Framing Teaching for Sustainability in the Case of Business Engineering Education: Process-Centric Models and Good Practices

Abstract

Sustainability is a difficult topic, and education systems are generally complicated, including multiple levels as well as diverse organizations and actors. This dual complexity, which affects both sustainability and higher education systems, poses great challenges for research. Although there has been a growing interest in adopting sustainable practices within HEIs, few studies have focused on the integration of sustainability concerns into curricula through a process-centric lens, and the majority of studies in this area are mainly input-oriented. Therefore, in this study, we seek to address the need for a comprehensive understanding to solve local problems through process-centric views and tested methodologies, offering new possibilities for teaching sustainability. We focus on education as a system (i.e., comprising inputs, outputs, and processes) and develop a conceptual design of the deployed teaching processes for a real-world project scenario aimed at mainstreaming sustainability into the curriculum, in the case of business engineering. The research process consisted of (i) the application of a functional decomposition technique at institutional and project levels for integration of the project into current academic practices; (ii) the application of the SIPOC (Supplier, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customer) method in conjunction with a flowcharting technique to capture the flow of interactions between project processes and the surrounding structure. The added value derives from a better understanding of the relationships between upstream and downstream processes, enabling sustained improvement and strengthening the teaching practices related to sustainability.

1. Introduction

Through the European Green Deal and the challenges related to green and digital transformations, the European Union (EU) is working to deliver the transformational changes needed in our economy and society, including concrete actions to protect and restore natural ecosystems, the sustainable use of resources, the improvement of human health, and promotion of and investment into the necessary tools to enable the shift toward sustainable economies [1].

Sustainable development is a main principle of the EU, and delivering on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals is a priority objective for the Union’s internal and external policies. As acknowledged by the UN 2030 Agenda, the commitment of high-level stakeholders to sustainable development was captured within seventeen universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and related targets, balancing all facets of sustainable growth, such as economic, environmental, and social concerns [2].

1.1. Sustainable Development and Education Implications

As with other sectors, education and training must carefully consider how relevant operations, procedures, and practices are responding to the challenge of green and digital transformation and, most importantly, how it is educating students for the future [3]. This has also been acknowledged by the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training through its fifth strategic priority, which stresses the need to integrate sustainability-related knowledge across all levels and types of education by adapting the organizational growth to take into account teaching and learning for sustainability [4].

The transition to sustainable development is considered the single path away from the critical situation, in terms of interactions between humans, society, and nature. Education, as a social and civilizational institute, is considered the main mechanism for the formation of social intellect as a basis for managing the “knowledge community,” which requires the baseline foundation of the concept of sustainable development, in terms of the in-depth synthesis of morality, spirituality and intelligence, environmental education, and fostering of socio-natural value systems [5]. Learners need to understand the interconnectedness of economic, social, and natural systems, and then move from this awareness to individual and collective action and empowerment.

The quest for sustainability education has been addressed in many studies in the existing scientific literature, mainly with an input-oriented perspective. Input variables such as students, educators and teachers, curriculum design, and development of sustainability-related competencies in different settings and contexts, both within and beyond formal education, have been extensively studied.

1.1.1. The Role of Students and Teachers in Education for Sustainability

Researchers have devoted attention to assessing the commitment of students toward the principles of sustainable development in their future life. Using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis, they have observed a positive correlation between responsible management education and the student’s degree of involvement, increased awareness of their role in society, and the need to apply sustainability principles, especially in terms of taking care of the environment and acting as a responsible member of society [6]. By considering a narrow approach to economics and business education, other studies have assessed the connection between education for sustainable development principles and student behaviours. The scholars noticed how the sustainable behaviours of students are shaped by their perception of sustainable campus initiatives, teaching staff involvement, and curricula. Thus, an increased share of sustainable development topics combined with the power of the example set by teaching staff having qualitative personal and professional skills are crucial for raising awareness of sustainability issues and shaping sustainable behaviours in students [7].

The critical roles of teachers have also been analysed, where the findings advocated for their particular importance in developing students’ sustainability competencies and skills. Thorough teacher training aimed at raising awareness about SDGs by applying critical thinking to problem-solving issues and related applications in their teaching has been pinpointed as a good practice [8]. Furthermore, the development and evaluation of teacher competencies, in terms of their capability to develop student’s personalities, create a positive teaching climate, master the subjects taught, apply adequate teaching methods, design and plan the teaching process, and evaluate the progress and results of the teaching and learning process, have been demonstrated as critical improvement actions [9]. As far as high-quality sustainable teaching, other scholars have studied various success factors, such as a passion for teaching, facilitating interest in learning, good professional preparedness, evaluation of teaching effectiveness, and making progress in the pursuit of high-quality teaching. The results advocated for several improvements concerning building a professional learning community, increasing the professionalism of teachers, and incorporating work ethics into teaching courses [10].

