{"paper_id":"2883829b-79cd-4748-968c-0227a3f0d8ea","body_text":"Sustainability agency in Unsustainable structures: Rhetoric of a capable transformative individual | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Sustainability agency in Unsustainable structures: Rhetoric of a capable transformative individual Janne J. Salovaara, Sophia E. Hagolani-Albov This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3966993/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract While sustainability has been implemented in education for a long time, the conceptualisation of an impactful sustainability actor has not been as thoroughly formulated. The theory of structuration is relevant as a lens for critical reflection on the transformative potential of individuals educated in sustainability as a practice, who are often described as change-makers and mandated to enact sustainability. This paper examines sustainability agency using materials produced for a set of online sustainability courses. This text corpus is utilised as a representation of climate and sustainability education. The materials repeat systemic framings present in sustainability rhetoric, such as the contexts and targets in which sustainability transformation occurs. Additionally, through the analysis of the textual corpus descriptions emerged as attributes of the agents to enact sustainability. This uncovers the juxtaposition between the often-repeated perception that sustainability must be achieved by capable agents and the capacities they possess. Further, our content analysis suggests a rhetorical process of otherin g within sustainability, for example by positioning “ people”— the general population — as the cause of the sustainability crisis, and “ us”— the educated — as the solution. Through our findings, the article concludes that when utilising the concept of sustainability agency — be it in theoretical, educational, or practical work — one ought to pay significant attention to the structures wherein the activities take place. The full comprehension of the transformative potential of individual agents ought to include an acknowledgement of the difference between educated capability and capacity—the latter of which necessitates dominance over the structural resources. sustainability agency structuration education professionalism and impact Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. INTRODUCTION Sustainability is a theme that is present in almost all aspects of development (Salvia et al. 2019 ) and contemporary societal rhetoric (Fleig and Tosun 2017 ), for example, the theme is often found in political, media, and education discourses. Sustainability is promoted through many different instruments, for example, intergovernmental treaties (Chasek et al. 2016 ), regional policies (Echebarria et al. 2016), corporate mission statements (Garnett et al. 2016 ), and consumer education materials (Buerke et al. 2017 ). In the arena of higher education, one can find the concept of sustainability in the intended learning outcomes of curricula across disciplines and levels of study (Hallinger and Chatpinyakoop 2019 ), and in the universities’ social responsibility plans (Trencher et al. 2014 ), among many other possible places. Beyond the University setting sustainability is also applied in many different practical contexts (Shove and Spurling 2013 ), where practitioners are meant to enact sustainability through their work practices (Salovaara and Soini 2021 ) or the practical implementation of their scientific thoughts (Miller et al. 2014 ). A prominent narrative is the transformation through the practice of sustainability (Feola 2015 ) and the expectation that the application of sustainability thinking will bring profound changes to business-as-usual (Davelaar 2021 ). Within such transition narratives (Luederitz et al. 2017 ), education continues to be an area of focus (Barth and Rieckmann 2016 ), partly because many modern human actions—often deemed unsustainable—are an outcome of modern schooling (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010 ). In this paper, we analyse curricula from a set of courses, to highlight the intended transformative outcomes through actions of educated sustainability (Gajparia et al. 2021). Inserting sustainability thinking in education has taken various forms and has been a frequent research topic that has been approached from many different angles. For example, Thorén and Breian ( 2016 ) investigated the reciprocal relation between knowledge-making institutions and the societal sustainability issues at large. While Lozano et al. 's (2013) developed a systematic scheme, which reflects the positioning of sustainability discourse and practice within the scientific and managerial layers of universities. In addition, sustainability has been used as a frame to conceptualise the education of post-disciplinary (Haider 2018) certified ‘change-makers’ who are then charged with enacting transformative measures in their post-university working lives (Heiskanen et al. 2013), regardless of typical barriers to employing sustainability (Stewart et al. 2016 ). Thus, after more than a decade of developing sustainability education (Buckler and Creech 2014 ), and the various formulations of specific competencies for sustainability (Brundiers et al. 2021 ), it seems appropriate to examine whether an approach that looks at the actions and motivations of individuals (as in for example: Moilanen and Toikka 2023 ) against a relatively stable system (Wieczorek 2018 ) can be more fully explored and utilised effectively (Abson et al. 2017 ). Achieving sustainability is a complicated endeavour even if put to such typical composition as the three pillars of sustainability—and the competing tensions between them, which render the principles of sustainability at times contradictory (Hansmann et al. 2012 ). This difficulty is further underpinned by the critical lens used to view societies (Longo et al. 2021 ), especially the tendency to cheapen nature to support accumulation at all costs (Moore 2016 ). Beyond motivating factors for human activities and the scientific worldviews at play, there is deliberation over the base question of sustainability itself—what should be sustained and what transformed (Hammond 2020 ). Though academia has spent many years examining sustainability study, practice, and research, a fundamental question still revolves around the effects practitioners have (e.g., Brundiers and Wiek 2017 ), and if they are in practice effective to enact the sustainability transformation. There has been much effort to develop sustainability expertise through different framings of individual qualities. For example, Wiek et al. ( 2011 ) highlight the key competencies for sustainability, while Martin et al. ( 2005 ) concentrate on professional practices for sustainability, and Thomas et al. ( 2013 ) focus on professional advocacy as a path to achieving sustainability in practice. While these approaches highlight different key components, they generally share similar attributes, such as identity, values, knowledge, competencies, and experience. Yet, a robust depiction of a reliably effective, impactful sustainability actor has not yet been fully explored (Fischer and Newig 2016 ). Simultaneously, some of the negative effects that can be caused by the lack of professional contextualisation in sustainability education have been recognised (Birdman et al. 2022 ). Yet, there has been a shortfall of broader attention and elaboration related to articulating or defining the context which best fosters the expert qualities needed to further sustainability transformation (Farla et al. 2012 ). Following these observations and the recognised research and knowledge gaps present in the concept of sustainability agency, we take on the definition forwarded by Teerikangas et al. ( 2021 ), which positions sustainability agency as the capacity of different actors to act toward sustainable futures. Building off this definition, we argue that agency capacity differs from capability by contextualising Structuration Theory through sustainability education, which is a source for the change-agents and individual actors (Koistinen and Teerikangas 2021 ) to emerge and further the process of transformation. Thus, the purpose of this research is to contribute to climate change and sustainability-related education and initiate a discussion around sustainability agency that spans from its capabilities to the critical structures and capacities—predominantly in the contexts of education and the resulting professional practice. Ultimately, this theoretical elaboration aims to contribute to the overall sustainability impact of institutional, organisational, and professional sustainability practices. 2. THEORETICAL THOUGHT Professionals of sustainability occupy a sometimes difficult position once they leave the confines of higher education (Visser and Crane 2010 ). While they may have received an education in sustainability, this does not always suggest an explicit context in which to enact sustainability in practice. The gap between knowledge and action generally (Abson et al. 2017 ) and between knowledge and professional practice specifically is especially visible in applied fields where sustainability is applied rather than generated. While sustainability is often highlighted as a practice that is flexible to field-specific contextualisation (Woodward et al. 2010 ), the explicit mechanisms of the practice of sustainability still lack practical and applicable generalisation (Carollo and Guerci 2018 ). Without getting into a deliberate criticism of the theorisations and conceptualisations of the actors and contexts that serve to operationalise sustainability (e.g., Fischer and Newig 2016 ), this article suggests the utilisation of Structuration Theory. This theory could offer a novel perspective to the operationalisation of sustainability through a more critical take to the often normative sustainability transformation (McGeown and Barry 2023 ). One must revisit Gidden’s Structuration Theory when observing the general transformative potential of sustainability actors (e.g., Farla et al. 2012 ) in different schematised contexts (e.g., Köhler et al. 2019 ). Theories related to transformation—although differing in essence (Laakso et al. 2020)—such as Actor Network Theory (Latour 1996), Multi-level Perspective Theory (Geels 2019 ), and Social Practice Theory (Shove et al. 2012 ) have been widely utilised in sustainability research and planning (see for example Moradi and Vagnoni 2018 , Walrave et al. 2018 , El Bilali 2019 ). Such theories have parallel interests with Structuration Theory—with respective epistemic differences (e.g., Elder-Vass 2008 ), for example, its views on perspective and its relation to reality (Bhaskar 1978 ). However, the scope of this article is not to examine the practicability of a potential theory as a critical inquiry to the aforementioned problem(s), with a pragmatic approach to societal reality; but instead accepting “all forms of humanism are considered to be ‘ideological’ since they distortedly take our wholly superficial subjectivity seriously” (Archer 2000 , 28) while relying on multiple expressions thereof (Miller et al. 2008 ). Gidden’s structuration Structuration Theory was introduced in the late 1970s (Giddens 1979 ) and elaborated in the early 1990s (Giddens 1990 ). This theory uses the metaphor of a stage play to describe the various elements within the theory; thus, we will refer back to this framing throughout the analysis and discussion. Giddens’ theory called for human agency in a critique of other existing theories, for example, Parsons’ sociological theories. Giddens ( 1979 , 235) famously stated, “the stage is set, the scripts written, the roles established, but the performers are curiously absent from the scene”. However, in this study, the more relevant question is whether the performers are on the right stage and whether the script is thoroughly understood. Thus, the focus is justifiably on navigating through the dimensions of the theory that seem practical to the emerging critical sustainability, rather than aiming for a systemic sociological dive into sustainability. Structuration Theory is principally concerned with “connecting a notion of human action with structural explanation in social analysis” (Giddens 1979 , 49). According to Giddens, such a connection demands, “a theory of the human agent [...]; an account of the conditions and consequences of action; and an interpretation of ‘structure’ as somehow embroiled in both those conditions and consequences” (ibid.). Structuration Theory serves to link various aspects of sustainability, including the processes by which sustainability is furthered (Köhler et al. 2019 ), and the practices of these processes (Whittington 2015 ). This can also be extended to encompass the different actors involved in the processes of the processes of sustainability (Fischer and Newig 2016 ). These processes and actors can be thought of as features in an aims-oriented professional field (Eteläpelto et al. 2013). This is especially relevant when sustainability is represented as a multifaceted endeavour that is undertaken via educated acts (Salovaara 2022 ), which are then geared towards sustainability transformation (Feola 2020 ). Structuration refers to a broad and systemic operation of a human process and intent, without identifying the self in self-organisation (Leydesdorff 2010). Alternatively, it can be perceived as a specific scope of structures, or domains of operations, for example in Actor Network Theory or Multi-Level Perspective Theory. Thus, Structuration Theory is applicable to analyse processes on the macro-to-micro level and processes in the rhetorical societal stage. Thus, it is relevant to observe the emergence of social processes, specifically coexisting activities within a structure; where one activity is not able to be brought into being without the other (Fuchs 2001). Yet, while the activities themselves are mutually interdependent, in practice they still can be examined separately as they differ in specific features. The “structure” in Structuration Theory has several descriptions; for example, as a “medium and outcome of the practice which constitute social systems” (Giddens 1981 , 27), or as “‘rule-resource sets’ which are included in the institutional framework of social systems and have a virtual existence” (Schneidewind et al. 2018 ). Further, the structure is also described as being “composed simultaneously of schemas, which are virtual, and of resources, which are actual” (Sewell 1992, 13). Resources are highly important in the agency-structure schematic. According to Shilling ( 1992 ), structures are sets of rules and resources that social interaction can be “drawn on”. In the context of sustainability transformation, the importance is in the dominance tied to power and control over the resources (ibid.). It follows that the resources are considered as the stuff through which actors have (or do not have) the capacity to make “things happen” (Giddens 1981 ). Through actors’ actions, which reproduce societal structures, the issue of transformation prevails. That is, actors reify structures, although the act is never automatic in being simply guided by the structure alone, but they are rather seen to be at risk to get reshaped instead (Sewell 1992). Thus, it is interesting to note where the act either reifies or changes the structure; for such procedural reasons as actors' intersectionality (ibid.) or where actors operate in consideration of other actors. Other actors, who “reproduced relationships between individuals and collectives” (Giddens 1981 , 169) appear as another dualism in the agency-structure concept. This means that on one hand, they serve to exemplify an actor and acts, while on the other hand, they also materialise as structure. Although agency generally refers to a flow of acts that constitute the reproduction of the structure (Baber 1991 ), according to Giddens the structures are enacted by so-called knowledgeable human agents, who “know what they are doing and how to do it” (Sewell 1992, 4). This means these actors have transformative potential to alter the action’s structure. Structures are not meant to be constraints to action, but instead, they enable agents to employ their capacities (knowledge and resources) in “creative or innovative ways” (ibid.). Action and actors, which at times are used interchangeably with agency and agents (Giddens 1979 ), refer not only to individual acts but to the seamless conduct of processes in the real-world. Thus, this theory allows one to conceptualise general human actions and—potentially—actions that are undertaken by a coalition of actors (Haderer 2023 ). Human action, and interaction, are seamlessly structured; replicated and unremitted (Fuchs 2001). Beyond agency-structure as a postulation of human process, another key with this theory is the recognition of agency in “just about everyone”—that is, every actor has the potential for impact, not due to the working of a higher consciousness—but “by virtue of their participation in multiple social systems” (Whittington 2015 , 147). This class of transformative potential refers to the capability to choose to participate in one practice-system over another (ibid.) rather than wholly transforming one practice. The capability to exercise control over a practice, or the impact of exercising control over participation (ibid.) defines the actor's transformative potential by simply, “being able to do otherwise” (Archer 1999, 9). Agents are presumed to “know a great deal (if not all)” about society and its constructs and thus are able to utilise the structures, while being able to also articulate the structure’s being (Shilling 1992 , 82). This dualism does attribute a higher consciousness to such agency knowledgeability, which renders this different from, for example, experimentation (Meyer 2023 ). This attribute of knowledgeable agency creates the bridge to education and the extension to educated professionals. Indeed, professionalism “provides a window to agency as expertise” (Shapiro 2005, 276), and in some cases, further explains the asymmetric knowledge and resources between actors and some agents who are otherwise equal in their potential. The schema of actors (by the virtue of being) becoming knowledgeable agents (of change) through (sustainability) education and allocated (professional) resources, is connected to the idea of structuration dominance in acting for sustainability change. This happens in the sense that the agent has the capacity to dominate, but it can also be triggered by a decision to suspend change. Even with knowledgeable (educated professional) agents (with resources), the capacity to transform relies on the dominance over the structure in action (see Fig. 1 ), rather than on the knowledgeability of the agent or necessarily even the allocated resources—with the exemption of acknowledging the dual construct of resources being a form of dominance. When employing transformative action through domination over resources, there are a few emergent notions of nature and the direction of the aforementioned elements. Domination, especially in the context of sustainability and sustainable transformation, is represented by the current structures and the power laden by their societal presence. These commonly manifest as norms, rules, or institutions; however, this can even be seen in the individual’s expectations for the future (Koch 2020 ). Thus, resources appear as neutral and indifferent, utilisable for change or reification, as an extension of domination and transformation, while the transformative capacity emerges from autonomy to enact the alternative; that is, to be free of domination in autonomy to transgress the current. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS Following this theoretical framing, our aim is to synthesise an analytical apparatus with which the structure, acts, and agency can be abstracted from the analysed materials. Climate change and sustainability education often takes an approach wherein the ideals are well represented, but often compromised in favour of maintaining a practicable point of view. This intended praxis is the reason for the study material selection. However, this study is not an assessment of these specific educational materials for their approach to sustainability; rather, the materials are taken as a selection of commonplace sustainability-themed education. The materials analysed herein serve as a micro-study of the representation of sustainability practice through its education, issues, approaches, professionalism, and rhetoric at large. To continue, with these materials as a generalisable example, we refer to both the commonplaceness of the selected materials—not as a comprehensive review of sustainability education, but as an example, which we assert echoes the contemporary sustainability rhetoric. This analysis is also generalisable in that there is no strict disciplinary scope specifically applicable to one academic discussion, rather the findings apply to several disciplines related to sustainability since this argument is about the form and function of sustainability education at large rather than the specific content. Climate University study materials Climate University (Climate University, 2022) is a climate change and sustainability-themed online education network. The Climate University platform promotes nine individual English language courses, each worth a total of 5 European study credits, which is equivalent to 140 study load hours (see Table 1). The courses are mainly created and taught by the coordinating university in collaboration with other universities and research institutions. The courses were co-created by numerous scientists, educators, and practitioners of various scientific disciplines that represent a broad view and considerable expertise on the topics at hand. A majority of the courses were created within the last five years, which makes their contents relatively current. Most of the courses are intended for master’s level students or students participating in continuous learning, coming from any disciplinary context and any higher education institution. While some of the courses are mandatory in the master’s programmes at the partnering universities, the courses are predominantly taken as elective—either individually or as a series. Often the courses follow a structure that flows from thematic reading materials to weekly and final individual and/or group assignments. These assignments are typically structured to spur reflection on what was learned in the course and to observe instances of the theoretical material as it plays out in real-world case contexts. Thus, the learning experience relies on materials that address several aspects and approaches to the current sustainability causes, issues, and suggested solutions. The materials also suggest numerous different means and processes for the learners to continue to engage with sustainability beyond the confines of the course. Table 1. Study materials used in content analysis Course Main content Identifier Biodiversity.now biodiversity, which highlights human and individual participation in its issues Biod Circular.now circular economy and its practical applications Circ Climate.now climate system and changes therein Clim ClimateComms.now communication of environmental and sustainability issues Comm Leadership for Sustainable Change issues, principles, applications, and competencies for sustainability Lead Solutions.now real-world organisations applying sustainability solutions Solu Statistical Tools for Climate and Atmospheric Science collection and utilisation of climate-related data Stat SystemsChange.now natural and human systems and their interactions Syst Sustainable.now concepts and themes of the dimensions of sustainable development Sust The course materials utilised in this content study were the following: course syllabi, which included intended learning outcomes course introductions with specific approach(es) to the themes of the course course assignment instructions which provided explicit verbiage on the suggested problems, actions, and approaches to the issues highlighted in each course Content analysis With the presented theoretical background in mind, we formulated a content analysis framing (Fig. 1). The analysis was based on course materials (accessed via the course platform website in December 2022) and the coding was conducted by the corresponding author using Atlas.TI. The structure was conveyed as different targets and contexts of activities and operations, notions of resources (through which structures are enacted), and as general attention and interests expressed in the materials. In this analysis, agency was interpreted as something projected through the abilities, capabilities, and knowledge-based activities, acts, and engagements with the structure. However, as this analytical framing is dualistic in nature, a strict distinction between the structures, materials, and agency, seemed unfruitful. Thus instead, the analysis aims for a meta-level understanding, which in some research is called a phronetic approach (Tracy 2018). The content analysis (Krippendorff 2004) utilised herein, takes re-presentations from the theoretical framing, meaning simply that the findings rely on the relations to agency and structure that emerge from interpreting the material, from which quotes are utilised to exemplify these representations. This type of examination seeks to reveal instances (Bryman 2016) of the structure and of agency in the sustainability stage, script, and actors to address the suggested professionals’ practices (Salovaara and Soini 2021). The individual instances cumulated into numerous themes under the different structuration classes (below). 4. FINDINGS - SUSTAINABILITY STRUCTURATION The findings proceed as an interplay between findings and our interpretation of them while using direct quotes from the materials that exemplify the points at hand. We have indicated after each quote which area of the corpus the quote originated (see Table 1 for the course abbreviations). In our aim to create an organic flow between the examples and the wider analysis of the text, certain themes emerging from the content analysis are further elaborated due to their relevance to the sustainability transformation discussion. Purpose—understanding the direction of sustainability The ecological-environmental dimension of sustainability prevails throughout the rhetoric and is often further emphasised by reflecting the other dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, cultural) through their relations to ecological sustainability. This is evident, for example, through questions like: What are the connections and the conceptual differences between social and environmental sustainability? By framing the question in this way, the environment serves as a backdrop against which cultural sustainability is akin to a resource through which environmental sustainability is furthered. It should be noted that culture specifically with sustainability, is also referenced as something to be sustained; for example, as explained in one of the courses, “What cultural practices do you think should be changed and which are important to retain?” (Sust). Whereas other concepts under the umbrella of sustainability, like Circular Economy, are addressed as an environmentally sound economic model achievable through a reformation. Within such framings, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are often synonymous with sustainability in operation, or sustainability as defined by its issues—at the same time the SDGs seem to get utilised with very little critique. Similar attempts to strategise sustainability come in the form of different indexes, such as those meant to measure a collection of chosen quantitative processes, like the Sustainable Development Index, which quantifies “the ecological efficiency of human development” (Sust). Although, such a comparison expresses the pervasiveness of the now normative belief that human development is a process that can happen in an ecologically efficient way. As the name of the course collection suggests—Climate University—the courses are, at least as a whole, environmentally oriented and thus there is an observable disciplinary inclination to the natural sciences of the authors and the materials they produce. However, the ethos of such tools, reflected by their approach to systemic sustainability rather than to unidimensional sustainability (e.g., economic), exemplify an ontological standpoint of “humans” being separate from “other animal species”, that is humans are considered as being separate from the wider “ecology”. The examined materials are in line with the normative assumption that “sustainability” is universally good and the right path to follow. Situationally, this normativity is reflected in statements like the following, “Think further about the worldviews that are connected to your chosen sustainability issue […] Is there a subjective or objective truth to be discovered about the issue?”, and such critical prompts as, “Reflect on what reliable information is. Where can you find reliable information about climate change?” and “examine whether different sources give different estimates” (Lead), and such notions as Climate Fiction—as a form of communication, and bringing up the concept of eco-dystopia, suggests that sustainability’s normativity could potentially slip into eco-hegemony. In addition to the aforementioned theoretical reflections, sustainability is predominantly contextualised through its concrete contribution to real-world situations, in addition to the overarching transformative aims. From the conceptual perspective sustainability is often contextualised as a representation of a more systemic view on human-nature relations. This systems thinking is often grounded in in-situ contexts that range from the global to the local and are utilised as a situated example of representations like, “Climate Change as a global challenge” (Syst). At times the so-called real-world appears as a rule of ethics, at times as a request for concrete steps to be taken, and at times as an assessment of the global relevance of a project. Sustainability is also sometimes defined through its problems, for example, “Understanding the context. Explore the social, legal, political, environmental, economic, practical drivers, barriers and risks of the case” (Lead). In this example, sustainability serves as a justification for why change is needed. That is, in this case, one would be successful by achieving sustainability. Yet, another form of contextualisation applied to sustainability comes through socio-spatially, for example through observing one’s own surroundings. “Take a photo of your environment close to you” (Biod). The socio-spatial context is also expressed by calling attention to widely known environments, such as the Arctic, or culturally significant locations in the world. It should be noted that this often comes in the form of references to problematic locations, like where sea-level rise is predicted to have a catastrophic impact. This contextualisation brings up questions of differing ontologies. Sustainability—whether through its principle or problems—is acknowledged to be a construct of multiple perspectives. Simultaneously there are several different tensions and domains, actors and sectors, and competing values and knowledge(s) at play. The scope of such perspectives ranges from the presence of intergovernmental alignments, such as the Paris Agreement or Conference of the Parties (COP), to considering personal biases in scientific disciplines or even by asking questions like, “What will happen to the squirrel?” (Clim). However, it should be highlighted that in methodology-focused courses it is apparent that such epistemic perspectives are absent, or the previously addressed normativity, rather it is replaced by a clinically neutral and technical approach. In science—whether basic or applied, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary—sustainability is further defined, and science-making also becomes a target for sustainability change. While science is used to generate change, reconceptualisation of the processes of science itself ought to be explored. For example, are there contemporary ways of science that can produce sustainability? In general, sustainability rhetoric delivers many different expressions of difficulties; while sometimes sustainability itself is even acknowledged and accepted as a near-impossibility. It is in the complexity of multi-dimensional sustainability issues and the complication of resolving those issues that sets us up for the task of enacting sustainability. Such tautology can truly represent some situations, or be a pre-emptive management of expectations, or be simply an outcome of the existing paradigm wherein actionable sustainability seems unimaginable. This is evident in expressions such as, “Sustainable development is a concept that is multidimensional and difficult to define’ or ‘climate change can no longer be completely stopped” (Sust). This same idea is also reflected in the historical absence of achievements, “Does the first [IPCC] report [from 1994] already communicate the need to reduce emissions and the sense of urgency?” (Comm). All of these conceptualizations share the common undertone of transformation being represented as a struggle. Structure—where and how is sustainability practised In typologising and searching for taxonomic instances of the structure in the materials used in the Climate University, an emphasis on targets of action emerged. Targets such as fields, organisations, sectors, roles, and contexts of operations alike, represent a simplification of structures but serve as functional approximations in this paper. In addition to these targets, other types of structure emerged, for example, the processes and practices that agents engage with in pursuit of actionable sustainability. These appear in the materials in a few different ways, including 1) issues as predefined problems—like those related to ecosystem services; 2) concepts—like suggested services or products as solutions; 3) a restructuring of the problem—like the concept of planetary boundaries . Somewhere between a stage and a structure , are the sustainability schematics, such as thinking in weak or strong sustainability. Schemes like the SDGs appear as a structure of sorts, being proposed as a plan for sustainability—although, again with little critical thought on which kind of sustainability is fundamentally promoted. For example, do Circular Economy measures promote socio-economic equality—a pillar of economic sustainability? Similarly, concepts like Climate Scenarios and other forecasting devices function as targets and structures. Under this understanding, processes are structures within which agency can take shape, i.e., “what is the natural scientific frame of the question?” (Syst). Whereas the outcomes of science are present as further targets for action, for example, “sea level will rise as a consequence of not only glacier melting but also the thermal expansion of seawater” (Clim). From the several references to Climate Scenarios in the materials, their focus areas emerged as, population growth, gross-domestic production, energy consumption, and emissions (including, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, sulphur and nitrogen), which predominantly all seem economic-related, suggesting necessity and dependency on the socioeconomic processes. Although this necessity is at times addressed as an outcome of compromises, for example, “we considered both the revenue from wood sales and the volume of carbon stock in the forest” (Syst). However, such economic rhetoric seems to be cautiously accepted and normalised, rather than firmly opposed. Thus, questions like, “is market economy the cause of…?” (Sust), or “does sustainability help companies to be more profitable ?” (Sust), leaves these structures ambivalent in being either the problem or a solution. Sustainability does schematically include the dimension of economic development, equal to other dimensions of sustainability and as strongly normative and universally favoured economic prosperity—but at what cost? The intent is kept undefined. Does economic prosperity always mean continuous growth—the limitless capitalisation of nature and labour? Or does it mean universal well-being—simply actualised in money? Both characterisations are potential shorthand examples of the current economic system. Utilising the concept of eco-social systems, rather than strictly environmental, is often suggested as a backdrop to environmental problems, such as, “There are many situations in the real world in which identifying an eco-social system may help us to better understand and address an environmental problem” (Syst). Under the broad targeting in the human-nature linkages, economic activities take centre stage, although they are often presented as a solution rather than a problem, for example, “Understand the problems of today’s consumption of resources and how the circular economy can help in resolving these problems” (Circ). Sometimes they are presented as an issue that can be cured from the current unsustainability, “examine the current use of resources and the challenges that give rise to, and also familiarise ourselves with the circular economy model” (Circ). Under the themes of Circular Economy typically problematised industries such as fashion and tourism are presented as targets. Other regularly mentioned targets include topics like forest-based cycles, technical cycles, mobility, sharing economy, agriculture, and food systems. Another key area that emerged was systems, for example, energy in the sociotechnical systems, “The transition away from fossil fuels presents several challenges for energy systems” (Clim). Herein, issues like mobility appear as an important change-target, “What benefits (and possible disadvantages) from changes in mobility habits and means of transport could you, society/consumers and sustainability experience?” (Circ). In general, systems theories, like the Multi-Level Perspective Theory or conceptualisations like Wicked Problems are frequent approaches. Biodiversity is also frequently a theme, especially on its respective course, with such relevant insights, including, “understanding the importance of biodiversity and consequences of biodiversity loss, threats to biodiversity” (Biod). Biodiversity gets nested within other problem-areas that have targets, which also appear as structures for solutions, these include, “circular economy, ecological compensation, biodiversity and business” and “political and economic tools in biodiversity conservation, biodiversity politics, biodiversity and civic movements”. Although it should be noted that the politics—or policies and power in general—are seldom mentioned but do appear on occasion, “steering instruments and measures could promote the circular economy” (Circ). Sometimes they come up even more directly through questions like, “What are the power relationships between the different actors?” (Syst). Politics are also brought into the conversation through questions that acknowledge the linkages between human action and several issues related to climate and sustainability, “In whose advantage it is to pretend that climate change has not been caused by humans?” (Clim) The human is habitually addressed as the solution to the current unsustainable state of the world, “humans as agents of change in systems that link individuals and groups of people with the environments” (Syst). Humans are a prime activity target, due to their social existence and professional practices—as private, public or citizen sector representatives. Yet it is the very nature of human action—reifying the structure—that needs to be changed. This can be seen with statements and questions like, “Achieving the 1.5 Celsius target means companies also need to take action” (Clim) or “What are the competencies needed for the society to reach carbon neutrality by 2035?” (Clim). In this vein of thought, the often-mentioned stakeholders appear as a structure resource. Stakeholders are sometimes addressed at times as co-creators, that is actors that shoulder more of the collaborative burden, and at times as a group who is to be convinced to collaborate. Stakeholders, as an example of the others (mentioned more explicitly in the Discussion and Conclusions section), expresses more features of a structure, than as actors. Their utility is in the outcome, as their acts are concretised in reified structures. However, one’s actions are simultaneously the very agency-structure, meaning that they can also appear as structures of change. For example, statements like, “Explore the environmental changes and challenges in and around your own professional field, studies, or a field of your own personal interest” (Lead), suggest that, regardless of the field, one can exercise their transformative potential through professional acts. Although even one’s own acts are targets of change, whether this is reflected by specific choices, “How much land you must own to be able to make a carbon-free trip...” (Clim), or in general exploration, “How can you contribute towards sustainable futures?” (Sust). Self-steering, as a foundation of agency, is often called for in further redefining the problems and exploring potential solutions, “what [do you think] is the challenge?” (Lead) and “what needs to change?” (Lead). However, in expecting the people to define the problems, and in addressing people as the cause and source of the issues, two ideas emerge—othering and externalisation. The rhetoric makes a distinction between humans , who act unsustainably for the lack the knowledge and a class of us knowledgeable humans. This can be seen in statements like, ‘our agency as individuals and as a group’ (Sust). It is this latter group of knowledgeable humans who are seen as the potential solution. At times, the human is external, ‘How much were the carbon emissions produced by humanity (GtC)?’ (Clim). While at other times the human or some human, can also change, ‘Our economic development has drastically changed the way we live, but it has also brought with it complex and difficult problems that necessitate global action to be solved’ (Lead). Although similar externalisation through drawing rhetorical boundaries can be seen in addressing the environment in general. Forests are imagined through their utility—they are either cut for their material or left to serve as carbon sinks. Similarly, animals are cast as needing rescue, ‘How endangered are they and how does the media affect your perceptions about them?’ (Comm). Action—enacting a sustainability transformation Although the agency dimension of Structuration Theory is the most explored dimension in sustainability rhetoric and education, it is relevant to further examine it through materials, which go beyond the stage and structure. In general, agents are assumed to be familiar with the main concepts of sustainability. Sustainability is addressed through its dimensions, as a political, normative and at times conflicted concept. It appears to have endless(ly) (re)defined wicked and systemic problems related to (mostly) climate, which serves as the main foundation for the call for stakeholder collaboration. Again, the materials follow the commonplace rhetoric of sustainability, further demonstrating the general nature of materials used in this content analysis. With multiple definitions and descriptions of sustainability, the epistemic plurality is also addressed in reflecting differing worldviews, that is the identities, hopes, and obstacles for furthering sustainability. Repeating typical sustainability rhetoric, multi- and interdisciplinarity are often referenced, especially in course assignments, moreover in the frequently utilised group work process. The plurality of sustainability is also manifested through the numerous employed and suggested methodologies which describe the knowledge of the actor as well. Some basic parameters of the learned content on these courses are given, such as “sustainable development as a political and normative concept […] its ecological, social, economic and cultural dimensions and the connections and conflicts related […] the wicked problems related to it […] require multidisciplinary cooperation and problem-solving skills” (Sust). This could also be seen as leading to the generalisation of sustainability agents. Agency is often directly referenced in the materials and sustainability rhetoric, for example, “The course also emphasises the importance of agency and the different roles of an individual. [...] on the other hand, sustainability and climate challenges are also presented as structural and systemic problems” (Sust). Thus, it is rarely explicitly connected to structures. Instead, agency is seen as a conceptualisation of an actor with an, often ideological, goal to be changed. Under this characterisation, this actor could be described as more of a professional activist, rather than an actor who is always functioning solely within structures. These agent-actors are primed to be the enablers and drivers of change and as such they are cast as responsible for enacting widespread sustainability. Reflections on the educated understanding of sustainability—contextualised to an organisation or community—appear as a conceptualisation of sorts of the transformative potential an actor can possess by virtue of existing in several societal spheres. Such contextualisation of one’s own intersectional acts naturally coincides with the previously noted Stage for sustainability and the previously noted targets, which occur in real-world cases. Such real-world cases appear at times as lessons from what has been done, for example, ‘Find an example of a successful (or unsuccessful) conservation effort’ (Biod). This approach can be paired with mounting challenges, which serve to exercise critical sustainability thinking, such as ‘What was the situation before conservation efforts and after? How did conservation efforts affect species/ecosystem biodiversity?’ (Biod). Alternatively, agents are asked to reflect on their agency, which often puts them into the role of a consumer rather than simply an aware citizen, “how much domestic water does each person in Finland use per day” (Clim). At times the agents are asked to reflect on their own intersectionality within the broader landscape of sustainability schemes, “Think of your roles in a circular economy circle: as a consumer, as a citizen and as a (future) professional working in an organisation of sorts” (Lead). Agency, as in the previous examples, suggests a professional role. Professionalism is predominantly defined by the actor's expertise, which is constructed through know-how and capabilities—often cited as competencies. Competencies for sustainability include such traits as systems thinking and analytical thinking, which appear in the materials, ‘From why sustainability is taught, we move to how it is taught, and to what is taught: the competencies for sustainability’ (Lead). Although systems thinking is often mentioned not just as a competence but as a process, approach, and requirement, “System-level thinking ensures that we do not, while mitigating climate change, upset other systems and create new problems, for example for nutrient cycle or biodiversity” (Clim). Another competence that appeared often is critical thinking, which manifests as both critical reflections, and by generally adopting a critical approach. Critical thinking is called for in many different scenarios, “In whose advantage it is to pretend that climate change has not been caused by humans?” (Clim), and “What benefits do actors gain from connecting their activities to and categorising them as Circular Economy? Are there any risks?” (Lead). These competencies are interconnected, and they also overlap in practice, for example, “When we understand Climate Change as a systemic phenomenon, i.e. as the product of a certain system of connections between things, we unlock a powerful set of tools for making sense of it–systems thinking” (Syst). In other words, systems thinking features analytical and normative traits as well. Interpersonal competencies are also commonly referenced, especially as part of communication, which is a key theme in sustainability-making. Communication, taken in its simplest interpretation as conveying a message, still requires specific competences. Additionally, communication is practised through different media—from written reports to conference appearances, and academic publications to private discussions—all of which have their own dilemmas, such as that of normativity, “What should be taken into account when communicating about climate change [...] What kind of rhetoric would be appealing?” (Comm), or “How can we make people care about \"unpopular\" endangered species?” (Biod). Related to the act of conveying a message; the utilisation of knowledge (and science as an outcome) is cited as an important competence; for example, in argumentation. Language is also mentioned as an important tool and capability to express one’s professionalism. Collaboration and cooperation, along with communication, are brought up as expressions of interpersonal competencies, as are project management and leadership defined as, “an influence process through which social order and change emerges” (Lead). Such operational competencies are also mentioned, including strategic competence, initiative competence (for example in furthering goals and taking responsibility), and creative competence (for example creatively combining knowledge of different fields). Different from competencies, various skills emerge repeatedly in the materials, with a special emphasis on skills that relate to certain methodologies; such as climate modelling, PESTEL analysis (and other future casting tools), creative problem-solving tools, prototyping, participatory methods, impact assessment and analysis tools like circular economy cob-web charts or multi-criterion analysis/comparison charts, and utilising different knowledge databases such as Red List Data Books. It should be noted that methodological skills for environmental sciences seem to be addressed quite descriptively, for example “…we ask you to consider the phosphorus cycle from the perspective of its effects on the Baltic Sea” (Syst), or “changes in the Earth System being produced by Climate Change” (Syst). The former has more of a normative slant, while the latter seems semantically different from attributing the changes to human causes. Methodological strategies for Climate Change are scarcely mentioned, with only a few examples, such as, “what kinds of climate engineering (geoengineering) techniques are being developed to mitigate climate change” (Clim). Statements like this often came with further examples that expand on how to mitigate the changes. However, actual adaptation strategies seldom appeared, “The changes will have adverse effects, which we can reduce by adapting to the changes” (Clim). Yet another class of capabilities, as material constructs for agency can be seen, for example, in addressing Circular Economy to “create a vision of practical activities that could be undertaken by different sectors to promote the circular economy” (Circ). Thus, utilising Circular Economy as a structure for agency-acts to take place. Design-thinking, along with other approaches related to how things should be , like solution innovations through products or services, or social innovations like practices or habits are suggested as interventions to the current state of unsustainability. Imagination and artistic approaches are also suggested to lead to novel, potentially effective, and transformative outcomes, “Imagine change towards more sustainability in the practices of an organisation of your choice” (Lead). Emotions appear related to working with climate change and sustainability, where thoughts like the following are mentioned, “climate anxiety”, “climate wishful thinking”, and “seeking for balance between realism and hope” (Comm). Values emerge, for example, through one’s own environmental or ethical principles and seem directly tied to the motivation of the agents. Values, related to emotions, also appear highly relevant for employing the agent’s transformative capability, where knowledge in decision-making relates more to reason. Values affect the personal, historical, and cultural stance towards sustainability, prompting questions like what is the ” meaning of sustainability for me ?” (Solu). Thus, values are part of personal reflection influencing one's choices. Values are found where facts turn into knowledge and potentially to action. Thus, notions such as coping with uncertainty and leading and making bold decisions with uncertain outcomes, are common. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study adapted and employed Structuration Theory as a theoretical framing for critically assessing approaches to sustainability transformation that were expressed in climate change and sustainability-themed educational materials. The materials in the textual corpus were presented as a micro-study and an example of contemporary sustainability rhetoric. These materials represent one approach to the themes, and although the various courses were authored by a vast interdisciplinary network, citing multiple strands of research, they do not—even when taken together—express all the possible problematisations of sustainability. However, to evoke discussion over the utility of Structuration Theory, the presented results bring novel insight into the concept of sustainability agency, which has largely been disconnected from structure, regardless of the specific problematisation. Sustainability and its problematisations in this context are observed through the lens of structuration, which is essentially a view of sustainability as a process and serves as a foundation for our emergent insights. We aim to discuss our findings and contribute insights related to sustainability education (Brundiers et al. 2021 ) and professionalism (Salovaara 2022 –as practices of transformative sustainability (McGeown and Barry 2023 ). The materials include persistent boundary-work and highlight ontological positioning—similar to other juxtapositions present in the concept of sustainability—for example, between generalists and specialists, mono- and interdisciplinary, business-as-usual and transformation (Salovaara 2022 ). The observation of this practice is highly relevant, for example, when crafting the ideals of sustainability agency, which should serve as the basis for the education and identity of sustainability. This boundary-work can be seen when referencing how knowledgeable the agent is when justifying their relevance and authority, or in exemplifying the normativity of sustainability when assessing and changing practices or systems that are deemed unsustainable (reflected in Fig. 2 ). The narratives revolve around the hubris-like normative contrasting between what is considered sustainable or unsustainable, for example, animal-based vs. vegan produce—predominantly to consumers (Luederitz et al. 2018). These contrasts become rhetorical bridges connecting subjects to ideological shelters, like our climate-friendly diet , or those where there is a disconnect, like peoples’ meat consumption . The contrasting ideologies are futile as agents—in this case, consumers—are left to exercise their dominance between a comparatively more sustainable choice and an unsustainable choice. There is an issue of creating boundaries between us as humans , and others as nature and generally for making sense of the existing structures in which the capable and responsible agents are supposed to enact the change (Heiskanen et al. 2013). Certain necessitated unsustainabilities, like economic prosperity through maximisation of resource utility (for example, by maximising forest utility for carbon storage businesses) seem to exist under a level of acceptance, perhaps because of the same othering —their benefits that are considered mutual on both opposing sides (Hammond 2020 ). It is a worthy concern that such ontological constructs, for example, as me to people , could lead to us versus others (even in the verbiage of this article), and thus simply considering sustainability as a virtue of the resourceful few, rather than a systemic nature of humanity's existence. Thus, an explicit narration (King & Horrocks 2010 ) of the existing unsustainability is required to also profoundly address sustainability—perhaps beyond the language of binary expressions like us or others . Acts follow structure, and ultimately (re)create them in a continuous flow (Giddens 1979 ). Acts either reaffirm or transgress the other actors’ structures—especially in the case of sustainability transformation—leading to a conclusion that others in practice appear as structure, rather than agents. Although, others—the (differently, or ill) knowledgeable (Birdman et al. 2022 ) or the competent (Wiek et al. 2011 )—affirm the agency-structure as their acts reject or reify the alternatively enacted structures. Others in their agency also represent a form of structural power, which can dominate the instilled reality—that is the enacted social structure at large. Ultimately, it is against this instilled reality that educated agents are expected to transgress the known path (i.e., indicative of path dependency). Considering the prevalence of structuration, this theory ostensibly proposes a psychosocial vacuum, in which acts reify and agency transforms the structure, which perpetually suggests that there are potentials and opportunities for sustainable alternatives by finding alternatives to the structures. However, agency-work—even if infrequent—can create rhythmic shifts, which can be seen as micro-level change, that in turn affects the meso-level structures and meta-level landscape in Multi-level Perspective Theory (Geels 2010 ). This can also be interpreted as seeking for reaffirmation through other agents in Actor-Network Theory (Latour 2007 ); thus, suggesting one functional linkage between the theories. Agency is an attribute of the increased actor qualities one possesses —the knowledge(s) attained and utilised for transformative capability (as the main argument for sustainability education), yet it is only a capacity if there is domination over the employable resources (Fig. 1 ). By such rhetoric, agency alone appears as surprisingly trivial, since knowledge has frail powers and the potential to act and as it is assigned to virtually everyone —rendering it as such seemingly insignificant. Thus, there needs to be an understanding—as better disseminated in sociological thought—that agency alone is insufficient in transition theories, while the much sought-after capacity to transform is in the duality of agency and structure, that is through the dominance of the needed resources (Koistinen and Teerikangas 2021 ). However, the relevance of this suggested sustainability structuration to education and educational institutions comes in a few different forms. Sustainability educators ought to pay much more attention to structuration as a broader concept of knowledgeable agents in structures of actions (Teerikangas et al. 2021 ), the existing cultural and societal paradigm (McGeown and Barry 2023 ) and power (Feola 2015 ), and to the instilled reality thereof (Bhaskar 1978 ), as these are the paths of dependency. Thus, a key outcome of this study is the recommendation to educators, as agents of change, to explore and employ sustainability structuration as it would (and does) exist in a systemically unsustainable society. As typical to such a qualitative study, leaning on constructive methodologies and interpretive methods, this research is subject to personal biases and is limited to the researcher’s comprehension of the topics addressed and the materials of the research. This research is based on publicly available texts and well-known and articulated theories; thus, aiming to be transparent and replicable. Although even with the widely available elaborations and applications of these theories, they do not yet exist in the context of sustainability science and research. Such limitations ought to inspire future research on these themes, especially the possibility to further contextualise sustainability in professional practice through Structuration Theory. Further research should reevaluate our comprehension of the root-cause sustainability issues in contrast to their practicable solutions through sustainability structuration beyond the at-times overemphasised capacities of agents or the belittled importance of structure. This could be done, for heightened impact, in the field of sustainability education and with the institutional structures used to understand the capacity of educators and researchers themselves. In conclusion, the significant content of this study, as descriptions of sustainability structuration, focus on explaining sustainability as an endeavour, a structure, and agency. Sustainability is constructed through the typical dimensions, and thematised in different schemes like SDGs and problematised by conceptualisations like Biodiversity-loss or Climate change scenarios. To this end, scientific disciplines, fields of application, personal values, and—at times hegemonic—normativity of sustainability significantly influence our understanding and approach to enacting sustainability. Systems can be taken as contexts and targets for sustainability to be embedded or take a systemic approach to one’s abilities and capabilities, for example, the competencies and resource-oriented methodologies experts need. While the rhetoric citing difficulties in achieving sustainability prevails, a narration exists simultaneously of agency through one’s roles and knowledgeable actions to change. However, a rhetorical process of othering looms where sustainability is performed, making people the cause of the sustainability crises, while suggesting self and us to be the solution. Importantly, there is relevance to address the othering in the concept of sustainability structuration, as in practice other agents and actors materialise as structure. Thus, the most relevant abstraction of this study aims to illustrate the somewhat mistakenly accepted capability of an actor—even as a knowledgeable, educated agent—depends on the domination of resources, which is the capacity in concert with structure wherein the transformation can be enacted. Furthermore, for the process to undergo the transformation process, that is for sustainability to be enacted, it cannot be decided by a sole agent, but by a culture of agency. Declarations DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors report there are no competing interests. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors wish to thank those several individuals with whom they have had the pleasure and privilege to converge and mature their critical thinking. In addition, we would like to thank the editors and reviewers who gave their time, attention, critical comments, and insights, all of which served to enhance this paper. FUNDING: This research was supported by the Research Council of Finland project, “Learning of the competencies of effective climate change mitigation and adaptation in the education system” under grant 340791. Open Access funded by Helsinki University Library. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT: JJS: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, analysis, original draft preparation, and writing, reviewing and editing, with SHA: writing, reviewing and editing. DATA AVAILABILITY: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author, but restrictions apply to the availability. The materials were accessed under given agreement to the author for this study and are not publicly available. The data, however, are available from the author upon reasonable request and with the permission of the responsible parties. References Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., ... & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46, 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y Archer, M. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488733 Baber, Z. (1991). Beyond the structure/agency dualism: An evaluation of Giddens’ theory of structuration. Sociological Inquiry, 61(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1991.tb00276.x Barth, M., & Rieckmann, M. (2016). State of the art in research on higher education for sustainable development. Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development, 100-113. Bhaskar, R. (1978). On the possibility of social scientific knowledge and the limits of naturalism. Journal for the Theory of social Behaviour, 8(1), 1-28. El Bilali, H. (2019). The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: A systematic review. Agriculture, 9(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9040074 Birdman, J., Barth, M., & Lang D. (2022). Connecting curricula and competence through student learning journeys. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18:1, 560-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2097773 Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2017). Beyond interpersonal competence: Teaching and learning professional skills in sustainability. Education Sciences, 7(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010039 Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., ... and Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16, 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2 Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press. Buckler, C., and Creech, H. (2014). Shaping the future we want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development; final report. Unesco. Buerke, A., Straatmann, T., Lin-Hi, N., and Müller, K. (2017). Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Review of Managerial Science, 11, 959-991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0211-2 Carollo, L., & Guerci, M. (2018). ‘Activists in a suit’: Paradoxes and metaphors in sustainability managers’ identity work. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3582-7 Chasek, P. S., Wagner, L. M., Leone, F., Lebada, A. M., and Risse, N. (2016). Getting to 2030: Negotiating the post‐2015 sustainable development agenda. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12149 Climate University. http://climateuniversity.fi/, accessed 12/2022 Davelaar, D. (2021). Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustainability Science, 16(3), 727-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0 Echebarria, C., Barrutia, J. M., Eletxigerra, A., Hartmann, P., and Apaolaza, V. (2018). Local sustainability processes worldwide: a systematic review of the literature and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(8), 1289-1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1342611 Elder-Vass, D. (2008), Searching for realism, structure and agency in Actor Network Theory1. The British Journal of Sociology, 59: 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00203.x Farla, J. C. M., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. E. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001 Feola, G. (2015). Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5), 376-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z Feola, G. (2020). Capitalism in sustainability transitions research: Time for a critical turn? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.02.005 Ferrer-Balas, D., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Buckland, H., Ysern, P., & Zilahy, G. (2010). Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.009 Fischer, L. B., & Newig, J. (2016). Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability, 8(5), 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476 Fleig, A., and Tosun, J. (2017). Political parties' rhetoric signaling of sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 25(5), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1672 Gajparia, J., Strachan, G., & Leverton, K. (2022). Transformation through learning: Education about, for, and as sustainability. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 982718. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.982718 Garnett, S. T., Lawes, M. J., James, R., Bigland, K., and Zander, K. K. (2016). Portrayal of sustainability principles in the mission statements and on home pages of the world's largest organizations. Conservation Biology, 30(2), 297-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12617 Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Volume 241 of Campus: University of California Press, University of California Press Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press. Giddens, A. (1990) The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Haderer, M. (2023). Experimental climate governance as organized irresponsibility? A case for revamping governing (also) through government. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2186078 Haider, L. J., Hentati-Sundberg, J., Giusti, M., Goodness, J., Hamann, M., Masterson, V. A., ... & Sinare, H. (2018). The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 13, 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1 Hallinger, P., & Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development, 1998–2018. Sustainability, 11(8), 2401. Hammond, M. (2020). Democratic deliberation for sustainability transformations: between constructiveness and disruption. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16:1, 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1814588 Hansmann, R., Mieg, H. A., & Frischknecht, P. (2012). Principal sustainability components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 19(5), 451-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.696220 Heiskanen, E., Thidell, Å., and Rodhe, H. (2016). Educating sustainability change agents: The importance of practical skills and experience. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.063 King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. SAGE Publishing Koch, M. (2020). Structure, action and change: a Bourdieusian perspective on the preconditions for a degrowth transition. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16:1, 4-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1754693 Koistinen, K., & Teerikangas, S. (2021). The Debate If Agents Matter vs. the System Matters in Sustainability Transitions—A Review of the Literature. Sustainability, 13(5), 2821, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052821 Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., ... and Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 Laakso, S., Aro, R., Heiskanen, E., & Kaljonen, M. (2021). Reconfigurations in sustainability transitions: a systematic and critical review. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 17:1, 15-31, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1836921 Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oup Oxford. Longo, S. B., Isgren, E., Clark, B., Jorgenson, A. K., Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., ... & York, R. (2021). Sociology for sustainability science. Discover Sustainability, 2, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00056-5 Lozano, R., Lozano, F. J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., and Waas, T. (2013). Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034 Luederitz, C., Abson, D. J., Audet, R., and Lang, D. J. (2017). Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustainability Science, 12, 393-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0 Martin, S., Brannigan, J., & Hall, A. (2005). Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260500030389 McGeown, C., & Barry, J. (2023). Agents of (un) sustainability: democratising universities for the planetary crisis. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, 1166642. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1166642 Meyer, J., M. (2023). Experimentalism and its alternatives: toward viable strategies for transformative change and sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2166217 Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F. S., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268006 Miller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., and Loorbach, D. (2014). The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science, 9, 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6 Moilanen, F., & Toikka, A. (2023). Measuring employees’ perceptions of sustainability transitions at work: a novel survey with findings from Finland. Discover Sustainability, 4(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-023-00163-5 Moore, Jason W., (2016) Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. Sociology Faculty Scholarship, 1. Moradi, A., & Vagnoni, E. (2018). A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.002 Salvia, A. L., Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., and Griebeler, J. S. (2019). Assessing research trends related to Sustainable Development Goals: Local and global issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 841-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.242 Salovaara, J. J., Soini, K., and Pietikäinen, J. (2020). Sustainability science in education: analysis of master’s programmes’ curricula. Sustainability Science, 15, 901-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00745-1 Salovaara, J. J., and Soini, K. (2021). Educated professionals of sustainability and the dimensions of practices. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(8), 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2020-0327 Salovaara, J. J. (2022). Sustainability Alumni at Work—Interviews on Educated Sustainability Professionalism. Sustainability, 14(22), 14774. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214774 Shove, E., and Spurling, N. (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. In Sustainable Practices (pp. 1-13). Routledge. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Schneidewind, U., Augenstein, K., Stelzer, F., and Wanner, M. (2018). Structure Matters: Real-World Laboratories as a New Type of Large-Scale Research Infrastructure: A Framework Inspired by Giddens' Structuration Theory, GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, Volume 27, Supplement 1, 2018, pp. 12-17(6) https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.5 Shilling, C., (1992) Reconceptualising Structure and Agency in the Sociology of Education: structuration theory and schooling, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13:1, 69-87, https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569920130105 Stewart, R., Bey, N., & Boks, C. (2016). Exploration of the barriers to implementing different types of sustainability approaches. Procedia CIRP, 48, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 Teerikangas, S., Onkila, T., Koistinen, K., & Mäkelä, M. (Eds.). (2021). Research handbook of sustainability agency. Edward Elgar Publishing. Thomas, I., Barth, M., & Day, T. (2013). Education for sustainability, graduate capabilities, professional employment: How they all connect. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 29(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2013.14 Thorén, H., & Breian, L. (2016). Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.002 Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., and Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151-179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044 Visser, W. and Crane, A. (2010). Corporate Sustainability and the Individual: Understanding What Drives Sustainability Professionals as Change Agents. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1559087 Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., & Verbong, G. P. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011 Whittington, R. (2015). Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice (pp. 145-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139681032.009 Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.008 Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 Woodward, R., Feldman, I., & Edwards, M. (2010). The Sustainability Professional: 2010 Competency Survey Report. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 Jun, 2024 Reviews received at journal 05 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 May, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Mar, 2024 Reviews received at journal 18 Mar, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Mar, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 15 Mar, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 13 Mar, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Mar, 2024 First submitted to journal 18 Feb, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-3966993\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":279139298,\"identity\":\"b7817d7e-0d00-43f3-8c38-c2da2e58fc56\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Janne J. Salovaara\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Helsinki\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Janne\",\"middleName\":\"J.\",\"lastName\":\"Salovaara\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279139299,\"identity\":\"ee6712aa-7521-4560-89fc-bc1194b6a5a9\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Sophia E. Hagolani-Albov\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Helsinki\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Sophia\",\"middleName\":\"E.\",\"lastName\":\"Hagolani-Albov\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2024-02-18 12:59:21\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3966993/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3966993/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":52789432,\"identity\":\"f1673842-a7b1-4f94-821f-9085266a9d02\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 19:45:52\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":79798,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e(adapted from Giddens 1979). \\u003cem\\u003eA representation of the agency-structure schema between the dimensions of domination, resources, and transformation.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3966993/v1/124aef98ed979411ba2be992.png\"},{\"id\":52789431,\"identity\":\"2543a6ba-1bd0-4c00-af6c-d018b8da4941\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 19:45:52\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":37584,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eThe rhetorical othering and boundary-work can instantaneously address (ill)knowledgeable actors to enact problems as unsustainability, address knowledgeable agents as solutions of sustainability, or create different combinations of them.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3966993/v1/cd6840105e549fa2011e909b.png\"},{\"id\":52791126,\"identity\":\"fcaff822-a5bf-4cb6-9efb-e61e470dd903\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 19:53:53\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":522843,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3966993/v1/117f2344-e07a-4b2c-9695-5f567e390698.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Sustainability agency in Unsustainable structures: Rhetoric of a capable transformative individual\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"1. INTRODUCTION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSustainability is a theme that is present in almost all aspects of development (Salvia et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e) and contemporary societal rhetoric (Fleig and Tosun \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), for example, the theme is often found in political, media, and education discourses. Sustainability is promoted through many different instruments, for example, intergovernmental treaties (Chasek et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e), regional policies (Echebarria et al. 2016), corporate mission statements (Garnett et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e), and consumer education materials (Buerke et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). In the arena of higher education, one can find the concept of sustainability in the intended learning outcomes of curricula across disciplines and levels of study (Hallinger and Chatpinyakoop \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e), and in the universities\\u0026rsquo; social responsibility plans (Trencher et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e), among many other possible places. Beyond the University setting sustainability is also applied in many different practical contexts (Shove and Spurling \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e), where practitioners are meant to enact sustainability through their work practices (Salovaara and Soini \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR57\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e) or the practical implementation of their scientific thoughts (Miller et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). A prominent narrative is the transformation through the practice of sustainability (Feola \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e) and the expectation that the application of sustainability thinking will bring profound changes to business-as-usual (Davelaar \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). Within such transition narratives (Luederitz et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), education continues to be an area of focus (Barth and Rieckmann \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e), partly because many modern human actions\\u0026mdash;often deemed unsustainable\\u0026mdash;are an outcome of modern schooling (Ferrer-Balas et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). In this paper, we analyse curricula from a set of courses, to highlight the intended transformative outcomes through actions of educated sustainability (Gajparia et al. 2021).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInserting sustainability thinking in education has taken various forms and has been a frequent research topic that has been approached from many different angles. For example, Thor\\u0026eacute;n and Breian (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR66\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e) investigated the reciprocal relation between knowledge-making institutions and the societal sustainability issues at large. While Lozano et al. 's (2013) developed a systematic scheme, which reflects the positioning of sustainability discourse and practice within the scientific and managerial layers of universities. In addition, sustainability has been used as a frame to conceptualise the education of post-disciplinary (Haider 2018) certified \\u0026lsquo;change-makers\\u0026rsquo; who are then charged with enacting transformative measures in their post-university working lives (Heiskanen et al. 2013), regardless of typical barriers to employing sustainability (Stewart et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR63\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thus, after more than a decade of developing sustainability education (Buckler and Creech \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e), and the various formulations of specific competencies for sustainability (Brundiers et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), it seems appropriate to examine whether an approach that looks at the actions and motivations of individuals (as in for example: Moilanen and Toikka \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e) against a relatively stable system (Wieczorek \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR71\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e) can be more fully explored and utilised effectively (Abson et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Achieving sustainability is a complicated endeavour even if put to such typical composition as the three pillars of sustainability\\u0026mdash;and the competing tensions between them, which render the principles of sustainability at times contradictory (Hansmann et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e). This difficulty is further underpinned by the critical lens used to view societies (Longo et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), especially the tendency to cheapen nature to support accumulation at all costs (Moore \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Beyond motivating factors for human activities and the scientific worldviews at play, there is deliberation over the base question of sustainability itself\\u0026mdash;what should be sustained and what transformed (Hammond \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThough academia has spent many years examining sustainability study, practice, and research, a fundamental question still revolves around the effects practitioners have (e.g., Brundiers and Wiek \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), and if they are in practice effective to enact the sustainability transformation. There has been much effort to develop sustainability expertise through different framings of individual qualities. For example, Wiek et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR72\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e) highlight the key competencies for sustainability, while Martin et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2005\\u003c/span\\u003e) concentrate on professional practices for sustainability, and Thomas et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR65\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e) focus on professional advocacy as a path to achieving sustainability in practice. While these approaches highlight different key components, they generally share similar attributes, such as identity, values, knowledge, competencies, and experience. Yet, a robust depiction of a reliably effective, impactful sustainability actor has not yet been fully explored (Fischer and Newig \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Simultaneously, some of the negative effects that can be caused by the lack of professional contextualisation in sustainability education have been recognised (Birdman et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Yet, there has been a shortfall of broader attention and elaboration related to articulating or defining the context which best fosters the expert qualities needed to further sustainability transformation (Farla et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e). Following these observations and the recognised research and knowledge gaps present in the concept of sustainability agency, we take on the definition forwarded by Teerikangas et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR64\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), which positions sustainability agency as the \\u003cem\\u003ecapacity\\u003c/em\\u003e of different actors to act toward sustainable futures. Building off this definition, we argue that agency capacity differs from capability by contextualising Structuration Theory through sustainability education, which is a source for the change-agents and individual actors (Koistinen and Teerikangas \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e) to emerge and further the process of transformation. Thus, the purpose of this research is to contribute to climate change and sustainability-related education and initiate a discussion around sustainability agency that spans from its capabilities to the critical structures and capacities\\u0026mdash;predominantly in the contexts of education and the resulting professional practice. Ultimately, this theoretical elaboration aims to contribute to the overall sustainability impact of institutional, organisational, and professional sustainability practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"2. THEORETICAL THOUGHT\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eProfessionals of sustainability occupy a sometimes difficult position once they leave the confines of higher education (Visser and Crane \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR68\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). While they may have received an education in sustainability, this does not always suggest an explicit context in which to enact sustainability in practice. The gap between knowledge and action generally (Abson et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) and between knowledge and professional practice specifically is especially visible in applied fields where sustainability is applied rather than generated. While sustainability is often highlighted as a practice that is flexible to field-specific contextualisation (Woodward