Science to practice – networked governance of sustainability transitions in an African university

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to present insights on the governance of sustainability transitions in higher education in Africa. The authors interrogate the research literatures on the governance of socio-technical transitions in water, electricity, transport and waste management, and identify barriers and enabling factors that enhance transformative practices in universities.

Design/methodology/approach

The analytical framework proposed in this paper combines the elements of governance network theory (GNT) and transition topology. The framework of this study is grounded in an actor-centric approach using GNT to understand networks conducive to sustainability transitions. Events and governance networks were mapped on a transition topology to visualise organisational and institutional changes over time. The study engaged students, management, academic and administrative staff in building a community of practice towards sustainability. This research is based on qualitative content analysis grounded in interview data, focus group discussions, workshops, webinars and secondary data analysis.

Findings

The findings show that the university has consolidated a sustainability vision and targets, but several factors prevent the community from achieving these targets, including hierarchical decision-making processes, a multitude of disjointed committees and fragmentation in the campus community.

Originality/value

This research adds to an emerging body of literature in the field of sustainability in higher education with two contributions. Firstly, the study presents a novel perspective(s) on the governance of sustainability transitions by combining the literatures on governance and sustainability transitions using a new methodological approach of transition topology to show organisational and institutional changes. Secondly, the study presents new empirical evidence for improving the governance of sustainability transitions in a diverse and highly unequal African university community in the process of (de)colonisation of knowledge and governance.

Citation

Jimu, T. and Rennkamp, B. (2024), "Science to practice – networked governance of sustainability transitions in an African university", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2023-0317

1. Introduction

Universities can play critical roles as leaders and change drivers in sustainability transitions that keep the planet safe for future generations (Mustafa et al., 2022). Yet, the significance of higher education institutions (HEI) in sustainable development does not reflect in the research literature and the evidence on supporting structures for sustainability governance in universities remains relatively scarce (Niedlich et al., 2020; Robinson and Laycock Pedersen, 2021). That said, this gap is particularly stunning on the African continent, which experiences the world’s most pressing human development challenges and is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

This paper presents an analysis of the governance of sustainability transitions in the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa. The case study presents insights on barriers and enabling factors to sustainability transitions in an African HEI. Similar to the experiences of other university landscapes worldwide, the UCT has also been facing governability challenges linked to unsustainable practices. UCT, as a leading African university, stands at the forefront of African Higher Education in Sustainability Research (uniRank, 2023).

Using governance network theory (GNT), which is actor-centric with its concepts of interactions and network management, this paper interrogates the key question of understanding the current governance for sustainability at UCT and how it creates barriers and enabling conditions for sustainable practices. We further applied a novel methodological approach of transition topology to show the organisational history and institutional changes: why is sustainability science on campus not implemented, and how can governance for sustainability transition be improved?

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents an overview of the existing literature and a framework for the analysis of barriers to and enablers of sustainability transitions. Section 3 presents the methodology and UCT case study. Section 4 provides the findings and syntheses and the last section concludes.

2. The role of universities in sustainability transitions and innovation

A sustainable university can be defined as a HEI that promotes or minimises the negative health, environmental, economic and societal effects on the use of its resources (Too and Bajracharya, 2015). Furthermore, universities play a significant role in sustainable development through knowledge production and social responsibility (Lăzăroiu, 2017). This entails that universities act as anchors in the local and global communities they serve as they lead in technological and scientific innovations in educating professionals and conducting research (Mustafa et al., 2022). Hence, they are ideal testing grounds where sustainability solutions can be experimented and demonstrated, in the form of living laboratories (LL) (Mustafa et al., 2022). Definitions of LL vary amongst researchers depending on the environment that the concept is rooted in and the desired outcome. According to Mitchell (2003) an LL is an approach to solving complex social crises by developing, testing and refining new technologies. LLs are also participatory and can bring together stakeholders with different areas of expertise in a university setup and have been applied in various contexts (Leal Filho et al., 2023).

Universities play crucial roles in innovation systems through research, capacity building and teaching by training conscious graduates who can make impactful sustainability changes in societies. From a systemic perspective, it has been argued that innovation as a system is complex and involves the interaction of diverse actors including universities, governments and businesses (Dahesh et al., 2020). For instance, the interaction between businesses and universities leads to the generation of new innovations and ideas (Liu et al., 2021). Businesses contribute to technological innovation whereas universities participate in research, training and capacity building. Furthermore, university innovation comprises technological, social and sustainable innovations.