1.1.2. Integrating Curriculum Design in Education for Sustainability

On a broader level, the quest for curriculum design and the development of sustainability-related competencies has drawn the attention of policymakers and stakeholders to develop relevant learning content and objectives. For each of the 17 SDGs, UNESCO (“United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization”) set out learning objectives structured around cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural learning, as well as including suggested topics as well as examples of learning approaches and methods [11]. Particular emphasis has been placed on enhancing sustainable development in the curriculum to enable transformative change in education and training for sustainability, as well as strengthening education for sustainable development and contributing to achieving the 17 SDGs [12].

In this context, the issue of designing an effective curriculum for sustainable development has gained particular importance for researchers. Some scholars have proposed competency frameworks and pedagogical recommendations, having high confidence relevance rankings for curriculum design in the Bachelor of Arts program for sustainability studies. Discussion-based, writing-intensive, case study, experiential, and creative learning experiences have been recommended to be integrated into the core curriculum and existing courses, in order to foster sustainability competencies in program graduates [13]. As far as entrepreneurial education, other studies have articulated and advocated for certain measures for improving the curriculum design in terms of considering the expectations of students, teaching methods better adapted to their learning needs, as well as augmenting the content of the curriculum with the aid of lectures, readings, text and seminar analysis, active case studies, group discussions, brainstorming, and so on [14]. Another interesting attempt has designed a curriculum for sustainability leadership grounded on a system perspective, involving iterative design and pedagogy, in order to cultivate change agents. It offered a set of perspectives, frameworks, and a pedagogical approach to prepare students to study and lead change effectively in any social-environmental system, no matter the sector or topic of interest, with an explicit normative goal of inter-generational well-being. With a strong focus on personal reflection, interdisciplinary training and the practice of sustainability leadership with real-world opportunities to understand complex systems and intervene strategically, the curriculum program provided an effective way to develop sustainability skills for future leaders [15].

To further question the challenge of integrating the curriculum for sustainability, scholars have provided new approaches to structuring sustainability education for business and accounting degree students, based on five pillars (i.e., environmental, economic, social, responsible and ethical business practice, and governance and political) which encompass all 17 SDGs. Their recommendations consisted of the adoption of these empirically derived pillars and embedded concepts as a more appropriate framework for guiding educational strategy and course design [16]. Other scholars have developed and tested a theoretical model with a sustainability competencies map for business administration and management studies. Built on a core set of competencies, such as critical contextualization of sustainability-related knowledge, sustainable use of resources and prevention of negative impacts on the environment, participation in community processes that promote sustainability, and application of ethical principles in personal and professional behaviour, the model is intended to serve as a guide when integrating specific cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural learning outcomes related to sustainability into education study programs [17].

The integration of the SDGs into the curricula of bachelor’s and master’s studies has also been researched. By analysing the course offerings of five schools at the University of Iceland, covering a wide range of studies such as educational, social sciences, engineering, natural sciences, and so on, the authors determined a small emphasis on four SDGs; namely, SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), and SDG 13 (climate actions). They advocated for certain improvements through solutions involving institutional leadership support and extensive participation in international collaboration projects on the SDGs, representing a powerful tool for implementing sustainability concerns [18].

Other attempts focused on curriculum design and sustainability-related competencies have studied the correlation between sustainability competencies and the use of pedagogical approaches (e.g., case studies, interdisciplinary teaching, lecturing, conceptual maps, problem-based learning, and so on) applied by teachers from a wide range of academic disciplines, such as natural and applied sciences, social sciences, business, humanities, and health. Notably, the findings revealed a better development of individual competencies (i.e., personal involvement, strategic action, and assessment and evaluation) than collective ones (i.e., critical thinking and analysis, interpersonal relations and collaboration, empathy and change of perspective, and tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty) both of which contributed to the effectiveness of the designed curriculum [19].

Considering the engineering education areas, some scholars have analysed the current state of education for sustainability at the local level (i.e., in the Republic of Serbia), regardless of the engineering field. Their findings suggested that courses designed for sustainable development covered all educational levels (bachelor, master, and doctoral level), but mostly had an elective character (with more than 63% of offerings, whilst only 31% had a compulsory character) [20]. Other scholars have focused on informatics engineering and industrial engineering degrees and found a lack of systematic and strategic integration of the whole spectrum of sustainability competencies along the degree programs, with particular emphasis on the lack of environmental and ethical issues [21].

1.1.3. Higher Education Institutions and the Concern for Sustainability

As suggested by the above-mentioned studies, sustainability is a difficult topic; furthermore, education systems themselves are complicated, including multiple levels and a variety of diverse organizations and actors. Due to this dual complexity, both sustainability and education systems are affected, posing great challenges for policy design and implementation.