et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR73\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e), the explicit mechanisms of the practice of sustainability still lack practical and applicable generalisation (Carollo and Guerci \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Without getting into a deliberate criticism of the theorisations and conceptualisations of the actors and contexts that serve to operationalise sustainability (e.g., Fischer and Newig \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e), this article suggests the utilisation of Structuration Theory. This theory could offer a novel perspective to the operationalisation of sustainability through a more critical take to the often normative sustainability transformation (McGeown and Barry \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). One must revisit Gidden\\u0026rsquo;s Structuration Theory when observing the general transformative potential of sustainability actors (e.g., Farla et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e) in different schematised contexts (e.g., K\\u0026ouml;hler et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Theories related to transformation\\u0026mdash;although differing in essence (Laakso et al. 2020)\\u0026mdash;such as Actor Network Theory (Latour 1996), Multi-level Perspective Theory (Geels \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e), and Social Practice Theory (Shove et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR60\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e) have been widely utilised in sustainability research and planning (see for example Moradi and Vagnoni \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e, Walrave et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR69\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e, El Bilali \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Such theories have parallel interests with Structuration Theory\\u0026mdash;with respective epistemic differences (e.g., Elder-Vass \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e), for example, its views on perspective and its relation to reality (Bhaskar \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1978\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, the scope of this article is not to examine the practicability of a potential theory as a critical inquiry to the aforementioned problem(s), with a pragmatic approach to societal reality; but instead accepting \\u0026ldquo;all forms of humanism are considered to be \\u0026lsquo;ideological\\u0026rsquo; since they distortedly take our wholly superficial subjectivity seriously\\u0026rdquo; (Archer \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2000\\u003c/span\\u003e, 28) while relying on multiple expressions thereof (Miller et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eGidden\\u0026rsquo;s structuration\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStructuration Theory was introduced in the late 1970s (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1979\\u003c/span\\u003e) and elaborated in the early 1990s (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1990\\u003c/span\\u003e). This theory uses the metaphor of a stage play to describe the various elements within the theory; thus, we will refer back to this framing throughout the analysis and discussion. Giddens\\u0026rsquo; theory called for human agency in a critique of other existing theories, for example, Parsons\\u0026rsquo; sociological theories. Giddens (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1979\\u003c/span\\u003e, 235) famously stated, \\u0026ldquo;the stage is set, the scripts written, the roles established, but the performers are curiously absent from the scene\\u0026rdquo;. However, in this study, the more relevant question is whether the performers are on the right stage and whether the script is thoroughly understood. Thus, the focus is justifiably on navigating through the dimensions of the theory that seem practical to the emerging critical sustainability, rather than aiming for a systemic sociological dive into sustainability. Structuration Theory is principally concerned with \\u0026ldquo;connecting a notion of human action with structural explanation in social analysis\\u0026rdquo; (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1979\\u003c/span\\u003e, 49). According to Giddens, such a connection demands, \\u0026ldquo;a theory of the human agent [...]; an account of the conditions and consequences of action; and an interpretation of \\u0026lsquo;structure\\u0026rsquo; as somehow embroiled in both those conditions and consequences\\u0026rdquo; (ibid.). Structuration Theory serves to link various aspects of sustainability, including the processes by which sustainability is furthered (K\\u0026ouml;hler et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e), and the practices of these processes (Whittington \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR70\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). This can also be extended to encompass the different actors involved in the processes of the processes of sustainability (Fischer and Newig \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). These processes and actors can be thought of as features in an aims-oriented professional field (Etel\\u0026auml;pelto et al. 2013). This is especially relevant when sustainability is represented as a multifaceted endeavour that is undertaken via educated acts (Salovaara \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), which are then geared towards sustainability transformation (Feola \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Structuration refers to a broad and systemic operation of a human process and intent, without identifying the self in self-organisation (Leydesdorff 2010). Alternatively, it can be perceived as a specific scope of structures, or domains of operations, for example in Actor Network Theory or Multi-Level Perspective Theory. Thus, Structuration Theory is applicable to analyse processes on the macro-to-micro level and processes in the rhetorical societal stage. Thus, it is relevant to observe the emergence of social processes, specifically coexisting activities within a structure; where one activity is not able to be brought into being without the other (Fuchs 2001). Yet, while the activities themselves are mutually interdependent, in practice they still can be examined separately as they differ in specific features.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe \\u0026ldquo;structure\\u0026rdquo; in Structuration Theory has several descriptions; for example, as a \\u0026ldquo;medium and outcome of the practice which constitute social systems\\u0026rdquo; (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1981\\u003c/span\\u003e, 27), or as \\u0026ldquo;\\u0026lsquo;rule-resource sets\\u0026rsquo; which are included in the institutional framework of social systems and have a virtual existence\\u0026rdquo; (Schneidewind et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR61\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Further, the structure is also described as being \\u0026ldquo;composed simultaneously of schemas, which are virtual, and of resources, which are actual\\u0026rdquo; (Sewell 1992, 13). Resources are highly important in the agency-structure schematic. According to Shilling (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR62\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1992\\u003c/span\\u003e), structures are sets of rules and resources that social interaction can be \\u0026ldquo;drawn on\\u0026rdquo;. In the context of sustainability transformation, the importance is in the \\u003cem\\u003edominance\\u003c/em\\u003e tied to power and control over the resources (ibid.). It follows that the resources are considered as the \\u003cem\\u003estuff\\u003c/em\\u003e through which actors have (or do not have) the capacity to make \\u0026ldquo;things happen\\u0026rdquo; (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1981\\u003c/span\\u003e). Through actors\\u0026rsquo; actions, which reproduce societal structures, the issue of transformation prevails. That is, actors reify structures, although the act is never automatic in being simply guided by the structure alone, but they are rather seen to be \\u003cem\\u003eat risk\\u003c/em\\u003e to get reshaped instead (Sewell 1992). Thus, it is interesting to note where the act either reifies or changes the structure; for such procedural reasons as actors' intersectionality (ibid.) or where actors operate in consideration of other actors. Other actors, who \\u0026ldquo;reproduced relationships between individuals and collectives\\u0026rdquo; (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1981\\u003c/span\\u003e, 169) appear as another dualism in the agency-structure concept. This means that on one hand, they serve to exemplify an actor and acts, while on the other hand, they also materialise as structure. Although agency generally refers to a flow of acts that constitute the reproduction of the structure (Baber \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1991\\u003c/span\\u003e), according to Giddens the structures are enacted by so-called knowledgeable human agents, who \\u0026ldquo;know what they are doing and how to do it\\u0026rdquo; (Sewell 1992, 4). This means these actors have transformative potential to alter the action\\u0026rsquo;s structure. Structures are not meant to be constraints to action, but instead, they enable agents to employ their capacities (knowledge and resources) in \\u0026ldquo;creative or innovative ways\\u0026rdquo; (ibid.).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAction and actors, which at times are used interchangeably with agency and agents (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1979\\u003c/span\\u003e), refer not only to individual acts but to the seamless conduct of processes in the real-world. Thus, this theory allows one to conceptualise general human actions and\\u0026mdash;potentially\\u0026mdash;actions that are undertaken by a coalition of actors (Haderer \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Human action, and interaction, are seamlessly structured; replicated and unremitted (Fuchs 2001). Beyond agency-structure as a postulation of human process, another key with this theory is the recognition of agency in \\u0026ldquo;just about everyone\\u0026rdquo;\\u0026mdash;that is, every actor has the potential for impact, not due to the working of a higher consciousness\\u0026mdash;but \\u0026ldquo;by virtue of their participation in multiple social systems\\u0026rdquo; (Whittington \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR70\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e, 147). This class of transformative potential refers to the capability to choose to participate in one practice-system over another (ibid.) rather than wholly transforming one practice. The capability to exercise control over a practice, or the impact of exercising control over participation (ibid.) defines the actor's transformative potential by simply, \\u0026ldquo;being able to do otherwise\\u0026rdquo; (Archer 1999, 9). Agents are presumed to \\u0026ldquo;know a great deal (if not all)\\u0026rdquo; about society and its constructs and thus are able to utilise the structures, while being able to also articulate the structure\\u0026rsquo;s being (Shilling \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR62\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1992\\u003c/span\\u003e, 82). This dualism does attribute a higher consciousness to such agency knowledgeability, which renders this different from, for example, experimentation (Meyer \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). This attribute of knowledgeable agency creates the bridge to education and the extension to educated professionals. Indeed, professionalism \\u0026ldquo;provides a window to agency as expertise\\u0026rdquo; (Shapiro 2005, 276), and in some cases, further explains the asymmetric knowledge and resources between actors and some agents who are otherwise equal in their potential.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe schema of actors (by the virtue of being) becoming knowledgeable agents (of change) through (sustainability) education and allocated (professional) resources, is connected to the idea of structuration dominance in acting for sustainability change. This happens in the sense that the agent has the capacity to dominate, but it can also be triggered by a decision to suspend change. Even with knowledgeable (educated professional) agents (with resources), the capacity to transform relies on the dominance over the structure in action (see Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e), rather than on the knowledgeability of the agent or necessarily even the allocated resources\\u0026mdash;with the exemption of acknowledging the dual construct of resources being a form of dominance. When employing transformative action through domination over resources, there are a few emergent notions of nature and the direction of the aforementioned elements. Domination, especially in the context of sustainability and sustainable transformation, is represented by the current structures and the power laden by their societal presence. These commonly manifest as norms, rules, or institutions; however, this can even be seen in the individual\\u0026rsquo;s \\u003cem\\u003eexpectations for the future\\u003c/em\\u003e (Koch \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thus, resources appear as neutral and indifferent, utilisable for change or reification, as an extension of domination and transformation, while the transformative capacity emerges from autonomy to enact the alternative; that is, to be free of domination in autonomy to transgress the current.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"3. MATERIALS AND METHODS\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eFollowing this theoretical framing, our aim is to synthesise an analytical apparatus with which the structure, acts, and agency can be abstracted from the analysed materials. Climate change and sustainability education often takes an approach wherein the ideals are well represented, but often compromised in favour of maintaining a practicable point of view. This intended praxis is the reason for the study material selection. However, this study is not an assessment of these specific educational materials for their approach to sustainability; rather, the materials are taken as a selection of commonplace sustainability-themed education. The materials analysed herein serve as a micro-study of the representation of sustainability practice through its education, issues, approaches, professionalism, and rhetoric at large. To continue, with these materials as a generalisable example, we refer to both the commonplaceness of the selected materials\\u0026mdash;not as a comprehensive review of sustainability education, but as an example, which we assert echoes the contemporary sustainability rhetoric. This analysis is also generalisable in that there is no strict disciplinary scope specifically applicable to one academic discussion, rather the findings apply to several disciplines related to sustainability since this argument is about the form and function of sustainability education at large rather than the specific content.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eClimate University study materials\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eClimate University (Climate University, 2022) is a climate change and sustainability-themed online education network. The Climate University platform promotes nine individual English language courses, each worth a total of 5 European study credits, which is equivalent to 140 study load hours (see Table 1). The courses are mainly created and taught by the coordinating university in collaboration with other universities and research institutions. The courses were co-created by numerous scientists, educators, and practitioners of various scientific disciplines that represent a broad view and considerable expertise on the topics at hand. A majority of the courses were created within the last five years, which makes their contents relatively current. Most of the courses are intended for master\\u0026rsquo;s level students or students participating in continuous learning, coming from any disciplinary context and any higher education institution. While some of the courses are mandatory in the master\\u0026rsquo;s programmes at the partnering universities, the courses are predominantly taken as elective\\u0026mdash;either individually or as a series. Often the courses follow a structure that flows from thematic reading materials to weekly and final individual and/or group assignments. These assignments are typically structured to spur reflection on what was learned in the course and to observe instances of the theoretical material as it plays out in real-world case contexts. Thus, the learning experience relies on materials that address several aspects and approaches to the current sustainability causes, issues, and suggested solutions. The materials also suggest numerous different means and processes for the learners to continue to engage with sustainability beyond the confines of the course.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable 1. \\u003cem\\u003eStudy materials\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cem\\u003eused in content analysis\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"1\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"601\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCourse\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMain content\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eIdentifier\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBiodiversity.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ebiodiversity, which highlights human and individual participation in its issues\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBiod\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCircular.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ecircular economy and its practical applications\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCirc\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClimate.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eclimate system and changes therein\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClim\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClimateComms.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ecommunication of environmental and sustainability issues\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eComm\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLeadership for Sustainable Change\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eissues, principles, applications, and competencies for sustainability\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLead\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSolutions.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ereal-world organisations applying sustainability solutions\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSolu\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStatistical Tools for Climate and Atmospheric Science\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ecollection and utilisation of climate-related data\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStat\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSystemsChange.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003enatural and human systems and their interactions\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSyst\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"31.3953488372093%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSustainable.now\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"51.82724252491694%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003econcepts and themes of the dimensions of sustainable development\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd width=\\\"16.777408637873755%\\\" valign=\\\"top\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSust\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe course materials utilised in this content study were the following:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003col\\u003e\\n \\u003cli\\u003ecourse syllabi, which included intended learning outcomes\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n \\u003cli\\u003ecourse introductions with specific approach(es) to the themes of the course\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n \\u003cli\\u003ecourse assignment instructions which provided explicit verbiage on the suggested problems, actions, and approaches to the issues highlighted in each course\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eContent analysis\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWith the presented theoretical background in mind, we formulated a content analysis framing (Fig. 1). The analysis was based on course materials (accessed via the course platform website in December 2022) and the coding was conducted by the corresponding author using Atlas.TI. The structure was conveyed as different targets and contexts of activities and operations, notions of resources (through which structures are enacted), and as general attention and interests expressed in the materials. In this analysis, agency was interpreted as something projected through the abilities, capabilities, and knowledge-based activities, acts, and engagements with the structure. However, as this analytical framing is dualistic in nature, a strict distinction between the structures, materials, and agency, seemed unfruitful. Thus instead, the analysis aims for a meta-level understanding, which in some research is called a phronetic approach (Tracy 2018). The content analysis (Krippendorff 2004) utilised herein, takes re-presentations from the theoretical framing, meaning simply that the findings rely on the relations to agency and structure that emerge from interpreting the material, from which quotes are utilised to exemplify these representations. This type of examination seeks to reveal instances (Bryman 2016) of the structure and of agency in the sustainability stage, script, and actors to address the suggested professionals\\u0026rsquo; practices (Salovaara and Soini 2021). The individual instances cumulated into numerous themes under the different structuration classes (below).