2.1 Governance for sustainability in higher education institutions and universities – enabling factors and barriers

In this research, university governance for sustainability refers to the governance of matters pertaining to the social and ecological dimensions of sustainability across all domains of the university (Muyters et al., 2022). Governance for sustainability in higher education is multi-level and consists of multi-actor processes (Nochta and Skelcher, 2020). It includes the governance of university internal structures as well as wider systems of governance, such as the national regulation of higher education (Robinson and Laycock Pedersen, 2021). Furthermore, it has different elements, including formal organisational staffing and reporting structures, communication and funding sources (Galway et al., 2022; Robinson and Laycock Pedersen, 2021).

Recent research on universities shows that there are different models of governance, such as hierarchical and network governance. Each of these models have both advantages and disadvantages (Colding and Barthel, 2017; Galway et al., 2022). Hierarchical governance uses a top-down approach, whereas the network governance approach is collaborative and participatory (Hoover and Harder, 2015). Given the participatory nature and inclusion of diverse actors, Niedlich et al. (2020) reiterated that network governance is a conducive model at universities, whereas others support hybrid systems which combine both models (Colding and Barthel, 2017).

The term enablers is complex and can be used contextually. Enablers to campus sustainability refer to various strategies, factors and initiatives that contribute to the achievement of sustainability goals on a university campus (Galway et al., 2022). Examples of these enablers are consolidated visions and targets and infrastructural development (Ávila et al., 2017). These enablers are designed to promote and support environmentally responsible practices, social equity and economic viability within the campus community. Barriers on the other hand is also heterogeneous and can operate in different contexts. Barriers to campus sustainability refer to obstacles or challenges that hinder the implementation and progress of sustainable practices and initiatives within a university environment (Hanto et al., 2021). These barriers can arise from different factors including financial constraints and fragmented decision-making (Lange et al., 2019). However, barriers and enablers are “more than just antithesis of each other - rather both perspectives supplement each other” (Hueske and Guenther, 2021a, 2021b, p. 3).

The literature shows that governance structures play an important role in enabling or constraining sustainability agendas in campus communities (Colding and Barthel, 2017). For instance, studies were conducted from 172 universities globally, and 301 expert views and findings suggested that the institutions often lacked administration and senior management support to establish sustainable campuses (Hanto et al., 2021; Niedlich et al., 2020). However, the engagement of all university members is important to ensure top-down and bottom-up support. Table 1. shows the summary from literature on some enabling factors and barriers to campus sustainability.

2.2 Analytical framework for networked governance of sustainability transitions

The analytical framework proposed in this paper combines the elements of the GNT and sustainability transition in a topology. The GNT is actor-centric and was deployed to assess the actors’ relationships and how they influence the drivers and barriers to sustainability transitions. The framework summarises the main concepts of theories explaining the literature on governance and sustainability transitions at universities.

The GNT is characterised by the use of the following concepts and assumptions:

• actors, interdependency and frames, which entails the formation and implementations of policy and service delivery in a network of interdependent actors (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012);

• interactions and complexity, which stress the outcome of decision-making and sustainability transitions require the interaction of diverse university campus stakeholders (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012);

• institutional features, which in this case, relate to interaction patterns among various stakeholders through continuous engagements such as workshops, which can be recognised as patterns of social relations and rules (Lewis, 2011); and lastly

• network management, in this case, relates to coordinating and monitoring the engagement process and finding synergies among transdisciplinary teams in sustainability research.

The functionality of the framework combines qualitative content analysis of the interview data and document analysis to establish a transition topology. A transition topology as a directed graph in this case was utilised to analyse and map organisational and institutional changes over time (Strambach and Pflitsch, 2018), from 1990 to 2022. The topology has three phases which are pre-formation phase (1990–2001), formation phase (2002 –2017) and lock-in phase (2018–2022) to show the events over time (see Figure 1). The pre-formation phase has few events in the topology, whereas the formation phase is distinguished by an increase in organisational and institutional changes (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the lock-in phase is denoted as the implementation stage with diverse stakeholders. It strengthened developments which took place in the formation phase (see Figure 1).

The framework that links GNT and transition topology is premised on actors’ relations and interactions among diverse stakeholders. These two stresses on actors’ interactions and networks exist in these social relationships. Hajer (2002) referred to such relationships as affiliation networks (see Figure 1). Networks can influence relationships as enablers or barriers to campus sustainability (see Figure 1).

3. Methodology

This study presents the governance of sustainability transition in a single case study design.