In this regard, to further root the linkage between education, higher education institutions, and concern for sustainability, the scientific literature has provided a range of policy issues that could support the implementation of sustainable development in higher education, in terms of collaboration, partnership, education, outreach, teaching and learning, staff development, curriculum review, research, campus, and operations. Helpful forward-looking planning tools to decide both the scope of and attention to sustainable development, in terms of vertical policy integration and practice in higher education, have also been emphasized [22].

Other scholars have mapped the sustainability policies and initiatives in a select number of Irish and international higher education institutes and explored the integration of sustainability, both on campus and through outreach. They shed light on the need for transparency, the absence of dedicated sustainability offices or teams, and a need for institutional-level commitment and supporting policies, which all contribute to failing to achieve sustainability, to become a top priority. Their study highlighted the need to undergo institutional change, including significant shifts made to policies that drive the sustainable development of higher education institutions (HEIs) [23].

Looking at the role of higher education institutions in the implementation of sustainability principles, other attempts have determined the need for sustainability-based curricula, interdisciplinary studies as the basis of transformational change of student mindsets, as well as having institutional leaders as role models and overcoming critical challenges to incorporate sustainability principles, the political environment, and stakeholder interests [24].

The concern regarding the integration of sustainable development in higher education has also been addressed by measuring the progress of HEIs in Sweden, in terms of promoting sustainable development. Notably, several conclusions were elaborated to guide the successful integration, including a clear definition of the envisaged sustainable development, supporting competence development of teachers and other staff, creating possibilities for interdisciplinary cooperation, enabling transformative learning environments and pedagogic expressions, and creating sustainable and resilient structures [25].

1.2. Process-Centric Approach and Education for Sustainability

Comprehensively addressing sustainability calls for an in-depth understanding of the topic from multiple perspectives, at both local and global levels, and from inside the education system (e.g., inputs, outputs, processes), in order to develop sustainability competencies.

Although there is growing interest in adopting a sustainable vision and sustainable practices within HEIs, few studies have focused on education as a system and the integration of sustainability concerns into curricula through a process-centric lens, and the vast majority have focused on investigating these issues from an input-oriented view. Acknowledging the role of processes in organizations seems trivial, but integrating processes into the organizational system involves process design, documentation, measurement, and continuous improvement, leading to improved operational performance (in terms of, e.g., effectiveness, efficiency, adaptability, and quality) [26].

Previous attempts have conceptualized and applied a process-centric approach in education and designed organizational processes needed to incorporate changes and integrate internationalization strategies into the daily operations of HEIs [27]. Furthermore, the end-to-end processes for modelling stakeholder relationships to enable ongoing improvements in the outcomes of higher education institutions have been designed. Models grounded on knowledge generally recognized as good practices can ensure the proper functioning of the plan–do–check–act cycle at the HEI level [28]. In addition, the commitment of HEIs to the integration of sustainability concerns into organizational processes has been analysed, allowing scholars to capture the process-based model needed to design, launch, implement, and customize a specific process architecture to incorporate SDGs into HEI strategy and organizational processes [29].

The adoption of process management disciplines and methodologies in education has been studied and analysed to a small extent. Developing a shared understanding of best practices in curriculum design and sustainability-related competencies is critical for the conceptualization of the methodological work (i.e., teaching activities), in order to achieve desired sustainability outcomes.

Thus, our research problem was designed based on the increasing need for further inquiries into educational systems and processes responsible for teaching practices of sustainability-related concerns, providing starting points and critical steps to drive collective understanding among a wide range of process stakeholders. Furthermore, the research question considers the need for a comprehensive understanding to solve local complex problems through process-centric views and tested methodologies which may deliver value to various stakeholders, offering new possibilities for sustainability education.

2. Designing the Process-Centric Conceptual Framework

We focus on education as a system with inputs, outputs, and processes, and aim to develop a conceptual design of good practices and deployed teaching processes for an educational project, with the goal of mainstreaming sustainable development knowledge into the structure and content of curricula centred on sustainability in the particular case of business engineering education. For a thorough understanding of sustainability, the operational meaning of sustainability denotes an approach that incorporates economic, environmental, and social variables into the study of the teaching and learning process [30].

To this end, several assumptions are worth mentioning, for analysis and modelling purposes:

• The context of the study is linked to the needs of education in the area of business engineering and economic science, regarding effective changes in relation to the acquisition of transversal skills and the better alignment of curricula outcomes to the expectations of local businesses and communities.
• The institutional context links the real-world project scenario with the mutual commitment of four partner universities—University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania; University of Ruse “Angel Kanchev”, Bulgaria; University of Lodz, Poland; Brno University of Technology, the Czech Republic—and two firms in the adult education sector—SC. Eurotraining Solution, Romania and SC. Inforelea, Italy—to regional cooperation in the area of education for sustainability.
• The unit of analysis follows the international project of cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices (e.g., 2019-1-RO01-KA203-063059), aimed at the promotion and acceleration of sustainability skills of business engineering students through designing and implementing Educational Laboratory (EduLab) work within innovative learning curricula framed with respect to sustainable development concerns. The coordination was assured by a technical university in Romania, and the operational implementation was assumed by the faculty of entrepreneurship, business engineering, and management.
• The main beneficiaries of the project were bachelor’s students of the responsible faculty, in their third and fourth study years, with the business engineering and management specialization, as well as part of the faculty teaching staff.
• The EduLab project envisages a series of courses aimed at citizenship and sustainable business development. Notably, the implementation period of 2020–2022 overlapped with the COVID pandemic crisis, which shifted the education format from face-to-face communication to a fully online mode.

