning and institutionalization processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 62, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gusmão Caiado, R.G.; Leal Filho, W.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Luiz de Mattos Nascimento, D.; Ávila, L.V. A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1276–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Martínez, J.L.M. Ética en la universidad: El horizonte de la Agenda 2030 y de la Ecología Integral. Razón Y Fe 2019, 279, 285–298. [Google Scholar]
  11. Boni, A.; Lopez-Fogues, A.; Walker, M. Higher education and the post-2015 agenda: A contribution from the human development approach. J. Glob. Ethics 2016, 12, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Owens, T.L. Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. Eur. J. Educ. 2017, 52, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Marques, C.; Bachega, S.J.; Tavares, D.M. Framework proposal for the environmental impact assessment of universities in the context of Green IT. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Žalėnienė, I.; Pereira, P. Higher Education for Sustainability: A Global Perspective. Geogr. Sustain. 2021, 2, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brudermann, T.; Aschemann, R.; Füllsack, M.; Posch, A. Education for Sustainable Development 4.0: Lessons Learned from the University of Graz, Austria. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Laptevа, A.V.; Efimov, V.S.; Лаптева, А.; Ефимoв, В. New Generation of Universities. University 4.0. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. 2016, 11, 2681–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wielewska, I.; Gliniak, M.; Sobczyk, W.; Prus, P. Ecological Education for Sustainable Development of Rural Areas. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference “Economic Science for Rural Development”, Jelgava, Latvia, 27–28 April 2017; pp. 250–257. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Zywiolek, J.; Kulinska, E.; Matulewski, M. Analysis of Enterprises’ Readiness in for Industry 4.0 Implementation: The Case of Poland. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2021, XXIV, 615–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Fissi, S.; Romolini, A.; Gori, E.; Contri, M. The path toward a sustainable green university: The case of the University of Florence. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yuan, X.; Zuo, J. A critical assessment of the Higher Education for Sustainable Development from students’ perspectives—A Chinese study. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lozano, R.; Carpenter, A.; Huisingh, D. A review of ‘theories of the firm’ and their contributions to Corporate Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ramos, T.B.; Caeiro, S.; van Hoof, B.; Lozano, R.; Huisingh, D.; Ceulemans, K. Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bask, A.; Rajahonka, M.; Laari, S.; Solakivi, T.; Töyli, J.; Ojala, L. Environmental sustainability in shipper-LSP relationships. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2986–2998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Azzali, S.; Sabour, E.A. A framework for improving sustainable mobility in higher education campuses: The case study of Qatar University. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2018, 6, 603–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Godemann, J.; Bebbington, J.; Herzig, C.; Moon, J. Higher education and sustainable development. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 218–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cottafava, D.; Cavaglià, G.; Corazza, L. Education of sustainable development goals through students’ active engagement. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2019, 10, 521–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ojala, M. Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. Futures 2017, 94, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Society 5.0 and sustainability digital innovations: A social process. J. Organ. Cult. Commun. Confl. 2019, 2, 1–14.
  29. Hanafi, M.R.; Abuzar, W. Overview of Student Enrolment, Teaching Faculty and Student-Teacher Ratio of Private and Public Universities in Pakistan. Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res. 2021, 9, 722–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qazi, Z.; Qazi, W.; Raza, S.A.; Yousufi, S.Q. The Antecedents Affecting University Reputation and Student Satisfaction: A Study in Higher Education Context. Corp Reput. Rev. 2022, 25, 253–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adams, R.; Martin, S.; Boom, K. University culture and sustainability: Designing and implementing an enabling framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stough, T.; Ceulemans, K.; Lambrechts, W.; Cappuyns, V. Assessing sustainability in higher education curricula: A critical reflection on validity issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4456–4466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fehlner, W. Educating for Sustainability: The Crucial Role of the Tertiary Sector. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 12, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lozano, R.; Lukman, R.; Lozano, F.J.; Huisingh, D.; Lambrechts, W. Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chankseliani, M.; McCowan, T. Higher education and the Sustainable Development Goals. High. Educ. 2021, 81, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Samuelsson, I.P.; Park, E. How to Educate Children for Sustainable Learning and for a Sustainable World. Int. J. Early Child. 