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"4. FINDINGS - SUSTAINABILITY STRUCTURATION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe findings proceed as an interplay between findings and our interpretation of them while using direct quotes from the materials that exemplify the points at hand. We have indicated after each quote which area of the corpus the quote originated (see Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e for the course abbreviations). In our aim to create an organic flow between the examples and the wider analysis of the text, certain themes emerging from the content analysis are further elaborated due to their relevance to the sustainability transformation discussion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003ePurpose\\u0026mdash;understanding the direction of sustainability\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe ecological-environmental dimension of sustainability prevails throughout the rhetoric and is often further emphasised by reflecting the other dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, cultural) through their relations to ecological sustainability. This is evident, for example, through questions like: What are the connections and the conceptual differences between social and environmental sustainability? By framing the question in this way, the environment serves as a backdrop against which cultural sustainability is akin to a resource through which environmental sustainability is furthered. It should be noted that culture specifically with sustainability, is also referenced as something to be sustained; for example, as explained in one of the courses, \\u0026ldquo;What cultural practices do you think should be changed and which are important to retain?\\u0026rdquo; (Sust). Whereas other concepts under the umbrella of sustainability, like Circular Economy, are addressed as an environmentally sound economic model achievable through a reformation. Within such framings, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are often synonymous with sustainability in operation, or sustainability as defined by its issues\\u0026mdash;at the same time the SDGs seem to get utilised with very little critique. Similar attempts to strategise sustainability come in the form of different indexes, such as those meant to measure a collection of chosen quantitative processes, like the Sustainable Development Index, which quantifies \\u0026ldquo;the ecological efficiency of human development\\u0026rdquo; (Sust). Although, such a comparison expresses the pervasiveness of the now normative belief that human development is a process that can happen in an ecologically efficient way. As the name of the course collection suggests\\u0026mdash;Climate University\\u0026mdash;the courses are, at least as a whole, environmentally oriented and thus there is an observable disciplinary inclination to the natural sciences of the authors and the materials they produce. However, the ethos of such tools, reflected by their approach to systemic sustainability rather than to unidimensional sustainability (e.g., economic), exemplify an ontological standpoint of \\u0026ldquo;humans\\u0026rdquo; being separate from \\u0026ldquo;other animal species\\u0026rdquo;, that is humans are considered as being separate from the wider \\u0026ldquo;ecology\\u0026rdquo;. The examined materials are in line with the normative assumption that \\u0026ldquo;sustainability\\u0026rdquo; is universally good and the right path to follow. Situationally, this normativity is reflected in statements like the following, \\u0026ldquo;Think further about the worldviews that are connected to your chosen sustainability issue [\\u0026hellip;] Is there a subjective or objective truth to be discovered about the issue?\\u0026rdquo;, and such critical prompts as, \\u0026ldquo;Reflect on what reliable information is. Where can you find reliable information about climate change?\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;examine whether different sources give different estimates\\u0026rdquo; (Lead), and such notions as Climate Fiction\\u0026mdash;as a form of communication, and bringing up the concept of eco-dystopia, suggests that sustainability\\u0026rsquo;s normativity could potentially slip into eco-hegemony.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn addition to the aforementioned theoretical reflections, sustainability is predominantly contextualised through its concrete contribution to real-world situations, in addition to the overarching transformative aims. From the conceptual perspective sustainability is often contextualised as a representation of a more systemic view on human-nature relations. This systems thinking is often grounded in in-situ contexts that range from the global to the local and are utilised as a situated example of representations like, \\u0026ldquo;Climate Change as a global challenge\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). At times the so-called real-world appears as a rule of ethics, at times as a request for concrete steps to be taken, and at times as an assessment of the global relevance of a project. Sustainability is also sometimes defined through its problems, for example, \\u0026ldquo;Understanding the context. Explore the social, legal, political, environmental, economic, practical drivers, barriers and risks of the case\\u0026rdquo; (Lead). In this example, sustainability serves as a justification for why change is needed. That is, in this case, one would be successful by \\u003cem\\u003eachieving\\u003c/em\\u003e sustainability. Yet, another form of contextualisation applied to sustainability comes through socio-spatially, for example through observing one\\u0026rsquo;s own surroundings. \\u0026ldquo;Take a photo of your environment close to you\\u0026rdquo; (Biod). The socio-spatial context is also expressed by calling attention to widely known environments, such as the Arctic, or \\u003cem\\u003eculturally significant\\u003c/em\\u003e locations in the world. It should be noted that this often comes in the form of references to problematic locations, like where sea-level rise is predicted to have a catastrophic impact.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis contextualisation brings up questions of differing ontologies. Sustainability\\u0026mdash;whether through its principle or problems\\u0026mdash;is acknowledged to be a construct of multiple perspectives. Simultaneously there are several different tensions and domains, actors and sectors, and competing values and knowledge(s) at play. The scope of such perspectives ranges from the presence of intergovernmental alignments, such as the Paris Agreement or Conference of the Parties (COP), to considering personal biases in scientific disciplines or even by asking questions like, \\u0026ldquo;What will happen to the squirrel?\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). However, it should be highlighted that in methodology-focused courses it is apparent that such epistemic perspectives are absent, or the previously addressed normativity, rather it is replaced by a clinically neutral and technical approach. In science\\u0026mdash;whether basic or applied, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary\\u0026mdash;sustainability is further defined, and science-making also becomes a target for sustainability change. While science is used to generate change, reconceptualisation of the processes of science itself ought to be explored. For example, are there contemporary ways of science that can produce sustainability? In general, sustainability rhetoric delivers many different expressions of difficulties; while sometimes sustainability itself is even acknowledged and accepted as a near-impossibility. It is in the complexity of multi-dimensional sustainability issues and the complication of resolving those issues that sets us up for the task of enacting sustainability. Such tautology can truly represent some situations, or be a pre-emptive management of expectations, or be simply an outcome of the existing paradigm wherein actionable sustainability seems unimaginable. This is evident in expressions such as, \\u0026ldquo;Sustainable development is a concept that is multidimensional and difficult to define\\u0026rsquo; or \\u0026lsquo;climate change can no longer be completely stopped\\u0026rdquo; (Sust). This same idea is also reflected in the historical absence of achievements, \\u0026ldquo;Does the first [IPCC] report [from 1994] already communicate the need to reduce emissions and the sense of urgency?\\u0026rdquo; (Comm). All of these conceptualizations share the common undertone of transformation being represented as a struggle.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eStructure\\u0026mdash;where and how is sustainability practised\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn typologising and searching for taxonomic instances of the \\u003cem\\u003estructure\\u003c/em\\u003e in the materials used in the Climate University, an emphasis on targets of action emerged. Targets such as fields, organisations, sectors, roles, and contexts of operations alike, represent a simplification of structures but serve as functional approximations in this paper. In addition to these targets, other types of structure emerged, for example, the processes and practices that agents engage with in pursuit of actionable sustainability. These appear in the materials in a few different ways, including 1) issues as predefined problems\\u0026mdash;like those related to ecosystem services; 2) concepts\\u0026mdash;like suggested services or products as solutions; 3) a restructuring of the problem\\u0026mdash;like the concept of \\u003cem\\u003eplanetary boundaries\\u003c/em\\u003e. Somewhere between a \\u003cem\\u003estage\\u003c/em\\u003e and a \\u003cem\\u003estructure\\u003c/em\\u003e, are the sustainability schematics, such as thinking in \\u003cem\\u003eweak\\u003c/em\\u003e or \\u003cem\\u003estrong\\u003c/em\\u003e sustainability. Schemes like the SDGs appear as a structure of sorts, being proposed as a plan for sustainability\\u0026mdash;although, again with little critical thought on which kind of sustainability is fundamentally promoted. For example, do Circular Economy measures promote socio-economic equality\\u0026mdash;a pillar of economic sustainability?\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSimilarly, concepts like Climate Scenarios and other forecasting devices function as targets and structures. Under this understanding, processes are structures within which agency can take shape, i.e., \\u0026ldquo;what is the natural scientific frame of the question?\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). Whereas the outcomes of science are present as further targets for action, for example, \\u0026ldquo;sea level will rise as a consequence of not only glacier melting but also the thermal expansion of seawater\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). From the several references to Climate Scenarios in the materials, their focus areas emerged as, population growth, gross-domestic production, energy consumption, and emissions (including, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, sulphur and nitrogen), which predominantly all seem economic-related, suggesting necessity and dependency on the socioeconomic processes. Although this necessity is at times addressed as an outcome of compromises, for example, \\u0026ldquo;we considered both the revenue from wood sales and the volume of carbon stock in the forest\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). However, such economic rhetoric seems to be cautiously accepted and normalised, rather than firmly opposed. Thus, questions like, \\u0026ldquo;is market economy the cause of\\u0026hellip;?\\u0026rdquo; (Sust), or \\u0026ldquo;does sustainability help companies to be more profitable\\u003cem\\u003e?\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e (Sust), leaves these structures ambivalent in being either the problem or a solution. Sustainability does schematically include the dimension of economic development, equal to other dimensions of sustainability and as strongly normative and universally favoured economic prosperity\\u0026mdash;but at what cost? The intent is kept undefined. Does economic prosperity always mean continuous growth\\u0026mdash;the limitless capitalisation of nature and labour? Or does it mean universal well-being\\u0026mdash;simply actualised in money? Both characterisations are potential shorthand examples of the current economic system.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUtilising the concept of eco-social systems, rather than strictly environmental, is often suggested as a backdrop to environmental problems, such as, \\u0026ldquo;There are many situations in the real world in which identifying an eco-social system may help us to better understand and address an environmental problem\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). Under the broad \\u003cem\\u003etargeting\\u003c/em\\u003e in the human-nature linkages, economic activities take centre stage, although they are often presented as a solution rather than a problem, for example, \\u0026ldquo;Understand the problems of today\\u0026rsquo;s consumption of resources and how the circular economy can help in resolving these problems\\u0026rdquo; (Circ). Sometimes they are presented as an issue that can be cured from the current unsustainability, \\u0026ldquo;examine the current use of resources and the challenges that give rise to, and also familiarise ourselves with the circular economy model\\u0026rdquo; (Circ). Under the themes of Circular Economy typically problematised industries such as fashion and tourism are presented as targets. Other regularly mentioned targets include topics like forest-based cycles, technical cycles, mobility, sharing economy, agriculture, and food systems. Another key area that emerged was systems, for example, energy in the sociotechnical systems, \\u0026ldquo;The transition away from fossil fuels presents several challenges for energy systems\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). Herein, issues like mobility appear as an important change-target, \\u0026ldquo;What benefits (and possible disadvantages) from changes in mobility habits and means of transport could you, society/consumers and sustainability experience?\\u0026rdquo; (Circ). In general, systems theories, like the Multi-Level Perspective Theory or conceptualisations like Wicked Problems are frequent approaches.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBiodiversity is also frequently a theme, especially on its respective course, with such relevant insights, including, \\u0026ldquo;understanding the importance of biodiversity and consequences of biodiversity loss, threats to biodiversity\\u0026rdquo; (Biod). Biodiversity gets nested within other problem-areas that have targets, which also appear as structures for solutions, these include, \\u0026ldquo;circular economy, ecological compensation, biodiversity and business\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;political and economic tools in biodiversity conservation, biodiversity politics, biodiversity and civic movements\\u0026rdquo;. Although it should be noted that the politics\\u0026mdash;or policies and power in general\\u0026mdash;are seldom mentioned but do appear on occasion, \\u0026ldquo;steering instruments and measures could promote the circular economy\\u0026rdquo; (Circ). Sometimes they come up even more directly through questions like, \\u0026ldquo;What are the power relationships between the different actors?\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). Politics are also brought into the conversation through questions that acknowledge the linkages between human action and several issues related to climate and sustainability, \\u0026ldquo;In whose advantage it is to pretend that climate change has not been caused by humans?\\u0026rdquo; (Clim) The human is habitually addressed as the solution to the current unsustainable state of the world, \\u0026ldquo;humans as agents of change in systems that link individuals and groups of people with the environments\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). Humans are a prime activity target, due to their social existence and professional practices\\u0026mdash;as private, public or citizen sector representatives. Yet it is the very nature of human action\\u0026mdash;reifying the structure\\u0026mdash;that needs to be changed. This can be seen with statements and questions like, \\u0026ldquo;Achieving the 1.5 Celsius target means companies also need to take action\\u0026rdquo; (Clim) or \\u0026ldquo;What are the competencies needed for the society to reach carbon neutrality by 2035?\\u0026rdquo; (Clim).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this vein of thought, the often-mentioned stakeholders appear as a structure resource. Stakeholders are sometimes addressed at times as co-creators, that is actors that shoulder more of the collaborative burden, and at times as a group who is to be convinced to collaborate. Stakeholders, as an example of \\u003cem\\u003ethe others\\u003c/em\\u003e (mentioned more explicitly in the \\u003cspan refid=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eDiscussion and Conclusions\\u003c/span\\u003e section), expresses more features of a structure, than as actors. Their utility is in the outcome, as their acts are concretised in reified structures. However, one\\u0026rsquo;s actions are simultaneously the very agency-structure, meaning that they can also appear as structures of change. For example, statements like, \\u0026ldquo;Explore the environmental changes and challenges in and around your own professional field, studies, or a field of your own personal interest\\u0026rdquo; (Lead), suggest that, regardless of the field, one can exercise their transformative potential through professional acts. Although even one\\u0026rsquo;s own acts are targets of change, whether this is reflected by specific choices, \\u0026ldquo;How much land you must own to be able to make a carbon-free trip...\\u0026rdquo; (Clim), or in general exploration, \\u0026ldquo;How can you contribute towards sustainable futures?\\u0026rdquo; (Sust). Self-steering, as a foundation of agency, is often called for in further redefining the problems and exploring potential solutions, \\u0026ldquo;what [do you think] is the challenge?\\u0026rdquo; (Lead) and \\u0026ldquo;what needs to change?\\u0026rdquo; (Lead). However, in expecting the people to define the problems, and in addressing people as the cause and source of the issues, two ideas emerge\\u0026mdash;othering and externalisation. The rhetoric makes a distinction between \\u003cem\\u003ehumans\\u003c/em\\u003e, who act unsustainably for the lack the knowledge and a class of \\u003cem\\u003eus\\u003c/em\\u003e knowledgeable humans. This can be seen in statements like, \\u0026lsquo;our agency as individuals and as a group\\u0026rsquo; (Sust). It is this latter group of knowledgeable humans who are seen as the potential solution. At times, the human is external, \\u0026lsquo;How much were the carbon emissions produced by humanity (GtC)?\\u0026rsquo; (Clim). While at other times the human or some human, can also change, \\u0026lsquo;Our economic development has drastically changed the way we live, but it has also brought with it complex and difficult problems that necessitate global action to be solved\\u0026rsquo; (Lead). Although similar externalisation through drawing rhetorical boundaries can be seen in addressing the environment in general. Forests are imagined through their utility\\u0026mdash;they are either cut for their material or left to serve as carbon sinks. Similarly, animals are cast as needing rescue, \\u0026lsquo;How endangered are they and how does the media affect your perceptions about them?\\u0026rsquo; (Comm).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eAction\\u0026mdash;enacting a sustainability transformation\\u003c/b\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAlthough the agency dimension of Structuration Theory is the most explored dimension in sustainability rhetoric and education, it is relevant to further examine it through materials, which go beyond the stage and structure. In general, agents are assumed to be familiar with the main concepts of sustainability. Sustainability is addressed through its dimensions, as a political, normative and at times \\u003cem\\u003econflicted\\u003c/em\\u003e concept. It appears to have endless(ly) (re)defined wicked and systemic problems related to (mostly) climate, which serves as the main foundation for the call for stakeholder collaboration. Again, the materials follow the commonplace rhetoric of sustainability, further demonstrating the general nature of materials used in this content analysis. With multiple definitions and descriptions of sustainability, the epistemic plurality is also addressed in reflecting differing worldviews, that is the identities, hopes, and obstacles for furthering sustainability. Repeating typical sustainability rhetoric, multi- and interdisciplinarity are often referenced, especially in course assignments, moreover in the frequently utilised group work process. The plurality of sustainability is also manifested through the numerous employed and suggested methodologies which describe the knowledge of the actor as well. Some basic parameters of the learned content on these courses are given, such as \\u0026ldquo;sustainable development as a political and normative concept [\\u0026hellip;] its ecological, social, economic and cultural dimensions and the connections and conflicts related [\\u0026hellip;] the wicked problems related to it [\\u0026hellip;] require multidisciplinary cooperation and problem-solving skills\\u0026rdquo; (Sust). This could also be seen as leading to the generalisation of sustainability agents.