Framing teaching for sustainability in the case of business engineering education requires capturing the process models to guide the EduLab project through the flow of interactions with the surrounding environment, such as the faculty organization’s processes.

One of the most well-known methods for analysis and improving the scope of work is based on process-centric views, which enable the systemization of organizational practices in an end-to-end fashion across the organization, in order to deliver value to its customers and make it easier to ensure that a change does, in fact, increase performance. The process view is understood as a set of interrelated activities performed to achieve specific objectives, and the aggregation of activities into sequential relationships creates a process model which reveals how the organization operates to produce its services and/or products [26,31].

To reduce the complexity of the analysis, we make use of the functional decomposition technique, allowing us to break down the larger components at the institutional level into more feasible subcomponents, allowing each part to be analysed independently [26]. The decomposition objectives are to simplify the design problem by reducing and isolating the object of design (e.g., designing) and to study the properties of the components in isolation from the surrounding environments (e.g., analysis).

To smoothly integrate the EduLab project mechanism into the current practices of the responsible faculty, the cross-functional structure of the surrounding environment (e.g., faculty) is worth acknowledging.

Table 1. Cross-functional processes of the considered faculty.

Institutional Processes (IP)	Main Components/Sub-Processes
IP1. Core/value chain processes	IP1.1 Innovation, research, and development
	IP1.2 Academic and didactic activities with HE students: IP1.2.1 Design and update HE curric-ula; IP1.2.2 Develop educational re-sources; IP1.2.3 Perform teaching and learn-ing activities; IP1.2.4 Assess learning performance; IP1.2.5 Collect feedback.
IP2. Support/administrative processes	IP2.1 Promotion and public relations
	IP2.2 Finance and accounting
	IP2.3 ICT infrastructure and digital platforms
	IP2.4 Administrative procedures
IP3. Management processes	IP3.1 Scheduling academic activity
	IP3.2 Internal quality assurance of academic activity
	IP3.3 Monitoring and controlling academic activity
	IP3.4 Continues improvement of academic activity

depicts the results of the functional decomposition of the current institutional practices of the faculty. The artefacts created were grounded on the education process classification framework promoted by American Productivity Quality Center (APQC) [32].

To provide a common understating of the surrounding environment (e.g., the faculty), three institutional processes are considered to influence teaching for sustainability in the case of business engineering education:

• The core processes (IP1) are responsible for educating business engineers through knowledge sharing, complex skill development, in-depth knowledge of societies, the abilities and mindsets necessary to deal with uncertainty, acting responsibly and entrepreneurially, and fostering employability. The main capabilities include innovation, research and development with new knowledge generation, research and innovation projects (IP1.1); and academic and didactic activities in engineering and management for bachelor and master studies in different areas of specialization, such as business engineering and management and economic engineering in electric, and energy and chemical fields (IP1.2). The main functions are related to designing and updating higher education (HE) curricula (IP1.2.1), developing educational resources (IP1.2.2), carrying out teaching and learning activities with faculty students (IP1.2.3), assessing student learning performance (IP1.2.4), and collecting student feedback (IP1.2.5).
• Support processes (IP2) describe the communication flow between the faculty and the public, as well as other key stakeholders from the community (IP2.1); managing financial resources and ensuring compliance with financial provisions (IP2.2); managing local ICT infrastructure and online platforms for teaching and learning with students, such as Moodle for asynchronous communication and MS Teams for synchronous communication (IP2.3); administrative functions for the admission, enrolment, and placement of students (IP2.4).
• Management processes (IP3) underpin the coherent functioning of the faculty system and controlling loop at institutional and operational levels. The main capabilities pertain to scheduling teaching and learning activities for bachelor- and master-level programs (IP3.1); internal quality assurance with procedures for performance evaluation and measurements (IP3.2); monitoring and controlling value chain activities (IP3.3); continuous improvement with improvement decisions loops on the academic side (IP3.4).
• Functional decomposition is also applied to the project environment, considering the deployed processes, which helps us to understand the complex system of the project from inception to completion.

  Table 2. Processes of the EduLab project.