2017, 49, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brugmann, R.; Côté, N.; Postma, N.; Shaw, E.; Pal, D.; Robinson, J. Expanding Student Engagement in Sustainability: Using SDG- and CEL-Focused Inventories to Transform Curriculum at the University of Toronto. Sustainability 2019, 11, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Indrajit, R.E.; Wibawa, B.; Suparman, A. University 4.0 in Developing Countries. Int. J. Sociotechnology Knowl. Dev. 2021, 13, 33–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jugembayeva, B.; Murzagaliyeva, A. RETRACTED: Creative thinking as a driver for students’ transition to university 4.0 model. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 41, 100919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kennedy, K. Quality Assurance 4.0: Innovation and Development in University Quality Assurance. SAQA Bull. 2021, 20, 278. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gorina, L.; Polyakova, E. University 4.0 within the context of the sustainable development of higher education. E3S Web. Conf. 2021, 250, 4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zengin, Y.; Naktiyok, S.; Kaygın, E.; Kavak, O.; Topçuoğlu, E. An Investigation upon Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0 within the Context of Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Giesenbauer, B.; Tegeler, M. The Transformation of Higher Education Institutions Towards Sustainability from a Systemic Perspective; Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 637–650. [Google Scholar]
  44. Abad-Segura, E.; González-Zamar, M.-D. Sustainable economic development in higher education institutions: A global analysis within the SDGs framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Efimov, V.; Lapteva, A. University 4.0: Philosophical analysis, 2017. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, Spain, 16–18 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dagiliūtė, R. Sustainable Consumption and some policies behind: Lithuanian Case. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 1439–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lozano, R.; Ceulemans, K.; Alonso-Almeida, M.; Huisingh, D.; Lozano, F.J.; Waas, T.; Lambrechts, W.; Lukman, R.; Hugé, J. A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nagendra, H.; Bai, X.; Brondizio, E.S.; Lwasa, S. The urban south and the predicament of global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Franco, I.; Saito, O.; Vaughter, P.; Whereat, J.; Kanie, N.; Takemoto, K. Higher education for sustainable development: Actioning the global goals in policy, curriculum and practice. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 1621–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Cebrián, G.; Grace, M.; Humphris, D. Academic staff engagement in education for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Findler, F.; Schönherr, N.; Lozano, R.; Reider, D.; Martinuzzi, A. The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Littledyke, M.; Manolas, E.; Littledyke, R.A. A systems approach to education for sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2013, 14, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Leal Filho, W.; Raath, S.; Lazzarini, B.; Vargas, V.R.; de Souza, L.; Anholon, R.; Quelhas, O.; Haddad, R.; Klavins, M.; Orlovic, V.L. The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shields, R. The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate change. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 594–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gatti, L.; Ulrich, M.; Seele, P. Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: An exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 667–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mulà, I.; Tilbury, D.; Ryan, A.; Mader, M.; Dlouhá, J.; Mader, C.; Benayas, J.; Dlouhý, J.; Alba, D. Catalysing Change in Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 798–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Blašková, M.; Tumová, D.; Blaško, R.; Majchrzak-Lepczyk, J. Spirals of Sustainable Academic Motivation, Creativity, and Trust of Higher Education Staff. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sánchez-Carracedo, F.; Ruiz-Morales, J.; Valderrama-Hernández, R.; Muñoz-Rodríguez, J.M.; Gomera, A. Analysis of the presence of sustainability in Higher Education Degrees of the Spanish university system. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 300–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sidiropoulos, E. Education for sustainability in business education programs: A question of value. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 472–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sammalisto, K.; Lindhqvist, T. Integration of Sustainability in Higher Education: A Study with International Perspectives. Innov. High. Educ. 2008, 32, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bauer, M.; Bormann, I.; Kummer, B.; Niedlich, S.; Rieckmann, M. Sustainability Governance at Universities: Using a Governance Equalizer as a Research Heuristic. High. Educ. Policy 2018, 31, 491–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mintz, K.; Tal, T. Sustainability in higher education courses: Multiple learning outcomes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2014, 41, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Figueiró, P.S.; Raufflet, E. Sustainability in higher education: A systematic review with focus on management education. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Krishna Das, J.; Das, A.; Rosak-Szyrocka, J. A Hybrid Deep Learning Technique for Sentiment Analysis in E-Learning Platform with Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), Split, Croatia, 22–24 September 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  65. University Leadership Role in Effective Education for Sustainable Development. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344879275_University_Leadership_Role_in_Effective_Education_for_Sustainable_Development (accessed on 19 October 2022).