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAgency is often directly referenced in the materials and sustainability rhetoric, for example, \\u0026ldquo;The course also emphasises the importance of agency and the different roles of an individual. [...] on the other hand, sustainability and climate challenges are also presented as structural and systemic problems\\u0026rdquo; (Sust). Thus, it is rarely explicitly connected to structures. Instead, agency is seen as a conceptualisation of an actor with an, often ideological, goal to be changed. Under this characterisation, this actor could be described as more of a professional activist, rather than an actor who is always functioning solely within structures. These agent-actors are primed to be the enablers and drivers of change and as such they are cast as responsible for enacting widespread sustainability. Reflections on the educated understanding of sustainability\\u0026mdash;contextualised to an organisation or community\\u0026mdash;appear as a conceptualisation of sorts of the transformative potential an actor can possess by virtue of existing in several societal spheres. Such contextualisation of one\\u0026rsquo;s own intersectional acts naturally coincides with the previously noted \\u003cem\\u003eStage\\u003c/em\\u003e for sustainability and the previously noted targets, which occur in real-world cases. Such real-world cases appear at times as lessons from what has been done, for example, \\u0026lsquo;Find an example of a successful (or unsuccessful) conservation effort\\u0026rsquo; (Biod). This approach can be paired with mounting challenges, which serve to exercise critical sustainability thinking, such as \\u0026lsquo;What was the situation before conservation efforts and after? How did conservation efforts affect species/ecosystem biodiversity?\\u0026rsquo; (Biod). Alternatively, agents are asked to reflect on their agency, which often puts them into the role of a consumer rather than simply an aware citizen, \\u0026ldquo;how much domestic water does each person in Finland use per day\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). At times the agents are asked to reflect on their own intersectionality within the broader landscape of sustainability schemes, \\u0026ldquo;Think of your roles in a circular economy circle: as a consumer, as a citizen and as a (future) professional working in an organisation of sorts\\u0026rdquo; (Lead).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAgency, as in the previous examples, suggests a professional role. Professionalism is predominantly defined by the actor's expertise, which is constructed through know-how and capabilities\\u0026mdash;often cited as competencies. Competencies for sustainability include such traits as systems thinking and analytical thinking, which appear in the materials, \\u0026lsquo;From why sustainability is taught, we move to how it is taught, and to what is taught: the competencies for sustainability\\u0026rsquo; (Lead). Although systems thinking is often mentioned not just as a competence but as a process, approach, and requirement, \\u0026ldquo;System-level thinking ensures that we do not, while mitigating climate change, upset other systems and create new problems, for example for nutrient cycle or biodiversity\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). Another competence that appeared often is critical thinking, which manifests as both critical reflections, and by generally adopting a critical approach. Critical thinking is called for in many different scenarios, \\u0026ldquo;In whose advantage it is to pretend that climate change has not been caused by humans?\\u0026rdquo; (Clim), and \\u0026ldquo;What benefits do actors gain from connecting their activities to and categorising them as Circular Economy? Are there any risks?\\u0026rdquo; (Lead).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese competencies are interconnected, and they also overlap in practice, for example, \\u0026ldquo;When we understand Climate Change as a systemic phenomenon, i.e. as the product of a certain system of connections between things, we unlock a powerful set of tools for making sense of it\\u0026ndash;systems thinking\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). In other words, systems thinking features analytical and normative traits as well. Interpersonal competencies are also commonly referenced, especially as part of communication, which is a key theme in sustainability-making. Communication, taken in its simplest interpretation as conveying a message, still requires specific competences. Additionally, communication is practised through different media\\u0026mdash;from written reports to conference appearances, and academic publications to private discussions\\u0026mdash;all of which have their own dilemmas, such as that of normativity, \\u0026ldquo;What should be taken into account when communicating about climate change [...] What kind of rhetoric would be appealing?\\u0026rdquo; (Comm), or \\u0026ldquo;How can we make people care about \\\"unpopular\\\" endangered species?\\u0026rdquo; (Biod). Related to the act of conveying a message; the utilisation of knowledge (and science as an outcome) is cited as an important competence; for example, in argumentation. Language is also mentioned as an important tool and capability to express one\\u0026rsquo;s professionalism. Collaboration and cooperation, along with communication, are brought up as expressions of interpersonal competencies, as are project management and leadership defined as, \\u0026ldquo;an influence process through which social order and change emerges\\u0026rdquo; (Lead). Such operational competencies are also mentioned, including \\u003cem\\u003estrategic competence, initiative competence\\u003c/em\\u003e (for example in furthering goals and taking responsibility), and \\u003cem\\u003ecreative competence\\u003c/em\\u003e (for example creatively combining knowledge of different fields).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDifferent from competencies, various skills emerge repeatedly in the materials, with a special emphasis on skills that relate to certain methodologies; such as climate modelling, PESTEL analysis (and other future casting tools), creative problem-solving tools, prototyping, participatory methods, impact assessment and analysis tools like circular economy cob-web charts or multi-criterion analysis/comparison charts, and utilising different knowledge databases such as Red List Data Books. It should be noted that methodological skills for environmental sciences seem to be addressed quite descriptively, for example \\u0026ldquo;\\u0026hellip;we ask you to consider the phosphorus cycle from the perspective of its effects on the Baltic Sea\\u0026rdquo; (Syst), or \\u0026ldquo;changes in the Earth System being produced by Climate Change\\u0026rdquo; (Syst). The former has more of a normative slant, while the latter seems semantically different from attributing the changes to human causes. Methodological strategies for Climate Change are scarcely mentioned, with only a few examples, such as, \\u0026ldquo;what kinds of climate engineering (geoengineering) techniques are being developed to mitigate climate change\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). Statements like this often came with further examples that expand on how to mitigate the changes. However, actual adaptation strategies seldom appeared, \\u0026ldquo;The changes will have adverse effects, which we can reduce by adapting to the changes\\u0026rdquo; (Clim). Yet another class of capabilities, as material constructs for agency can be seen, for example, in addressing Circular Economy to \\u0026ldquo;create a vision of practical activities that could be undertaken by different sectors to promote the circular economy\\u0026rdquo; (Circ). Thus, utilising Circular Economy as a structure for agency-acts to take place. Design-thinking, along with other approaches related to \\u003cem\\u003ehow things should be\\u003c/em\\u003e, like solution innovations through products or services, or social innovations like practices or habits are suggested as interventions to the current state of unsustainability. Imagination and artistic approaches are also suggested to lead to novel, potentially effective, and transformative outcomes, \\u0026ldquo;Imagine change towards more sustainability in the practices of an organisation of your choice\\u0026rdquo; (Lead).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmotions appear related to working with climate change and sustainability, where thoughts like the following are mentioned, \\u0026ldquo;climate anxiety\\u0026rdquo;, \\u0026ldquo;climate wishful thinking\\u0026rdquo;, and \\u0026ldquo;seeking for balance between realism and hope\\u0026rdquo; (Comm). Values emerge, for example, through one\\u0026rsquo;s own environmental or ethical principles and seem directly tied to the motivation of the agents. Values, related to emotions, also appear highly relevant for employing the agent\\u0026rsquo;s transformative capability, where knowledge in decision-making relates more to reason. Values affect the personal, historical, and cultural stance towards sustainability, prompting questions like what is the \\u0026rdquo;\\u003cem\\u003emeaning of sustainability for me\\u003c/em\\u003e?\\u0026rdquo; (Solu). Thus, values are part of personal reflection influencing one's choices. Values are found where facts turn into knowledge and potentially to action. Thus, notions such as coping with uncertainty and leading and making bold decisions with uncertain outcomes, are common.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study adapted and employed Structuration Theory as a theoretical framing for critically assessing approaches to sustainability transformation that were expressed in climate change and sustainability-themed educational materials. The materials in the textual corpus were presented as a micro-study and an example of contemporary sustainability rhetoric. These materials represent one approach to the themes, and although the various courses were authored by a vast interdisciplinary network, citing multiple strands of research, they do not\\u0026mdash;even when taken together\\u0026mdash;express all the possible problematisations of sustainability. However, to evoke discussion over the utility of Structuration Theory, the presented results bring novel insight into the concept of sustainability agency, which has largely been disconnected from structure, regardless of the specific problematisation. Sustainability and its problematisations in this context are observed through the lens of structuration, which is essentially a view of sustainability as a process and serves as a foundation for our emergent insights. We aim to discuss our findings and contribute insights related to sustainability education (Brundiers et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e) and professionalism (Salovaara \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;as practices of transformative sustainability (McGeown and Barry \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe materials include persistent boundary-work and highlight ontological positioning\\u0026mdash;similar to other juxtapositions present in the concept of sustainability\\u0026mdash;for example, between generalists and specialists, mono- and interdisciplinary, business-as-usual and transformation (Salovaara \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). The observation of this practice is highly relevant, for example, when crafting the ideals of sustainability agency, which should serve as the basis for the education and identity of sustainability. This boundary-work can be seen when referencing how knowledgeable the agent is when justifying their relevance and authority, or in exemplifying the normativity of sustainability when assessing and changing practices or systems that are deemed unsustainable (reflected in Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). The narratives revolve around the hubris-like normative contrasting between what is considered sustainable or unsustainable, for example, \\u003cem\\u003eanimal-based\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003evegan\\u003c/em\\u003e produce\\u0026mdash;predominantly to consumers (Luederitz et al. 2018). These contrasts become rhetorical bridges connecting subjects to ideological shelters, like \\u003cem\\u003eour climate-friendly diet\\u003c/em\\u003e, or those where there is a disconnect, like \\u003cem\\u003epeoples\\u0026rsquo; meat consumption\\u003c/em\\u003e. The contrasting ideologies are futile as agents\\u0026mdash;in this case, consumers\\u0026mdash;are left to exercise their dominance between a comparatively \\u003cem\\u003emore\\u003c/em\\u003e sustainable choice and an unsustainable choice. There is an issue of creating boundaries between \\u003cem\\u003eus\\u003c/em\\u003e as \\u003cem\\u003ehumans\\u003c/em\\u003e, and \\u003cem\\u003eothers\\u003c/em\\u003e as \\u003cem\\u003enature\\u003c/em\\u003e and generally for making sense of the existing structures in which the capable and responsible agents are supposed to enact the change (Heiskanen et al. 2013). Certain necessitated unsustainabilities, like economic prosperity through maximisation of resource utility (for example, by maximising forest utility for carbon storage businesses) seem to exist under a level of acceptance, perhaps because of the same \\u003cem\\u003eothering\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026mdash;their benefits that are considered mutual on both opposing sides (Hammond \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). It is a worthy concern that such ontological constructs, for example, as \\u003cem\\u003eme\\u003c/em\\u003e to \\u003cem\\u003epeople\\u003c/em\\u003e, could lead to \\u003cem\\u003eus\\u003c/em\\u003e versus \\u003cem\\u003eothers\\u003c/em\\u003e (even in the verbiage of this article), and thus simply considering sustainability as a virtue of the resourceful few, rather than a systemic nature of humanity's existence. Thus, an explicit narration (King \\u0026amp; Horrocks \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e) of the existing unsustainability is required to also profoundly address sustainability\\u0026mdash;perhaps beyond the language of binary expressions like \\u003cem\\u003eus\\u003c/em\\u003e or \\u003cem\\u003eothers\\u003c/em\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eActs follow structure, and ultimately (re)create them in a continuous flow (Giddens \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1979\\u003c/span\\u003e). Acts either reaffirm or transgress the other actors\\u0026rsquo; structures\\u0026mdash;especially in the case of sustainability transformation\\u0026mdash;leading to a conclusion that \\u003cem\\u003eothers\\u003c/em\\u003e in practice appear as structure, rather than agents. Although, others\\u0026mdash;the (differently, or ill) knowledgeable (Birdman et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e) or the competent (Wiek et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR72\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e)\\u0026mdash;affirm the agency-structure as their acts reject or reify the alternatively enacted structures. Others in their agency also represent a form of structural power, which can dominate the instilled reality\\u0026mdash;that is the enacted social structure at large. Ultimately, it is against this instilled reality that educated agents are expected to transgress the known path (i.e., indicative of path dependency). Considering the prevalence of structuration, this theory ostensibly proposes a psychosocial vacuum, in which acts reify and agency transforms the structure, which perpetually suggests that there are potentials and opportunities for sustainable alternatives by finding alternatives to the structures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHowever, agency-work\\u0026mdash;even if infrequent\\u0026mdash;can create rhythmic shifts, which can be seen as micro-level change, that in turn affects the meso-level structures and meta-level landscape in Multi-level Perspective Theory (Geels \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). This can also be interpreted as seeking for reaffirmation through other agents in Actor-Network Theory (Latour \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007\\u003c/span\\u003e); thus, suggesting one functional linkage between the theories. Agency is an attribute of the increased actor qualities one \\u003cem\\u003epossesses\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026mdash;the knowledge(s) attained and utilised for transformative capability (as the main argument for sustainability education), yet it is only a capacity if there is domination over the employable resources (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e). By such rhetoric, agency alone appears as surprisingly trivial, since knowledge has frail powers and the potential to act and as it is assigned to \\u003cem\\u003evirtually everyone\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026mdash;rendering it as such seemingly insignificant. Thus, there needs to be an understanding\\u0026mdash;as better disseminated in sociological thought\\u0026mdash;that agency alone is insufficient in transition theories, while the much sought-after capacity to transform is in the duality of agency and structure, that is through the dominance of the needed resources (Koistinen and Teerikangas \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, the relevance of this suggested sustainability structuration to education and educational institutions comes in a few different forms. Sustainability educators ought to pay much more attention to structuration as a broader concept of knowledgeable agents in structures of actions (Teerikangas et al. \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR64\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), the existing cultural and societal paradigm (McGeown and Barry \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e) and power (Feola \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e), and to the instilled reality thereof (Bhaskar \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1978\\u003c/span\\u003e), as these are the paths of dependency. Thus, a key outcome of this study is the recommendation to educators, as agents of change, to explore and employ sustainability structuration as it would (and does) exist in a systemically unsustainable society.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs typical to such a qualitative study, leaning on constructive methodologies and interpretive methods, this research is subject to personal biases and is limited to the researcher\\u0026rsquo;s comprehension of the topics addressed and the materials of the research. This research is based on publicly available texts and well-known and articulated theories; thus, aiming to be transparent and replicable. Although even with the widely available elaborations and applications of these theories, they do not yet exist in the context of sustainability science and research. Such limitations ought to inspire future research on these themes, especially the possibility to further contextualise sustainability in professional practice through Structuration Theory. Further research should reevaluate our comprehension of the root-cause sustainability issues in contrast to their practicable solutions through sustainability structuration beyond the at-times overemphasised capacities of agents or the belittled importance of structure. This could be done, for heightened impact, in the field of sustainability education and with the institutional structures used to understand the capacity of educators and researchers themselves.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn conclusion, the significant content of this study, as descriptions of sustainability structuration, focus on explaining sustainability as an endeavour, a structure, and agency. Sustainability is constructed through the typical dimensions, and thematised in different schemes like SDGs and problematised by conceptualisations like Biodiversity-loss or Climate change scenarios. To this end, scientific disciplines, fields of application, personal values, and\\u0026mdash;at times hegemonic\\u0026mdash;normativity of sustainability significantly influence our understanding and approach to enacting sustainability. Systems can be taken as contexts and targets for sustainability to be embedded or take a systemic approach to one\\u0026rsquo;s abilities and capabilities, for example, the competencies and resource-oriented methodologies experts need. While the rhetoric citing difficulties in achieving sustainability prevails, a narration exists simultaneously of agency through one\\u0026rsquo;s roles and knowledgeable actions to change. However, a rhetorical process of \\u003cem\\u003eothering\\u003c/em\\u003e looms where sustainability is performed, making \\u003cem\\u003epeople\\u003c/em\\u003e the cause of the sustainability crises, while suggesting \\u003cem\\u003eself\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003eus\\u003c/em\\u003e to be the solution. Importantly, there is relevance to address the \\u003cem\\u003eothering\\u003c/em\\u003e in the concept of sustainability structuration, as in practice other agents and actors materialise as structure. Thus, the most relevant abstraction of this study aims to illustrate the somewhat mistakenly accepted capability of an actor\\u0026mdash;even as a knowledgeable, educated agent\\u0026mdash;depends on the domination of resources, which is the capacity in concert with structure wherein the transformation can be enacted. Furthermore, for the process to undergo the transformation process, that is for sustainability to be enacted, it cannot be decided by a sole agent, but by a culture of agency.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eDECLARATION OF INTEREST:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors wish to thank those several individuals with whom they have had the pleasure and privilege to converge and mature their critical thinking. In addition, we would like to thank the editors and reviewers who gave their time, attention, critical comments, and insights, all of which served to enhance this paper. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFUNDING:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis research was supported by the Research Council of Finland project, \\u0026ldquo;Learning of the competencies of effective climate change mitigation and adaptation in the education system\\u0026rdquo; under grant 340791. Open Access funded by Helsinki University Library.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eJJS: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, analysis, original draft preparation, and writing, reviewing and editing, with SHA: writing, reviewing and editing.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eDATA AVAILABILITY:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the author, but restrictions apply to the availability. The materials were accessed under given agreement to the author for this study and are not publicly available. The data, however, are available from the author upon reasonable request and with the permission of the responsible parties.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAbson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., ... \\u0026amp; Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46, 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eArcher, M. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488733 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBaber, Z. (1991). Beyond the structure/agency dualism: An evaluation of Giddens\\u0026rsquo; theory of structuration. Sociological Inquiry, 61(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1991.tb00276.x \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBarth, M., \\u0026amp; Rieckmann, M. (2016). State of the art in research on higher education for sustainable development. Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development, 100-113. \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBhaskar, R. (1978). On the possibility of social scientific knowledge and the limits of naturalism. Journal for the Theory of social Behaviour, 8(1), 1-28. \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEl Bilali, H. (2019). The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: A systematic review. Agriculture, 9(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9040074 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBirdman, J., Barth, M., \\u0026amp; Lang D. (2022). Connecting curricula and competence through student learning journeys. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18:1, 560-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2097773\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBrundiers, K., \\u0026amp; Wiek, A. (2017). Beyond interpersonal competence: Teaching and learning professional skills in sustainability. Education Sciences, 7(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010039 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBrundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebri\\u0026aacute;n, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., ... and Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education\\u0026mdash;toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16, 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBuckler, C., and Creech, H. (2014). Shaping the future we want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development; final report. Unesco.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBuerke, A., Straatmann, T., Lin-Hi, N., and M\\u0026uuml;ller, K. (2017). Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Review of Managerial Science, 11, 959-991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0211-2 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCarollo, L., \\u0026amp; Guerci, M. (2018). \\u0026lsquo;Activists in a suit\\u0026rsquo;: Paradoxes and metaphors in sustainability managers\\u0026rsquo; identity work. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3582-7 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eChasek, P. S., Wagner, L. M., Leone, F., Lebada, A. M., and Risse, N. (2016). Getting to 2030: Negotiating the post‐2015 sustainable development agenda. Review of European, Comparative \\u0026amp; International Environmental Law, 25(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12149 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eClimate University. http://climateuniversity.fi/, accessed 12/2022 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDavelaar, D. (2021). Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustainability Science, 16(3), 727-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEchebarria, C., Barrutia, J. M., Eletxigerra, A., Hartmann, P., and Apaolaza, V. (2018). Local sustainability processes worldwide: a systematic review of the literature and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(8), 1289-1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1342611 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eElder-Vass, D. (2008), Searching for realism, structure and agency in Actor Network Theory1. The British Journal of Sociology, 59: 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00203.x\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFarla, J. C. M., Markard, J., Raven, R., \\u0026amp; Coenen, L. E. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFeola, G. (2015). Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5), 376-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFeola, G. (2020). Capitalism in sustainability transitions research: Time for a critical turn? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.02.005 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFerrer-Balas, D., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Buckland, H., Ysern, P., \\u0026amp; Zilahy, G. (2010). Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.009 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFischer, L. B., \\u0026amp; Newig, J. (2016). Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability, 8(5), 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFleig, A., and Tosun, J. (2017). Political parties\\u0026apos; rhetoric signaling of sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 25(5), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1672 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGajparia, J., Strachan, G., \\u0026amp; Leverton, K. (2022). Transformation through learning: Education about, for, and as sustainability. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 982718. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.982718 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGarnett, S. T., Lawes, M. J., James, R., Bigland, K., and Zander, K. K. (2016). Portrayal of sustainability principles in the mission statements and on home pages of the world\\u0026apos;s largest organizations. Conservation Biology, 30(2), 297-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12617 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGeels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGeels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGiddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Volume 241 of Campus: University of California Press, University of California Press\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGiddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGiddens, A. (1990) The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHaderer, M. (2023). Experimental climate governance as organized irresponsibility? A case for revamping governing (also) through government. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2186078\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHaider, L. J., Hentati-Sundberg, J., Giusti, M., Goodness, J., Hamann, M., Masterson, V. A., ... \\u0026amp; Sinare, H. (2018). The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 13, 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHallinger, P., \\u0026amp; Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development, 1998\\u0026ndash;2018. Sustainability, 11(8), 2401.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHammond, M. (2020). Democratic deliberation for sustainability transformations: between constructiveness and disruption. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16:1, 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1814588 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHansmann, R., Mieg, H. A., \\u0026amp; Frischknecht, P. (2012). Principal sustainability components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development \\u0026amp; World Ecology, 19(5), 451-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.696220 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHeiskanen, E., Thidell, \\u0026Aring;., and Rodhe, H. (2016). Educating sustainability change agents: The importance of practical skills and experience. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.063 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKing, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. SAGE Publishing\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKoch, M. (2020). Structure, action and change: a Bourdieusian perspective on the preconditions for a degrowth transition. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16:1, 4-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1754693 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKoistinen, K., \\u0026amp; Teerikangas, S. (2021). The Debate If Agents Matter vs. the System Matters in Sustainability Transitions\\u0026mdash;A Review of the Literature. Sustainability, 13(5), 2821, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052821 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eK\\u0026ouml;hler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., ... and Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLaakso, S., Aro, R., Heiskanen, E., \\u0026amp; Kaljonen, M. (2021). Reconfigurations in sustainability transitions: a systematic and critical review. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 17:1, 15-31, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1836921 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLatour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oup Oxford.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLongo, S. B., Isgren, E., Clark, B., Jorgenson, A. K., Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., ... \\u0026amp; York, R. (2021). Sociology for sustainability science. Discover Sustainability, 2, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00056-5 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLozano, R., Lozano, F. J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., and Waas, T. (2013). Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLuederitz, C., Abson, D. J., Audet, R., and Lang, D. J. (2017). Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustainability Science, 12, 393-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartin, S., Brannigan, J., \\u0026amp; Hall, A. (2005). Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260500030389 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMcGeown, C., \\u0026amp; Barry, J. (2023). Agents of (un) sustainability: democratising universities for the planetary crisis. Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, 1166642. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1166642 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMeyer, J., M. (2023). Experimentalism and its alternatives: toward viable strategies for transformative change and sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2166217\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMiller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F. S., \\u0026amp; Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268006 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMiller, T. R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., and Loorbach, D. (2014). The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science, 9, 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMoilanen, F., \\u0026amp; Toikka, A. (2023). Measuring employees\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of sustainability transitions at work: a novel survey with findings from Finland. Discover Sustainability, 4(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-023-00163-5 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMoore, Jason W., (2016) Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. Sociology Faculty Scholarship, 1.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMoradi, A., \\u0026amp; Vagnoni, E. (2018). A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.002 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSalvia, A. L., Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., and Griebeler, J. S. (2019). Assessing research trends related to Sustainable Development Goals: Local and global issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 841-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.242\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSalovaara, J. J., Soini, K., and Pietik\\u0026auml;inen, J. (2020). Sustainability science in education: analysis of master\\u0026rsquo;s programmes\\u0026rsquo; curricula. Sustainability Science, 15, 901-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00745-1\\u003cu\\u003e \\u003c/u\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSalovaara, J. J., and Soini, K. (2021). Educated professionals of sustainability and the dimensions of practices. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(8), 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2020-0327 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSalovaara, J. J. (2022). Sustainability Alumni at Work\\u0026mdash;Interviews on Educated Sustainability Professionalism. Sustainability, 14(22), 14774. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214774 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShove, E., and Spurling, N. (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. In Sustainable Practices (pp. 1-13). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShove, E., Pantzar, M., \\u0026amp; Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday life and how it changes.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchneidewind, U., Augenstein, K., Stelzer, F., and Wanner, M. (2018). Structure Matters: Real-World Laboratories as a New Type of Large-Scale Research Infrastructure: A Framework Inspired by Giddens\\u0026apos; Structuration Theory, GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, Volume 27, Supplement 1, 2018, pp. 12-17(6) https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.5 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShilling, C., (1992) Reconceptualising Structure and Agency in the Sociology of Education: structuration theory and schooling, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13:1, 69-87, https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569920130105 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eStewart, R., Bey, N., \\u0026amp; Boks, C. (2016). Exploration of the barriers to implementing different types of sustainability approaches. Procedia CIRP, 48, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTeerikangas, S., Onkila, T., Koistinen, K., \\u0026amp; M\\u0026auml;kel\\u0026auml;, M. (Eds.). (2021). Research handbook of sustainability agency. Edward Elgar Publishing.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eThomas, I., Barth, M., \\u0026amp; Day, T. (2013). Education for sustainability, graduate capabilities, professional employment: How they all connect. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 29(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2013.14 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eThor\\u0026eacute;n, H., \\u0026amp; Breian, L. (2016). Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.002 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTrencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., and Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151-179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVisser, W. and Crane, A. (2010). Corporate Sustainability and the Individual: Understanding What Drives Sustainability Professionals as Change Agents. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1559087\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWalrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., \\u0026amp; Verbong, G. P. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWhittington, R. (2015). Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, \\u0026amp; E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice (pp. 145-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139681032.009 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science \\u0026amp; Policy, 84, 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.008 \\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWiek, A., Withycombe, L., \\u0026amp; Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWoodward, R., Feldman, I., \\u0026amp; Edwards, M. (2010). The Sustainability Professional: 2010 Competency Survey Report.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":true,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"discover-sustainability\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"disu\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"\",\"title\":\"Discover Sustainability\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Discover Series\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"sustainability agency, structuration, education, professionalism, and impact\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3966993/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3966993/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eWhile sustainability has been implemented in education for a long time, the conceptualisation of an impactful sustainability actor has not been as thoroughly formulated. The theory of structuration is relevant as a lens for critical reflection on the transformative potential of individuals educated in sustainability as a practice, who are often described as change-makers and mandated to enact sustainability. This paper examines sustainability agency using materials produced for a set of online sustainability courses. This text corpus is utilised as a representation of climate and sustainability education. The materials repeat systemic framings present in sustainability rhetoric, such as the contexts and targets in which sustainability transformation occurs. Additionally, through the analysis of the textual corpus descriptions emerged as attributes of the agents to enact sustainability. This uncovers the juxtaposition between the often-repeated perception that sustainability must be achieved by capable agents and the capacities they possess. Further, our content analysis suggests a rhetorical process of \\u003cem\\u003eotherin\\u003c/em\\u003eg within sustainability, for example by positioning \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003epeople\\u0026rdquo;\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/em\\u003ethe general population\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/em\\u003eas the cause of the sustainability crisis, and \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003eus\\u0026rdquo;\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/em\\u003ethe educated\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/em\\u003eas the solution. Through our findings, the article concludes that when utilising the concept of sustainability agency\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/em\\u003ebe it in theoretical, educational, or practical work\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026mdash;\\u003c/em\\u003eone ought to pay significant attention to the structures wherein the activities take place. The full comprehension of the transformative potential of individual agents ought to include an acknowledgement of the difference between educated capability and capacity\\u0026mdash;the latter of which necessitates dominance over the structural resources.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Sustainability agency in Unsustainable structures: Rhetoric of a capable transformative individual\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2024-03-15 19:45:47\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3966993/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2024-06-06T06:47:35+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-06-05T20:17:22+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"266916206438594185048899437918880851209\",\"date\":\"2024-05-31T20:07:52+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"d740814a-b9f6-4ae1-9d99-7a45759947ff\",\"date\":\"2024-03-24T22:57:57+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-03-18T08:20:26+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"b85cf9a4-c415-4495-bb50-233e2a2e8288\",\"date\":\"2024-03-18T08:08:40+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-03-15T09:51:04+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-03-13T10:40:33+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-03-13T10:38:29+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Discover Sustainability\",\"date\":\"2024-02-18T12:52:29+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"discover-sustainability\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"disu\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"\",\"title\":\"Discover Sustainability\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Discover Series\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"b9bed438-0fad-4113-9620-266ef387c6d2\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"March 15th, 2024\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"under-review\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2024-06-25T04:44:16+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2024-03-15 19:45:47\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-3966993\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-3966993\",\"identity\":\"rs-3966993\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}