  Project Process (PP)	Description	Main Components and Type
  PP1. Benchmark analysis	Benchmark analysis of sustainability in education	Sustainability practices in business—report R1
  		Frameworks for teaching and learning sustainability—report R2
  		Sustainability learning needs of BE students—database
  		Learning needs analysis of BE students—report R3
  PP2. Learning curricula	Learning curricula for sustainability in business engineering (BE) education	Sustainability learning outcomes for BE students—document
  		Educational components of the course—document
  		Learning syllabus of EduLab project course—document
  PP3. Learning container	Learning container with cross-disciplinary educational resources	Educational resources for teaching and learning—database
  		EduLab e-learning platform
  PP4. EduLab work	Educational Laboratory project courses	EduLab course targeting BE students, testing phase—sub-process
  		EduLab course targeting BE students, adjusting phase—sub-process
  PP5. Inventory of good practices	Inventory with good practices in teaching and learning sustainability	Improvement needs from the testing phase of EduLab course—report
  		Lessons learnt from EduLab project course—report

  depicts the sample of artefacts created to fulfil the project and maintained to transfer the good practices of EduLab work to other stakeholders and parties interested in enriching teaching and learning, as well as complex skills acquired with respect to sustainability concerns.

To further capture the flow of interactions between EduLab project processes and the surrounding structure, we use the created artefacts and apply the SIPOC (Supplier, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customer) diagram, in conjunction with the flowcharting technique. The SIPOC modelling technique consists of a style of process documentation used in the Six Sigma framework to emphasize the sources of inputs (suppliers) and the target outputs (customers), considered a specialized approach in process modelling for improvement purposes [33,34,35]. In this way, it becomes possible to obtain an integrated view necessary to analyse resource allotment, process cycle times, and different process variations to establish effective process governance.

The main elements designed with the aid of the SIPOC diagram consist of: (a) inputs, including different types of demands as resources or data which trigger the execution of process tasks; (b) transformation processes, which are the inter-related tasks performed in response to the inputs, set according to certain constraints, guidelines, and requirements shaping the flow of work; (c) outputs, being the direct effects resulting from the process tasks guided by the controlling purpose to meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders related to quality, time, and costs; (d) outcomes, which are the indirect effects resulting from by the process tasks on the internal and external participants and the whole organization’s stakeholders [36,37]. Even though the SIPOC method is a powerful tool enabling the communication of problems, opportunities, and alternatives during process analysis, it is bounded by certain limits derived from its simplicity. It also seems to be inadequate for solving process-related issues on its own, requiring it to be used in conjunction with a process mapping (i.e., flowcharting) method to provide additional details [26]. To further analyse how data flows in the EduLab project processes, we apply a flowcharting technique using a simple core set of easily recognized symbols, including general-purpose graphics and visualization tools [33,37]. The notation is grounded on the most common flowcharting symbols, approved as an ANSI (American National Standardization Institute) standard in 1970 for representing system flows [31]. We used the MS Visio software for the modelling phases and the elaboration of flowcharts, as presented in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.

3. Analysis of Process-Centric Models and Good Practices

The integration of the EduLab project mechanism into the current practices of the responsible faculty takes advantage of the thorough approach to process thinking. To this end, we design process-based models depicting the scope of EduLab project work in the current cross-functional processes of the faculty in three phases:

• Phase 1. Design teaching for sustainability in EduLab project work (Figure 1);
• Phase 2. Test teaching for sustainability in EduLab project work (Figure 2);
• Phase 3. Adjust teaching for sustainability in EduLab project work (Figure 3).

The process components, in terms of input and output variables, are developed in line with business process management discipline provisions and generally recognized good practices in the project management field [38,39].

By considering the cross-cutting character of project work (i.e., EduLab project) and the interdisciplinary approaches needed for teaching and learning sustainability regarding the interconnectedness of economic, social, and natural systems, we design the project workflow of activities to mainstream the sustainable dimensions of education into the structure and content of curricula, based on the idea of sustainable development.

3.1. Design Teaching for Sustainability in EduLab Project Work: Phase 1

In Phase 1, we aim to design pedagogical curricula to promote teaching and learning for sustainability. For this purpose, relevant cross-cutting learning outcomes in line with business engineering (BE) students learning needs and emerging knowledge on innovation and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were integrated. As can be seen from Figure 1, the aim of this phase is grounded in two main outputs—the Educational Laboratory framework and the syllabus of the course—which are accomplished with the aid of processes embedded in the faculty cross-functional architecture (Table 1) and related processes from the EduLab process map (Table 2). In addition, the planning endeavour considers project constraints regarding the elective character of the courses to be carried out, the limited schedule availability of both students and teachers, and the shift of education to a fully online format due to the pandemic crisis.