  66. Fülöp, M.T.; Breaz, T.O.; He, X.; Ionescu, C.A.; Cordoş, G.S.; Stanescu, S.G. The role of universities’ sustainability, teachers’ wellbeing, and attitudes toward e-learning during COVID-19. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 981593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Shealy, T.; Valdes-Vasquez, R.; Klotz, L.; Potvin, G.; Godwin, A.; Cribbs, J.; Hazari, Z. Career outcome expectations related to sustainability among students intending to major in civil engineering. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2016, 142, 04015008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Blaskova, M.; Blasko, R.; Matuska, E.; Rosak-Szyrocka, J. Development of Key Competences of University Teachers and Managers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 182, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Warr Pedersen, K. Supporting collaborative and continuing professional development in education for sustainability through a communities of practice approach. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 681–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Avery, H.; Nordén, B. Working with the divides. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 666–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ferrer-Balas, D.; Adachi, J.; Banas, S.; Davidson, C.I.; Hoshikoshi, A.; Mishra, A.; Motodoa, Y.; Onga, M.; Ostwald, M. An international comparative analysis of sustainability transformation across seven universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Lambrechts, W.; Verhulst, E.; Rymenams, S. Professional development of sustainability competences in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 697–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Meyer, J.; Mader, M.; Zimmermann, F.; Çabiri, K. Training sessions fostering transdisciplinary collaboration for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 738–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Di Giulio, A.; Defila, R. Enabling university educators to equip students with inter- and transdisciplinary competencies. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 630–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Universities must Lead on Sustainable Development Goals. 2018. Available online: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181106131352348 (accessed on 19 October 2022).
  76. Zeng, X.; Liu, Y.; Liu, W.; Yuan, C.; Luo, X.; Xie, F.; Chen, X.; de La Chapelle, M.L.; Tian, H.; Yang, X.; et al. Evaluation of classification ability of logistic regression model on SERS data of miRNAs. J. Biophotonics 2022, e202200108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gual, C. Are Universities Ready to Have a Real Impact on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? 2019. Available online: https://www.hes-so.ch/data/documents/GLOBAL-UNIVERSITY-NETWORK-FOR-INNOVATION-12023.pdf#page=41 (accessed on 19 October 2022).
  78. Richardson, C.W. Obstacles to implementation of the SDGs: Feelings over facts. In Implementing the 2030 Agenda at Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Responses; Global University Network for Innovation (GUNi): Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  79. Howlett, C.; Ferreira, J.-A.; Blomfield, J. Teaching sustainable development in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Zhang, H.; Deng, Y.; Guo, A.J.X.; Hou, Q.-H.; Wu, O. A Latent Logistic Regression Model with Graph Data. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2210.05218. [Google Scholar]
  81. Fülöp, M.T.; Udvaros, J.; Gubán, Á.; Sándor, Á. Development of Computational Thinking Using Microcontrollers Integrated into OOP (Object-Oriented Programming). Sustainability 2022, 14, 7218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ayesha, A. EFL Teaching and CALL in Higher Education in Pakistan. In English Language Teaching in Pakistan; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 311–327. [Google Scholar]
  83. Nousheen, A.; Kalsoom, Q. Education for sustainable development amidst COVID-19 pandemic: Role of sustainability pedagogies in developing students’ sustainability consciousness. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2022, 23, 1386–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Schiller, D.; Radinger-Peer, V. Introduction: The Role of Universities in Regional Transitions towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Burmann, C.; García, F.; Guijarro, F.; Oliver, J. Ranking the Performance of Universities: The Role of Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ignacio Gonzalez Arruti, C.; Jacinta Musalem Enriquez, A. Responsibility in Institutions of Higher Education: Education for Sustainable Development. AJASR 2022, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Moganadas, S.R.; Nun, S.H.; Subramaniam, S.; Bahaman, A.S. Perspectives of academic staff concerning the sustainable development dimensions of a Malaysian higher education institution. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 13817–13840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jerome, J.T.J.; Bhat, A.K. Hand Surgery Day in India. J. Hand Microsurg. 2022, 14, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sajjad, M.; Munir, H.; Kanwal, S.; Asad Naqvi, S.A. Spatial inequalities in education status and its determinants in Pakistan: A district-level modelling in the context of sustainable development Goal-4. Appl. Geogr. 