3.1 Study site

The study was conducted at the UCT. UCT was founded in 1829 and is the oldest university in South Africa (Times Higher Education, 2023). UCT performs well in international rankings, often as the highest university in Africa, despite the relatively limited resources compared to its international peers (Times Higher Education, 2023). The UCT is a community of thousands of diverse people – more than 28,000 students are served by almost 5,000 staff members (UB and DC, 2022). UCT is split into several campuses: Upper, Middle, Lower, Health Sciences, Medical School, Hiddingh campuses and Breakwater Campus (GSB) that offer various courses and degrees (see Figure 2).

3.2 Data collection

This study was guided by qualitative content analysis grounded in multiple methods of data collection using different techniques, such as interview data, workshops, document analysis and a survey. Participants were selected through a combination of snowball and purposive sampling techniques, because it was easier for interviewees to refer the researcher to other participants. A total of 71 stakeholders from students and staff were engaged through semi-structured interviews (13) and focus group discussions (FGD) (two) from May 2022 to December 2022. Furthermore, stakeholders participated in sustainable campus project meetings (16), workshops (18) and webinars (22) to establish science to practice on campus (see Table 2). Two interview guides were prepared for individual semi-structured interviews, and for FGD. These interview guides with questions on barriers and enablers to campus sustainability were prepared based on the themes that emerged during the preliminary interviews with stakeholders in November 2021, and from university policy documents. Moreover, the guides contained questions on how stakeholders envision a sustainable campus to look like. The interviewees were assured that they would remain anonymous.

All the interviews were recorded and transcribed (See Table 2) and analysed using thematic analysis. Data analysis was conducted from January 2023 to March 2023. The process for performing thematic analysis involves the following steps:

• familiarisation with qualitative data from interviews, FGDs and workshops;

• coding of the qualitative data;

• define a preliminary set of themes based on qualitative data;

• reviewing themes;

• defining and labelling themes; and

• finalising the distinct themes to answer the research questions.

Furthermore, the study was complemented by an online questionnaire survey of 384 people (staff and students) that was conducted to gain stakeholders’ perceptions and insights into sustainable and unsustainable practices on campus, and suggestions on how to establish a sustainable campus. The questionnaire contained open- and closed-ended questions. The open-ended questions were on barriers, enablers and recommendations for a sustainable campus while close-ended questions were on demographic data such as categorising staff and students. The questionnaire was designed using a Google Form and analysed using a Microsoft Excel.

Secondary sources of data, such as UCT governance policy documents, programs and reports, were analysed to map actor networks and events into different phases of the transition topology from 1990 to 2022. Secondary sources were used to corroborate the data collected during interviews. This study traces these initiatives/events from 1990 to the present, and analyses how these policies have enabled or hindered sustainability. Table 3 below shows the different sources of secondary documents at the UCT that were used for the results analysis. All the documents were extracted from the UCT website (https://uct.ac.za/explore-uct-sustainability/sustainability-downloads).

4. Results and discussion: barriers and enablers in sustainability governance at UCT

4.1 UCT historical sustainability initiatives from 1990 to 2022: towards a sustainability transition

Historical analysis of secondary data shows that between 1990 and 2022, the UCT signed 20 sustainability policies, programs, plans, strategies and projects related to improving sustainability on campus. Figure 3 shows the UCT sustainability transition between 1990 and 2022 and the networks, relations and interactions that existed between actors and organisational and institutional changes. The different phases of the transition are described below.

4.1.1 Pre-formation phase (1990–2001).

In the first phase (1990–2001), there are relatively few events in terms of actor participation and their relationship to institutional changes, as was coined by one responded that, “at this stage participation was on higher level” (Interview 8). Visible actors in this commitment were the Vice Chancellor (VC), the Senate and Department of Higher Education. Sustainability at the UCT dates back to 1990, when the university signed the Talloires Declaration. Although the declaration was a non-binding document, it was drafted and signed by 22 university leaders worldwide (International Talloires Declaration, 1994). The document includes a ten-point plan that states the need for HEIs to integrate environmental sustainability into all parts of the university (Mandalia, 2018). In 1994 and 2001, UCT leadership recommitted to the implementation of Talloires Declaration (see Figure 3). The signing of the declaration highlighted that the UCT has become conscious of its sustainability practices among diverse stakeholders on campus.

4.1.2 Formation phase (2001–2017).

The second phase (2001–2017) is characterised by a strong increase of a combination of enablers and barriers to campus sustainability. These events were distinguished by increased number of diverse actor participation and the execution of commitments into plans and ultimately into policies (see Figure 3). The formulation of sustainability groups is pivotal to the UCT’s sustainability agenda. These include the Environmental Management Working Group (EMWG) established in the Environmental and Geographical Science Department in 2001 [UCT Green Campus Policy Framework; UCT (2008)]. This played an important role in spreading the concept of sustainability to other departments. The EMWG comprises multi-stakeholder members from various institutions such as Property and Services (P&S), Student Representative Council (SRC), Green Campus Initiative (GCI) and the UCT risk officer (Mandalia, 2018). The multi-stakeholder members facilitated collaborative and partnership arrangements to enhance campus sustainability. However, critically the group lacked decision-making power as it was a working group.