The process-driven environment, which enriches teaching strategies and enables students to develop social, civic, and sustainability skills, consists of the following components:

3.1.1. Input Variables

We start from a series of research reports addressing topics such as sustainability practices in business (Report 1), frameworks with topical educational approaches for teaching and learning sustainability (Report 2), and assessment of BE learning needs (Report 3), which are accomplished within the EduLab project process benchmark analysis (PP1). Additional input information is considered for planning purposes, such as quality provisions for syllabus design and particular provisions for curricula in the BE education area, both delivered by the faculty process architecture (Internal quality assurance, IP3.2; Design and update HE curricula, IP1.2.1).

To further capture the scope of the work, we take advantage of emerging knowledge on sustainability concepts, an e-library database and an international base with sustainability subjects, both being fed by the faculty process architecture (Innovation, research, and development, IP1.1; Develop educational resources, IP1.2.2).

3.1.2. Process Tasks

The flow of project work starts with designing learning curricula (T1.1), framed by sustainable business development concerns, modern pedagogical approaches, and ICT-based cross-disciplinary teaching and learning.

The flow proceeds by elaborating the suite of educational resources for teaching and learning (T1.2 and T1.3), as well as e-learning modules linked to the sustainability pillars of economic, environmental, and social concerns; study cases; kits with exercises and tests; tutorial materials with good practices; and examples of analysis of sustainability-related reports for companies operating on the local market sectors. The flow is complemented by recurrent tasks of analysis, evaluation, and review of the informational content.

The scope of the work further consists of several iterations for the design and preparation of the e-learning space to be used by the EduLab project course (T1.4), in terms of its functionalities, content, and technical format, followed by the development of kits with assessment resources for learners (T1.5). A decisional point is considered, in order to close out the phase, regarding whether the EduLab e-learning platform includes the necessary features enabling e-learning experiences and navigation through sections such as learning resources (e.g., lessons, glossary of terms, files, folders, webpages, quizzes).

3.1.3. Output Variables

The outputs include several deliverables of the EduLab project, in terms of learning outcomes framed by sustainability concerns, the learning syllabus of the elective project course targeting BE students, as well as subsequent educational resources for teaching and learning for sustainability (theoretical and application materials). Furthermore, the EduLab e-learning platform concept and functional modes are completed to benefit from ICT-based and collaborative learning practices.

The interconnectedness of EduLab project work with the cross-functional structure of the faculty is supported by the feeding links of these outputs and EduLab project processes (Learning curricula, PP2; EduLab work, PP4), as well as faculty processes (Design and update HE curricula, IP1.2.1; Develop educational resources, IP1.2.2; ICT and digital platforms, IP2.3; Assess student learning performance, IP1.2.4).

3.2. Test Teaching for Sustainability in EduLab Project Work: Phase 2

Phase 2 is aimed to design the scope of work for the deployment of teaching activities with BE students enrolled in the EduLab project course. It supports the use of digital platforms, such as Moodle for asynchronous communication and an internal educational e-platform for synchronous communication (e.g., MS Teams). Given the range of thematic content and the personalized learning experience, this phase involves the testing of collaborative e-learning practices stimulating the social, civic, and intercultural skills of learners. As depicted in Figure 2, the aim of this phase is also linked to the preparedness of the digital space and format of the educational resources for teaching and learning sustainability (e.g., EduLab e-learning space with tested content), as well as a collection of feedback from learners and improvement analysis for the testing flow of activities.

The process-driven structure, which enables tested learning experiences, knowledge, methodologies, and other educational resources, consists of the following components:

3.2.1. Input Variables

This phase starts with inputs of information and promotion materials and internal academic schedules for both students and teachers, delivered by responsible processes from the cross-functional structure of the faculty (Promotion and public relations, IP2.1; Scheduling academic activity, IP3.1). The testing endeavour is fed with several outputs from the previous phase, such as the learning syllabus for the course, educational resources for teaching and learning sustainability, and the functional mode of the EduLab e-learning platform, which are delivered by the EduLab project processes (Learning curricula, PP2; Learning container, PP3) and by the faculty cross-functional processes (ICT and digital platforms, IP2.3). Additional inputs concerning the knowledge database are used, with sustainability subjects embedded in the processes of innovation, research, and development (IP1) and project impact indicators defined in the project process of EduLab work (PP4).

3.2.2. Process Tasks

The flow of process work commences with information and outreach activities involving targeted beneficiaries (T2.1), followed by the enrolment of BE students in the course of the EduLab project (T2.2). The workflow tests teaching and learning for sustainability within the activities of the EduLab project course (T2.3), the opportunities provided by e-learning platforms (Moodle and MS Teams), and how learners are enabled to improve their understanding of the multidimensional nature of sustainable growth.

This phase ensures the suitability of tasks for measuring the impact on learners (T2.4), gathering feedback (T2.5), and analysis of improvement needs (T2.6) with particular regard to knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions; the quality and relevance of the learning curricula and educational resources; the level of acquired sustainability skills; and degree of fulfilment for sustainability learning outcomes.

The process-driven model follows loops for analysis, evaluation, and review of the content of learning curricula and educational resources, in order to ensure the relevance of the skill acquisition process. The revised content of the EduLab course (T2.7) is grounded on the experiences of learners and teacher recommendations regarding the effectiveness of the sustainability learning outcomes and related course syllabus, the value of cross-disciplinary-based pedagogical approaches, and the use of ICT tools in teaching and learning sustainability. A decisional point is also considered, in order to close out the phase, which indicates whether the EduLab e-learning platform includes all the tested and revised content of educational resources for teaching and learning sustainability.

3.2.3. Output Variables

The outputs entail the report on outreach sessions and the number of enrolled BE students, which both feed the EduLab project process (EduLab work, PP4). The results of personalized e-learning activities and shared educational materials and content lead to a series of homework, resolved study cases, exercises, and quizzes on a wide range of topics related to sustainable business development. In addition, to measure changes induced by the project, essential outputs are issued, including a database with the grades of learners, the number of learners with developed sustainability skills, and the teacher’s ranking. Finally, the documented report with EduLab improvement needs from the testing phase is critical for facilitating the smooth implementation of the next project phase.

The interconnectedness of the EduLab project work with the cross-functional structure of the faculty is supported by the feeding links of the outputs and EduLab project processes (Learning container, PP3; Inventory with good practices, PP5), as well as faculty processes (Develop educational resources, IP1.2.2; Assess student learning performance, IP1.2.4; Monitor and control academic activity, IP3.3; ICT and digital platforms, IP2.3; Continuous improvement, IP3.4).

3.3. Adjust Teaching for Sustainability in EduLab Project Work: Phase 3

Phase 3 is aimed to fine-tune the teaching activities of the EduLab project work, involving the deployment of tested innovative learning practices framed by sustainability concerns with a new series of BE students. They benefited from the augmented learning experiences and findings on tested and improved pedagogies, which accelerated the circulation of knowledge on sustainable business development, social, and civic issues related to sustainable growth. This phase supports the acquisition of anticipatory understandings of sustainability values, system thinking, collaboration, and integrated problem solving, as well as enabling the virtual integration of EduLab work in the current practices of the responsible faculty (e.g., e-learning space with adjusted content). As can be seen from Figure 3, this phase facilitates the collection of lessons learnt concerning modernized curricula, cross-disciplinary and ICT-based learning, the exploitation of e-learning courses for citizenship behaviour and sustainable business development, and the positive changes induced by innovative pedagogical approaches for teaching and learning to solve sustainability issues. The main outputs enable updating of the cross-functional processes of the faculty, as well as the EduLab project processes.

3.3.1. Input Variables

This phase uses the same input variables as the previous one; however, for some of them, the revised versions and/or content are considered, such as for the learning syllabus, teaching and learning resources, and the e-learning space with tested content.

3.3.2. Process Tasks

The process flow reiterates the information and outreach sessions with the new series of BE students (T3.1), the enrolment of students in the EduLab project course (T3.2), as well as the e-learning activities for teaching sustainability (T3.3).

These enable collaborative and personalized learning experiences through the e-learning space with adjusted content, navigation through sections, cross-disciplinary modules and knowledge, practical resources, video materials, tutorial materials with good practices, kits with exercises and tests, and assessment resources.

The flow is complemented by recurrent tasks for analysis, evaluating and reviewing the scope of work as well as measuring the impact on learners (T3.4), and feedback collection (T3.5) for quality check purposes. A final decision point is also considered, in order to close out the phase, regarding whether the outputs meet the quantitative and qualitative quality indicators foreseen for the EduLab project work. All of these aspects are finally integrated into the documented report of the EduLab project course (T3.7).

In addition, the EduLab course (e.g., its curricula content and educational resources) is augmented to incorporate the experiences of learners and teacher recommendations (T3.6). This enables sustainability of project work after the end of the project life, as well as the launching of new editions of EduLab courses targeting further series of BE students.

3.3.3. Output Variables

The outputs enable the enrichment of the EduLab project processes map, with a revised and improved content of outreach sessions report (EduLab work, PP4), as well as the shared educational materials, resolved study cases, practical exercises and quizzes, and video lessons with sustainability-related subjects, framed by the concept of citizenship and responsible business conduct (Learning container, PP3). The results of positive changes induced by the project work, such as learner grades, number of learners with developed sustainability skills, and teacher’s ranking, are documented and feed the cross-functional structure of the faculty with particular regard to developing educational resources (IP1.2.2), assessing student learning performance (IP1.2.4), and monitoring and controlling academic activity (IP3.3). Furthermore, the teaching and learning resources with augmented content are embedded in the e-learning space of the EduLab project and feed the faculty process of ICT and digital platforms (IP2.3) and the project process of inventory with good practices (PP5), in order to capitalize on the potential of the experience gained.

Finally, the validated and approved report, including EduLab lessons learnt from the project course, is incorporated into the cross-functional structure of the faculty and feeds the process of continuous improvement (IP3.4), which is expected to further nourish the institutional knowledge base.

The proposed methodological project workflow deployed from 2020 to 2022, grounded on the phases of designing, testing, and adjusting, proved to be a useful mechanism to promote and accelerate the active citizenship and sustainable business development of 78 bachelor students in the third and fourth year of study in the business engineering and management specialization. On a broader level, the responsible faculty benefited from the opportunities brought by the project; particularly the quality improvement of teaching and learning activities based on a modernized learning curriculum more directly relevant to the actual needs for sustainable growth.

4. Discussion and Future Directions

The original aspect of this paper relies on the descriptive methodology used to capture the EduLab project work (i.e., inputs, outputs, and sequencing activities) and supporting information. This allows us to model how the project pursues its overarching objective and facilitates a better understanding of its relationships with other organizational units (i.e., cross-functional processes of the faculty).

The logic behind the proposed methodology consists of two steps:

• Application of functional decomposition technique at institutional and project levels to depict the artefacts of the analysed system for better integration of the EduLab project into the academic practices of the responsible faculty.
• Application of process analysis methods (i.e., SIPOC in conjunction with flowcharting techniques) to capture the flow of interactions between the project processes (i.e., EduLab) and the surrounding structure (i.e., faculty system).

The intervention logic of the SIPOC diagram is linked to the main advantages brought to the analysis effort, such as the support for identifying the boundaries of EduLab project processes; identifying the relationships between suppliers, inputs, and processes; and determining key consumers (both internal from the project and external from the institutional cross-functional processes) [26,33]. The sample of artefacts is created to illustrate and document the processes, including suppliers and inputs, outputs and customers, triggering and resulting events, and process tasks, as well as their links with the surrounding environment (e.g., faculty organization processes). The added value derives from a better understanding of upstream and downstream process relationships.

The proposed model integrates the project mechanism into the existing institutional structure, in line with the management cycle of plan–do–check–act, enabling sustained improvement as well as strengthened teaching practices for sustainability in the case of business engineering education [40]. The longer a project has been travelling along its way of thinking, the more mature its processes, the more repeatable and scalable its tasks, and the better its overall performance.

In a broader sense, these process-centric models provide procedural knowledge from the system-thinking field, enabling the development of thought patterns addressing how a system works and helping learners (e.g., process analysts, academics, researchers, practitioners, and decision makers) to structure processes in order to create a mutually informed understanding of how to solve complex problems that resist neat definition [41]. By considering the structural similarities between prior procedural knowledge, the learners become able to identify and solve further local problems through novel solutions [42].

Thus, the results obtained here represent a thought pattern of project work that overcame the existing barriers at the institutional level, offering new opportunities for teaching sustainability. Although there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the proposed process-centric models, with good practices and tested in a real-world scenario, might be a valuable starting point for further developments of educational policy initiatives enhancing transformative teaching environments for better sustainability outcomes.

Furthermore, through further customization and harmonization of upstream and downstream process relationships within different higher education institutional contexts, the proposed process models advocate for specific managerial implications, which may frame teaching and learning for sustainability in a wide range of educational areas. The results described here may be useful for other higher education institutions interested in sustainability education, as well as other practitioners and decisional factors that might customize the process-based models in further teaching and learning contexts.

However, the limitation of the process models should be noted, in terms of their small degree of robustness for the set of descriptive attributes of processes and limited precision when depicting more complex processes. Additionally, the boundaries of the process models excluded detailed information about the human and technical resources involved in process execution, as well as other quantitative data on project indicators. We aim to provide a basis for sharing good practices of teaching sustainability in the particular case of business engineering, in order to underpin communication and a shared understanding of the procedural knowledge from a real-world project scenario.

Further research involving the application of the value stream mapping method from lean methodologies is required to increase the robustness of process attributes and improve operational performance, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, analysing the medium-term effects of integrating sustainable parts into business engineering education and the contributions to stakeholders may also be considered through further field experiments and empirical projects. This will help to identify actions allowing for improvement of the solution (i.e., process models) performance and increase value realization.

5. Conclusions

Framing teaching and learning for sustainability in the case of business engineering education required the use of a thorough approach, which we achieved by applying process thinking to smoothly integrate the EduLab project mechanism into the current practices of the responsible faculty.

Acknowledging the key role of education in integrating good practices of teaching and learning for sustainability, we addressed the lack of process-based studies in this area and designed process-based models depicting the scope of EduLab project work, and considered project processes and the cross-functional processes of the surrounding institutional environment.

The proposed process models demonstrated certain advantages in terms of improved consensus among stakeholders (e.g., the EduLab project team, faculty members, and other interested parties). Thus, having such well-designed process models can serve to guide and support the improvement of teaching and learning for sustainability in the case of business engineering education.