2022, 140, 102665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Apostu, S.A.; Vasile, V.; Vasile, R.; Rosak-Szyrocka, J. Do Smart Cities Represent the Key to Urban Resilience? Rethinking Urban Resilience. IJERPH 2022, 19, 15410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sharma, B. Sustainable Development through Research and Higher Education in India. Education 2014, 2, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Blašková, M.; Dlouhý, D.; Blaško, R. Values, Competences and Sustainability in Public Security and IT Higher Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Blaskova, M. Engineering production education in e-learning example in Poland. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2016, 12, 42–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Żywiołek, J.; Nayyar, A.; Naved, M. Advances in Distance Learning in Times of Pandemic, 1st ed.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2023; ISBN 103233441X. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mandaviya, M.; Dwivedi, V.V. A critical review on paradigms of sustainable development in higher education: An international perspective. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2016, 2, 312–320. [Google Scholar]
  96. Vogt, M.; Weber, C. The Role of Universities in a Sustainable Society. Why Value-Free Research is Neither Possible nor Desirable. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Kassel, K.; Rimanoczy, I.; Mitchell, S.F. The Sustainable Mindset: Connecting Being, Thinking, and Doing in Management Education. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2016, 2016, 16659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wheeler, K.A.; Hesselink, F.; Goldstein, W. Education for Sustainability—Looking Backward and Looking Forward—IUCN CEC Perspective on the United Nations Decade of ESD. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2015, 14, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pallant, E.; Choate, B.; Haywood, B. How Do You Teach Undergraduate University Students to Contribute to UN SDGs 2030? Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 69–85. [Google Scholar]
  100. André, M.; Hastie, P. Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2018, 24, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Naik, G.; Chitre, C.; Bhalla, M.; Rajan, J. Impact of use of technology on student learning outcomes: Evidence from a large-scale experiment in India. World Dev. 2020, 127, 104736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bellantuono, L.; Monaco, A.; Tangaro, S.; Amoroso, N.; Aquaro, V.; Bellotti, R. An equity-oriented rethink of global rankings with complex networks mapping development. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Goritz, A.; Kolleck, N.; Jörgens, H. Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change Education: The Potential of Social Network Analysis Based on Twitter Data. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Killian, S.; Lannon, J.; Murray, L.; Avram, G.; Giralt, M.; O’Riordan, S. Social Media for Social Good: Student engagement for the SDGs. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2019, 17, 100307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Del Cerro Velázquez, F.; Morales Méndez, G. Augmented Reality and Mobile Devices: A Binominal Methodological Resource for Inclusive Education (SDG 4). An Example in Secondary Education. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Zywiolek, J.; Zaborski, A.; Chowdhury, S.; Hu, Y.-C. Digitalization of Higher Education Around the Globe During Covid-19. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 59782–59791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sanchez, D.O.M. Sustainable Development Challenges and Risks of Industry 4.0: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 2019 Global IoT Summit (GIoTS), Aarhus, Denmark, 17–21 June 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  108. Moore, J.; Pagani, F.; Quayle, M.; Robinson, J.; Sawada, B.; Spiegelman, G.; van Wynsberghe, R. Recreating the university from within. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2005, 6, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Pongiglione, F. The need for a priority structure for the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Glob. Ethics 2015, 11, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Żywiołek, J. Qualitative Analysis of Household Energy Awareness in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bhargava, R.; Deshmukh, K. Case-Based Research on Enhancing Student Awareness of Sustainable Development Goals in B-Schools. Int. J. Early Child. 2022, 14, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  112. Shiel, C.; Leal Filho, W.; do Paço, A.; Brandli, L. Evaluating the engagement of universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local communities. Eval. Program Plann. 2016, 54, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Prieto-Jiménez, E.; López-Catalán, L.; López-Catalán, B.; Domínguez-Fernández, G. Sustainable Development Goals and Education: A Bibliometric Mapping Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Miquelajauregui, Y.; Bojórquez-Tapia, L.A.; Eakin, H.; Gómez-Priego, P.; Pedroza-Páez, D. Challenges and opportunities for universities in building adaptive capacities for sustainability: Lessons from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Clim. Policy 2022, 22, 637–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 16043 g001 550
Figure 1. The evolution of the university from University 1.0 to university 4.0.