Another important group was the UCT Partnership for a Sustainable Environment (PASE) initiated in 2003. The PASE’s broad mandate was to address research opportunities related to environmental and sustainable development issues at UCT (Mandalia, 2018). PASE was initiated to establish the suitability of erecting a “green” office. However, PASE was not successful because there was opposition from the university to prioritise environmental issues. Furthermore, sustainability was not popular in South Africa at the time (UCT, 2008). Several university policies and reports were prepared to advance the sustainability agenda at UCT during the millennium decade including the Environment and Sustainable Development Policy in 2008, and the development of annual carbon footprint reports from 2008 (see Figure 3).

In 2008, the Green Campus Policy Framework was developed by the VC office. One of its major goals was to integrate sustainability into governance and campus operations. The Policy Framework discusses the student-led GCI, founded in 2007, for students to take part in greening the campus and raising awareness regarding sustainability (UCT Green Campus Policy Framework, 2008) The introduction of students in sustainability was a big step forward towards inclusivity in the university’s sustainability agenda. However, “few GCI members were active during the time and their participation to sustainability activities was minimal” (Interview 10)

In addition, the Green Campus Action Plan (GCAP) was developed in late 2008/early 2009 and was mostly compiled by the Sustainability Consultant (UCT, 2009). Again, the recommendations from the consultancy of introducing the Sustainability Coordinating (SC) office was a critical development towards improving campus sustainability. However, according to one university administrator, “there was no internal capacity of SC “office” at this stage” (Interview 5). The GCAP was hailed as the most comprehensive document related to sustainability because the development of the plan involved various stakeholders including staff and students through various workshops. Notably, one interviewee maintained that, “during this period certain academics played a critical role in driving sustainability things forward” (Interview 5). The two planned ideas were the establishment of a Green Campus Office and the implementation of a Green Campus Loan Fund (UCT Green Campus Action Plan). Lack of implementation is one of the main weaknesses of the plan, which was mainly attributed to a lack of commitment and behavioural changes among various stakeholders (Interview 6). Furthermore, the University signed the International Sustainable Campus Charter (ISCN) – Global University Leaders Forum (GULF) in 2012 as a commitment to campus sustainability. However, the events above during the millennium decade marked a university turning point towards inclusivity in the sustainable campus agenda. The consolidated commitments, plans and policies acted as enablers to campus sustainability.

4.1.3 Institutionalisation phase (2017–2022).

In the third phase (2017–2022) institutional and organisational changes occurred that reinforced developments which took place in the second phase. Generally, this phase can be regarded as the implementation phase. In response to the increase in cost for municipal water resulting from severe drought, UCT created a new directorate for environmental sustainability (ESD) in the Office of the VC in 2018, and appointed a director in 2019 to drive the environmental sustainability strategy (ESS) of the university (UCT Environmental Sustainability Strategy, 2021). This was the first time the UCT had appointed dedicated full-time staff to address campus environmental sustainability, which makes this a very significant milestone (Interview 6). Through an extensive stakeholder engagement process in 2019 and 2020, the ESD developed the UCT ESS, which for the first time contained some very clear ambitious long-term goals(see Table 4). Another significant development that occurred through the ESD was the transformation of the EMWG into a formal university governance committee, namely, the Environmental Management Committee (EMC).

The institutionalisation phase also witnessed the implementation of projects such as Living Labs (LL) (2019), green buildings (2020) and the Khusela Ikamva (KI) sustainable campus project (2021–2025). These projects were premised on environmental sustainability for all campus operations (UCT Environmental Sustainability Strategy, 2021). This stage is characterised by notable success stories, such as the refurbishment of Chris Hani lecture theatre as a four-star green building and the opening of the Hasso Plattner School of Design Thinking (six-star rating green building). These projects include infrastructural and technological innovations as well as social and behavioural changes in the campus community (FGD 9).

The above plans, policies, programs and projects as demonstrated in Figure 3 suggest that the UCT has a traceable record in considering campus sustainability initiatives over the last three decades with a rise in progress during the last two decades (see Figure 3). Notably, these initiatives call for networking, transdisciplinarity and collaboration between various stakeholders including local and international partners. The analysis of secondary data and empirical evidence from key stakeholder interviews reflects that each university leadership since the 1990s has come up with comprehensive policy documents, programs and plans for sustainability, which to date have not been fully implemented. One of the key stakeholders described the situation as “lack of change or innovation on the new policies and strategies developed” which led to a lack of interest from important stakeholders in implementing the plans and policies (Interview 8). This indicates a significant gap between policies and practices.

4.2 Enablers and barriers to sustainability

4.2.1 Consolidated visions and action plans but lack of implementation.

The historical analysis of UCT secondary documents elaborated in the section above and in Figure 3 shows that the UCT has consolidated visions for sustainability such as transformation, sustainability, excellence and environmental sustainability. The current KI project “Securing the Future” has encompassed the creation of a fair and just society, and establishing UCT as an Afropolitan university as some of the consolidated visions to a sustainable campus. However, an assessment of these visions indicated that good policies on paper have been drafted and ratified, but they were typically not resourced nor are staff held accountable for implementing them, and therefore they are not fully implemented in practice. This analysis was consistent with the results reported by Zahid et al. (2021).

The GCAP, UCT ESS and KI documents are solid and comprehensive on paper as they intend to engage all campus stakeholders in transitioning to a sustainable campus. The interviews reiterated that the UCT’s sustainability visions since the 1990s are the same, the difference is the order in which they are packaged as one key stakeholder said that “Every vision I have seen have the same things but just in a different order and the deliberators spend a lot of time debating them” (Interview 8). This finding concurred with the arguments put forward by Aleixo et al. (2018) and Bautista-Puig et al. (2022) that lack of shared commitment and understanding of the vision in relation to campus sustainability among various stakeholders, results in inconsistencies between policy and practice. The important takeaway from this is that UCT, just like other universities has sound consolidated visions and the missing link is not improving the visions but to bring science to society and putting these good visions into practice, while also being sure to allocate human and financial resources to deliver strategies, plans and policies.

4.2.2 Unsustainable practices continue despite consolidated targets.

Since 1990, UCT has formulated consolidated targets and goals for sustainability. The current Vision 2030 aims to achieve net zero carbon emissions, an energy campus, net zero waste-to-landfill campus and a net zero water campus amongst other goals by 2050 or sooner (Braune and Morar, 2022) (see Table 4).

An extract from the carbon footprint assessment report from 2012 to 2021 demonstrates UCT’s progress in carbon reduction by 9% from 2012 to 2021 (see Table 5). The UCT has set net zero target emissions by 2050 for Scope 1 and 2 with the aim of decreasing emissions by 2%–5% per annum from 2020. These annual targets are highly ambitious for a tertiary institution such as UCT which require complete commitment from all stakeholders. UCT has reported these emissions relatively consistently since 2012. Table 5 shows a reduction of 9% in Scope 1,2 and Other Directemissions (UCT Carbon Footprint report 2022) because of varied reasons such as COVID-19 pandemic lockdown which slows down many activities.

The survey analysis with university-wide stakeholders – students and staff – shows that the community continues to experience unsustainable practices in the University’s management of various domains such as energy, waste, water and carbon emissions. Of the 384 online questionnaire surveys administered on campus sustainability, poor waste management, unsustainable energy use practices and water were identified as the most significant challenges facing UCT (Figure 4).

The need to address unsustainable practices at UCT justifies 68% of survey respondents who ranked sustainability as an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed (see Figure 5). Campus sustainability is crucial for transitions in areas such as energy efficiency, technological innovation and waste management.

4.2.3 Critical drivers and change makers for UCT and their governance for sustainability transitions.

Critical drivers and change makers were identified as leading to campus sustainability transitions at the UCT. Identifying the critical drivers of change in sustainability transitions is crucial for understanding practices and decision-making processes. These drivers included the authors of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), EMWG (2001) and KI project teams (Engagement 1–6 and 12–13). These project teams have different goals and visions for a sustainable campus, which includes transitioning to sustainable technologies in various facets such as food–water–energy–waste nexus (Engagement 12). However, the successful transitioning of these technologies depends on efficient governance processes and behavioural changes in the overall university community. Similarly our results are in agreement with other studies conducted by Ancha et al. (2018), Hoover and Harder (2015) and Hueske and Guenther (2021b).

A summary of the change makers and governance for sustainability actors at the UCT is shown in Figure 3. There is a significant rise in actors (both internal and external) that are critical to the establishment of sustainability policies and plans at the UCT. A notable increase in actors’ networks has been witnessed during the last two decades, especially after 2008. The escalation of participating actors’ networks and interactions is attributed to the growth of sustainability awareness campaigns among stakeholders. The current KI transdisciplinary project has a considerable number of participating stakeholders (internal, government, NGOs and businesses) compared to previous initiatives (Figure 3). This reflects the importance of public–private partnerships and the interaction of actors in sustainability transitions. Another distinction is that most earlier events were signed commitments and plans that were not implemented into projects. They had little or no budget plans assigned for such events unlike the KI which has an allocated budget for research on campus sustainability with some LL for five years (Interview 5).

4.2.4 Fragmentation of governance structures (a hybrid of hierarchical and participatory sustainability governance at UCT).

The governance system at the UCT is fragmented with a hybrid of hierarchical and participatory committee governance structures (see Figure 6). The hierarchical approach can be bureaucratic, and constrained by time and delays, although the governance committee system is inclusive and participatory. Whilst committees are considered for monitoring and evaluation, for instance, the Space Allocation Committee (SAC) which is applauded for meeting almost every month (Interviews 6 and 7). The major challenge according to the interviewed project team members revolves around time constrains and the delay in decision-making processes for sustainability transition projects on campus.

Results from key stakeholder interviews pinpoint that the top-down governance processes delay the decision-making processes and implementation of structural change and technological innovation programs on campus, although shortage of human and financial capital also played a part (Interviews 1–4 and 12). The hierarchical system at the UCT is a common trend at several universities across the globe as shown in similar studies conducted by Colding and Barthel (2017) and Galway et al. (2022) who maintained that various universities are run in a hierarchical structures.

4.2.5 Multitude of disjointed committees and decision making processes for governance for sustainability.

Many committees are involved at different levels in decision-making for governance for sustainability at UCT, which includes the University Building (UB) and Development Committee (DC) cluster of committees (see Figure 6), risk and management committees and internal faculty committees (Interview 7). Some of these committees are disjointed, which hinders decision-making. For example, the EMC which oversees the performance and governance procedures of environmental sustainability projects reports to UB and DC, which resultantly report to the Council (see Figure 6). This entails that for any technological innovation to happen on campus, such as the establishment of LL, decisions have to be made by the EMC and other responsible reporting channels that could delay project implementation (Engagements 1 and 8).

In some instances, the inefficiency of the committees is complex and related to factors such as power dynamics and mismanagement by the committee chair (Interview 5). The cumbersome procedure of multiple disjointed committees acts as a barrier to campus sustainability.

Interview data corroborated with information from the reports, policy and plans to show that a multitude of disjointed committees are involved in the process flows summarised in Figure 7. (Engagement 1– 4, 8).

However, despite the mentioned challenges, the committee system largely acts as an enabler to sustainability governance because of its participatory nature. This finding reinforced similar studies that confirmed the shifting away from hierarchical forms of governance towards network governance which is participatory and interactive (Mustafa et al., 2022). The UCT hybrid system was hindered by lack of efficient and effective governance systems, as compared to other successful hybrid systems in countries such as The Netherlands (Pahl-Wostl, 2019).

4.2.6 Lack of administration support.

Other barriers that emerged from the study included a lack of support from university administrators in implementing sustainability transition initiatives. According to one interviewee, “there is too much talk but no action” (Interview 8). Furthermore, there is fragmentation in the UCT community, where research teams and academics are involved in different projects, and not uniting for a common purpose, that is, to practice sustainability on campus. Our results on the lack of administrative support concurred with those of Blanco-Portela et al. (2018) and Hueske and Guenther (2021a, 2021b).

4.2.7 Lack of student engagement.

Students as change makers are not yet largely involved in sustainability projects or initiatives on campus. Interviews with student leadership and committees revealed that there was a lack of student engagement in governance issues on campus (Interviews 10 and 11). Even in meetings in which the SRC and GCI are invited, their participation is limited. Therefore, the lack of student engagement in governance for sustainability is a huge barrier to establishing a community of practice as they represent the largest proportion of the campus community. To understand how decision-making and engagement on sustainability issues at campus should take place, the results of the university-wide survey found that for sustainability to take place, collective decisions must be made (65.97% of the survey) while 22% believed it should be a matter under the custodian of the university management (Figure 8). These results confirm that stakeholders are aware of how sustainability at campuses takes place, thus ensuring the success of sustainability initiatives. This finding is consistent with a study conducted at the University of Western Cape and other similar studies elsewhere which advocates for collaboration and partnerships among various stakeholders in decision-making (Bidandi et al., 2022; Croucher et al., 2020).

It has also emerged from the findings that they are disjointed communication channels for relaying sustainability awareness campaigns. As the major channel for communication, the Communications and Marketing Department largely takes time to channel messages to the campus community. Respondents associated the overwhelming of the department with a shortage of staff members (Interviews 5 and 7). The shortage could also be related to the cumbersome human resources process in connection with the hiring of specialist professionals in different departments, according to one senior academic participant.

4.2.8 Lack of funding and resources.

Lack of funding and resources, one of the major barriers, also delayed the execution of projects and technological innovations. This is coupled with the infrastructural and technological challenges. Furthermore, according to two interviewees, “there is lack of funding and resources” (Interviews 5 and 7). The findings on lack of funding and resources align with the studies conducted by Amaral et al. (2020) and Bautista-Puig et al. (2022), where barriers related to a lack of financial resources and funding were identified.

4.2.9 Risks.

UCT was affected by severe impacts of climate change such as the 2003–2004 and 2015–2017 droughts, fire in 2021 (see Figure 3). Other events which also posed a sustainability risk at UCT included governance issues which rocked the institution in the second half of 2022 (Davis 2022; Engagement 13), and the “fees must fall” student protests around 2016. The above-mentioned risks have implications for the governance and operations of the university, which consequently affects campus sustainability. Other risks that might affect the institution in the foreseeable future are related to floods, heat and occupational health (Engagement 13). Therefore, UCT need to set up strong risk-management structures in place to prepare for such disasters. The risks acted as an enabler as they motivated the university to change some of its practices.

Table 6 below highlighted the key findings on enablers and barriers to campus sustainability which emerged from the study from 1990 to 2022.

The findings align with the studies conducted by Conner et al. (2018) that universities recognise sustainability as an institutional goal and have expanded their focus to include social, cultural, economic and environmental aspects. It also shows a mix of foresight in preparing goals and visions, but significant institutional changes emerge from responses to crises.

5. Conclusion

In sum, this paper presented new empirical evidence for improving the governance of sustainability transitions in a diverse and highly unequal African university community in the process of the (de)colonisation of knowledge and governance.

The findings show that UCT has consolidated sustainability visions and targets that act as enablers of sustainability, for example, the reduction of carbon emissions by 9%, but several barriers prevent the community from achieving the targets, including a lack of financial resources and commitment from staff and students. Therefore, UCT is to a greater extent, committed to establishing a sustainable campus and university of the future that aligns with the SDGs.

The governance system of the UCT is a hybrid system with a mix of hierarchical structures and committee systems. This system acts as both a barrier and an enabler to sustainability, with some cumbersome reporting structures through a participatory and inclusive committee system. The system is constrained by bureaucracy and lack of commitment from some leadership and committee members. Efficient hybrid systems usually thrive in setups in which formal institutions are effective and governance systems are participatory.

Furthermore, the UCT has adopted and signed a number of sustainability initiatives since 1990. These initiatives were divided into three phases which are pre-formation phase (2001–2017), formation phase (2001–2017) and institutionalisation phase (2017–2022) to show the changes which evolved between 1990 and 2022. Few changes have happened in the pre-formation phase, with notable changes in increase number of the participating actors and signed plans and policies happening in the formation phase. Most events during the formation phase were comprehensive and allowed participatory processes for diverse stakeholders on paper with slow progress on the implementation of environmental sustainability initiatives. The institutionalisation phase is characterised by the implementation of many projects to address the barriers such as unsustainable practices in waste, energy and water managed. Events such as student protests, electricity shortages, droughts and fires also act as enablers of campus sustainability in that the occurrence of such events alerted the university leadership to initiate structures and mechanisms in place, such as the establishment of green buildings on campus.

The study recommends the need for diverse stakeholders, technological innovations, awareness campaigns and behavioural changes to establish a sustainable campus. Therefore, the network governance of sustainability model was considered by many stakeholders involved in the study to be a conducive system for improving UCT governance because of its capacity to deal with a multitude of actors amongst other advantages. Although the committee system represents the network governance model, the UCT must adopt an integrated reporting format for accountability, transparency and network management. Continuous engagement further helps building trusting relationships among various stakeholders. Other recommendations that emerged from the study include development of funding mechanisms, to get full support and commitment from UCT senior management, sustainable procurement, setting up and improvement of strong UCT risk management structures and implementation of a building master system to monitor sustainable practices on student residences and other campus buildings. Although initiatives have been made on some student residences with the appointment of house committees and GCI representatives, not all residences have GCI members. Furthermore, there is no continuity in GCI membership, as student representatives are temporarily on campus (three to four years).

Figures

Figure 1.

Analytical framework for networked governance of sustainability transitions

Figure 2.

Map showing the study area with UCT campuses

Figure 3.

UCT sustainability transformation between 1990 and 2022

Figure 4.

Unsustainable practices at UCT

Figure 5.

Sustainability ranking at UCT

Figure 6.

Governance for sustainability relationships and reporting channels in terms of policy at UCT

Figure 7.

The committees and sub-committees that are involved in the process flow of decision-making relating to UB and DC at UCT

Figure 8.

Survey results on who should lead on sustainability issues on campus (n = 383)

Table 1.

Summary of barriers and enabling factors to campus sustainability

Enabling factors	Barriers
Strong leadership and commitment	Financial constrains
Availability of financial resources	Fragmented decision-making
consolidated policies and strategies	Regulatory and policy constrains
Dedicated institutional structures	Limited stakeholder collaboration
Active engagement and collaboration	Infrastructure limitations
Curriculum integration	Resistance to change
Sustainable campus operations e.g. energy	Lack of awareness and engagement
Robust reporting and accountability	Cultural and behavioural factors
Education and awareness	Lack of commitment

Source: Authors’ construct

Table 2.

Total number of stakeholders engaged through interviews, focus group discussion workshops and webinars

Engagement type	Category	Unit	No. participants
1 (Project meeting)	Academic	Energy Systems Research Group	4
2 (Project meeting)	Academic	Future Water	5
3 (Project meeting)	Academic	Center for Bioprocess Engineering Research (CeBER)	4
4 (Project meeting)	Academic	Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa (IC Wild)	3
5 (Interview)	Leadership	Environmental Sustainability	1
6 (Interview)	Leadership	UCT	1
7 (Interview)	Leadership	Finance	1
8 (Interview)	Academic	Carbon Footprint	1
9 (Focus group)	Academic and Leadership	Environmental sustainability and Carbon Footprint	2
10 (Interviews)	Student Society	Green Campus Initiative	3
11 (Interviews)	Student body	Student Representative Council	2
12 (5 workshops)	Students and staff	Khusela Ikamva project teams	18
13 (3 webinars)	Students and staff	IPCC authors	22
14 (Interviews)	Non-academic staff	Property and services	4
Total			71

Note:

Field Survey data 2023

Source: Authors’ construct

Table 3.

Secondary sources of data

Description	Title	Year
Commitment	International Talloires Declaration	1994
	ISCN/ GULF campus charter	2012
	UN Global Compact Agreement	2018, 2023
	U7+ Alliance of World Universities	2019
Policy	Environmental Policy	2003
	Green Campus Policy Framework	2008
	Green Building Policy	2012, 2023
	UPRI Responsible Investment Policy	2020
Plan	Environmental Management System	2003
	Green Campus Action Plan	2009
	Environmental Sustainability Strategy	2021
Reports	Carbon Footprint	2008–2022

Source: Authors’ construct

Table 4.

UCT’s vision 2030 and the specific goals

Visions	Goals
Transformation Sustainability Excellence	Net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner
	Net zero waste-to-landfill by 2050 or sooner
	Net zero water by 2050 or sooner
	Net zero energy by 2050 or sooner
	Divested from fossil fuel investment by 2030 (UCT Endowment)
	Healthy indoor spaces – low VOC indoor products used, maximum fresh air, air filters where required, optimal daylight, etc

Source: Authors’ construct

Table 5.

UCT’s emission targets and percentage change

	Tonnes of CO2e			% Change
Emissions	2012	2020	2021	2012 vs 2021
Scope 1,2, Other Direct	66 622	51 762	60 929	−9%

Source: Authors’ construct

Table 6.

Enablers and barriers to campus sustainability

Enablers	Barriers
Consolidated visions and action plans	Hierarchical governance structures
Consolidated targets	Fragmented decision-making
Critical drivers or change makers	Lack of administration support
Participatory committee governance structures	Minimal representation/ engagement from students in sustainability governance initiatives
Involvement of student societies, for example, GCI	Human resources cumbersome procedures in hiring professionals in different departments
Construction of some six star-rated green buildings on campus, for example, Hasso platter school of design thinking	Cultural barriers which can be difficult to change behaviour
Implementation of interdisciplinary projects on campus, for example, Khusela Ikamva	Lack of funding and resources
Hosting of SDG summits, for example, 2021 summit	No long-term planning in budget approval (one year cycle)
Risks, for example, student protests and governance issues	Lack of commitment from some staff and students
	Unsustainable practices in waste, water and energy use on halls of residences
	Risks, for example, fire and droughts

Source: Authors’ construct