Figure 1. The evolution of the university from University 1.0 to university 4.0.
Sustainability 14 16043 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics influencing the importance of accountability and ethics for the career or type of job in the future.
Table 1. Characteristics influencing the importance of accountability and ethics for the career or type of job in the future.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept135.3870.0000
Gender137.6762.28920.318
Age146.65911.27280.187
Place of residence136.5811.19420.551
University type136.6031.21620.544
Education149.49814.11180.079
Field of Study147.41512.02780.150
Country159.97824.590180.137
Table
Table 2. Characteristics influencing the importance of job security for the career or type of job in the future.
Table 2. Characteristics influencing the importance of job security for the career or type of job in the future.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept152.5230.0000
Gender152.8030.28140.991
Age180.57428.052160.031
Place of residence155.8793.35640.500
University159.3266.80340.147
Education174.66522.142160.139
Field of Study169.96217.440160.358
Country179.32826.806360.867
Table
Table 3. Characteristics influencing the importance of using skills developed through the course for the career or type of job in the future.
Table 3. Characteristics influencing the importance of using skills developed through the course for the career or type of job in the future.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept144.4270.0000.
Gender150.5916.16340.187
Age152.4227.995160.949
Place_of_residence146.2171.78940.774
University146.5062.07940.721
Education152.7018.273160.940
Field_of_Study154.53410.106160.861
Country164.18119.754360.987
Table
Table 4. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of course or subject for future career.
Table 4. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of course or subject for future career.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept165.1830.0000
Gender168.4123.22930.358
Age226.66061.477120.000
Place of residence173.7808.59730.035
University180.07514.89330.002
Education546.141380.958120.000
Field_of_Study187.15921.976120.038
Country164.256.27.
Table
Table 5. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of opportunities for progression for the career or type of job in the future.
Table 5. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of opportunities for progression for the career or type of job in the future.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept110.7440.0000.
Gender117.4366.69240.153
Age140.19729.453160.021
Place of residence113.3112.56740.633
University115.0514.30740.366
Education127.20916.465160.421
Field of Study127.78317.039160.383
Country143.16732.423360.639
Table
Table 6. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of having or contributing to a social purpose.
Table 6. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of having or contributing to a social purpose.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept91.8640.0000.
Gender121.05929.19640.000
Age142.63950.776160.000
Place_of_residence111.55619.69340.001
University120.62928.76540.000
Education621.860529.996160.000
Field of Study117.16725.304160.065
Country208.868117.005360.000
Table
Table 7. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of starting salary for the career or type of job in the future.
Table 7. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of starting salary for the career or type of job in the future.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept123.7430.0000.
Gender129.2905.54640.236
Age146.56522.822160.119
Place of residence134.58810.84540.028
University132.2048.46140.076
Education155.94232.199160.009
Field of Study160.10336.359160.003
Country164.28240.538360.277
Table
Table 8. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of job contribution to helping the environment.
Table 8. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of job contribution to helping the environment.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept164.0010.0000
Gender168.7654.76540.312
Age585.597421.596160.000
Place of residence164.9290.92840.921
University172.4198.41840.077
Education114.830 16
Field of Study178.50714.506160.561
Country145.336 36
Table
Table 9. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of how well-respected the job is for the career or type of job in the future.
Table 9. Characteristics influencing the opinion on the importance of how well-respected the job is for the career or type of job in the future.
EffectModel Fitting CriteriaLikelihood Ratio Tests
−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced ModelChi-SquaredfSig.
Intercept109.3530.0000.
Gender114.6185.26540.261
Age124.99115.638160.478
Place of residence109.6770.32440.988
University114.6465.29340.259
Education135.74726.394160.049
Field of Study127.17317.820160.335
Country154.54745.194360.140
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Apostu, S.A.; Ali Turi, J.; Tanveer, A. University 4.0 Sustainable Development in the Way of Society 5.0. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316043

AMA Style

Rosak-Szyrocka J, Apostu SA, Ali Turi J, Tanveer A. University 4.0 Sustainable Development in the Way of Society 5.0. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):16043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316043

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rosak-Szyrocka, Joanna, Simona Andrea Apostu, Jamshid Ali Turi, and Arifa Tanveer. 2022. "University 4.0 Sustainable Development in the Way of Society 5.0" Sustainability 14, no. 23: 16043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316043

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop