Tiba and Frikha (2018), who conducted a survey about resource curse mechanism among 22 African countries, including Botswana for a period 1990 to 2013, relate to the first research question of why universities in Botswana are unable to create knowledge and innovation for sustainable development. They pointed out that the weak institutional framework is a structural issue in Africa that weakens its economic growth. Universities in Botswana encounter several structural issues as barriers to the creation of green knowledge and innovation. One of them is the economic reason/rationality of the organization. The universities are not ready to internalize external costs such as social problems such as greenhouse gas emissions except one private university that internalized its greenhouse gas emission substantially by a medium-sized solar power project. Another reason is bureaucratism. The structures, rules and regulations, and hierarchical authority at Universities in Botswana are meant to create traditional disciplinary knowledge with Mode 1. The production of green knowledge and innovation are considered alien to their mainstream knowledge creation process. As Webber (1952: 181–82) points out, rationalization has created an iron cage in which humanity has been imprisoned until the last ton of coal is burnt unless there is a prophetic revival. He further contended that bureaucracy, which is the organizational manifestation of rationalist, is an efficient and powerful way of controlling people in an organization, and therefore once bureaucracy has been established, it cannot be reversed.
The policy documents such as vision, mission, values, and strategy are isomorphic among the universities to create knowledge and innovation in their traditional disciplines. The knowledge production process is based on Mode 1. Mode 1 is compatible with the linear model of innovation that universities conduct basic research. They are made available by publishing to the public, and after that, expect that firms pick up those research insights for application. The characteristics of Mode 2 were introduced by Gibbons et al. (1994). Nowotny et al. (2001, 2003, 2006 cited in Carayannis et al., 2016) point out the principles of Mode 2, that basic university researches produce knowledge in the context of an application, and they are transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, socially accountable, reflexive, diverse, and subject to quality control. Campbell and Carayannis (2013) explain the difference between Mode 1 and Mode 2, stating that it is a non-linear way of creating knowledge and innovation by coupling basic research not by “first then” but by “as well as” and “parallel” with the application and R&D of basic research.
Another reason is the legitimacy of green knowledge and innovation. Unless some type of green knowledge evolved with the traditional knowledge system such as curricular for environmental studies offered by respective departments, none of the universities are ready to accommodate green knowledge and innovation, compromising traditional knowledge creation, which is carried on rather than myths and ceremonies than the effectiveness. In brief, the green knowledge system is still alien to the conventional knowledge system of the university.
These conventional structures of universities in Botswana do not actively provide for collaboration and co-creation with other helices of QuinHMI, industry, government, natural environment, and media-based and culture-based public for sustainable development. The existing structure deprives the application of QuinHMI of universities. Mode 3 knowledge production is alien for creating green knowledge and innovation in Botswana. Campbell and Carayannis (2013) point out that Mode 3 universities conduct basic researches in the context of an application. Carayannis et al. (2016) assert the importance of creative and innovative organizational context for Mode 3 so that it enables to combine and integrate different principles of knowledge production and their application by motivating diversity and heterogeneity for research and innovation (2016).
Hence, there is a need to develop a purposeful design called Green University System for greening a university. The proposed design could be incorporated into the existing conventional structures so that the universities enable the production of green knowledge and innovation in line with QuinHMI and Mode 3 knowledge production, the 2030 agenda for 17 SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Nationally Determined Contribution of Botswana. They provide the institutional logic for the legitimate acceptance of green knowledge and innovation at universities. The proposed system facilitates the agency of institutional actors of the universities to interpret above institutional logics. Hence, it is required to reconfigure the conventional structure of universities in Botswana.
In this endeavor of developing a purposeful design called Green University System, the definition of Velazquez et al. (2006) is a good starting point. They define the sustainable university as “A higher educational institution, as a whole or as a part, is one that addresses, involves and promotes, on a regional or a global level, the minimization of negative environmental, economic, societal, and health effects generated in the use of their resources in order to fulfill its functions of teaching, research, outreach and partnership, and stewardship in ways to help society make the transition to sustainable lifestyles.” This definition reflects that the sustainability prevails in a socioeconomic and environmental relationship, the three pillars of sustainability.
However, the sustainability practices by teaching, research, the university’s ecological environment, and the community outreach with an appropriate balance of ecological, economic, and social sustainability are not necessarily adequate. Corporate governance, Organizational Culture, and Sustainability reporting are also imperatives. The thematic analysis and the axial coding identified eight imperatives as interrelated and interdependent concepts that should be aligned in a Green University System so that universities enable producing knowledge and innovation for sustainable development in their mainstream knowledge production process. The proposed system aims to design the most superior knowledge production system, Mode 3, and QuinHMI. In this respect, the constructivist approach is used to socially construct a green university as a social system that is not naturally predetermined by being independent of the researchers. Accordingly, eight knowledge clusters and their self-rationale and innovation networks are socially constructed in Table 1.
These eight knowledge clusters can co-exist, co-evolve, co-specialize, and coopetition among them and other helices as an advanced knowledge-based university (Carayannis et al., 2018), providing opportunities for green innovations. The innovation networks interact within the elements of the same knowledge cluster and with other knowledge clusters too. For example, the innovation network, “legitimacy for overall performance…” enables networking with the elements of the same knowledge cluster, green corporate governance, and other knowledge clusters such as green corporate culture. Moreover, with other helices too without inconsistencies and self-contradiction.
Drawing on the eight clusters above mentioned, further, the results allowed underpinning eight requisites of a green university: green corporate governance, green corporate culture, three pillars of sustainability, green curriculum, and green research, green community outreach, green internal operations, and green reporting. The adjective green emphasizes the importance of making the conventional component of a university ready to produce green knowledge and innovation. For example, corporate governance as a requisite of a conventional university cannot effectively contribute to producing green knowledge and innovation in its mainstream. On the other hand, green corporate governance contains green rules, green regulations, green procedures, green processes, and green practices that are aligned corporate governance system to contribute to the production of green knowledge and innovation directly.
Requisite 01-Green Corporate Governance
The system of governance of a university consists of rules, regulations, procedures, processes, and practices by which a corporate citizen is directed and controlled for achieving its vision and mission by way of goals, objectives, values, strategies, and leadership. In the context of Botswana, institutional logic mandates universities to be green. Botswana Qualification Authority’s (BQA) vision provides that it is “To make Botswana nucleus of Global Competitive Knowledge and Skills.” The King IV-Code of Corporate Governance, even-though not legislative in nature, is generally accepted practices of the corporate world (Institute of Directors, 2016). It advocates integrative thinking by being interconnected and interdependent with various factors that affect the organization’s value creation. Integrative thinking includes not only stakeholder inclusivity such as the ecology and society but also integrated reporting also. The integrative reporting requires not only to confine to the fiscal bottom line but also to focus on its social and ecological impact also. King IV-Code of Corporate Governance places the sustainability better position than the other codes of Corporate Governance. Klettner et al. (2014) point out that the corporate governance system based on the Anglo-American legal system protects shareholders’ interest as a priority. Europe and Japan’s legal traditions give more rights to the employees and creditors. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1996 introduces a hybrid model to protect the diverse interests of stakeholders by converging both legal systems. OECD incorporates sustainability into corporate governance.
Recommendation 01-Green Corporate Governance
As discussed above, corporate governance is one of the imperative requisites of a greening university. It enables the provision of legitimacy to contextualize knowledge systems, Mode 2, Mode 3, Helix models, and all other green university requisites’ legitimacy. The necessary “changes in governance structures and processes (green vision, green mission, green values, green objectives, green strategies, green leadership) can provide much greater overall leverage for transformation to sustainability than the implementation of specific sustainability initiatives” (Doppelt, 2010:96). Cartwright and Craig (2006) point out that aligning the leadership by a member of the strategic team/governing council who is accountable to the board/governing council is imperative because the commitment for sustainability in the governance arises not by the compliance or responsiveness but by the conviction for doing the right thing for creating green knowledge and innovation.
In this regard, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “The legitimacy for overall governance to create green knowledge and innovation with Mode 3 and QuinHMI.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “green corporate governance” with necessary elements such as green governance structure (green rules, green regulations, green policies, green procedures, green processes), green strategy, and green leadership. These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
Requisite 02-Green Corporate Culture
Universities are also organizations in society. They operate in a culture created by people involved there. Schein (1992) defines organizational culture as “the patterns of shared basic assumptions learned by the organization as it solves its problems of external adaptations and internal integration”. These shared assumptions that are often implicit and operate at the sub-conscious level are deeply embedded and integrated into the organization and reflect its behavior. Hence, the values and beliefs required for people’s behavior for sustainability can be communicated by the vision, mission statement underpinned with values intended to balance the organization’s role to the market and society (Gaplin et al., 2015). When designing values, Thaman (2002) argues that sustainable development values seem to be greater if the values and goals of development are closer to the nation’s community’s values for which the sustainable development is meant.
Recommendation 02-Green Corporate Culture
The second critical requisite found in the above discussion is the Organizational culture of sustainability. It is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “The sense of comfort and belonging to create green knowledge and innovation with Mode 3 and QuinHMI.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “green corporate culture” with necessary elements such as values, beliefs, assumptions, norms, artifacts, rituals, symbols, organizational stereotypes, and organizational heroes. These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
In this regard, it is recommended to use the model created by Galpin et al. (2015) as a guideline. Their model is superior because the model incorporates multiple organizational processes instead of previous studies that contemplated a single stage, single discipline, and a single level of diverse perspectives of sustainability. Namely, their model explains that having set the direction for the organization’s sustainability by mission, values, goals, and strategy requires integrating sustainability culture into the human resource practices, financial performance, and brand image of the organization. The employees’ behavioral changes for reducing their own carbon footprint while averting the consumption of water, energy, and conservation of material used in their day-to-day life should also be detected. Such performance should be evaluated for recognition and reward, and reinforcement of sustainability values should be made where necessary. However, all these decisions and actions can be taken for granted in the absence of top management commitment. Schein (2010) argues that an organization’s culture can be changed by a top-down approach, namely, by the diligent strategic management efforts that should be complemented by the bottom up.
Requisite 03-Three Pillars of Sustainability
Sustainability is a system which consists of sub-systems. There are two essential views to understand sustainability as a system. One of the views is proposed by Ott (2003). He argues that the economy is a sub-system of human society, a sub-system of the eco-system. Accordingly, these three systems can be illustrated as three concentric circles where the economic system is inside the human system, which is inside the eco-system. The expansion of the economic system contracts the human system area, and an expansion of the human system contracts the eco-system area. The second view is popularly known as the Three Pillars of Sustainability or even the triple bottom line of sustainability expressed by the World Summit of the United Nations General Assembly (2005). This view is depicted by a Venn diagram consisting of three concentric circles for environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability with overlapping areas. The overlapping with each other denotes that these three pillars are not mutually exclusive. The common feature of both views is that sustainability is a systemic condition. These systemic interactions cause global warming, which is the product of systemic interactions (Smith, 2011), although the most acceptable view of sustainability is the second view, the three pillars of sustainability.
Recommendation 03-Three Pillars of Sustainability
The third imperative requisite of a green university found in the above discussion is the three pillars of sustainability, ecological environment, social environment, and economic environment (World Summit United Nations General Assembly., 2005). In this regard, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “reconciliation of the triple bottom line to create glocal green knowledge and innovation with Mode 3 and QuinHMI.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “triple bottom line” with necessary elements such as ecological environment, social environment, and economic environment. These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
In agreement with the three pillars of sustainability, Larson et al. (2013) point out that these three pillars’ interdisciplinary nature requires to have sustainability practices with a tradeoff among them. When trading off, it is recommended to trade off the three pillars paying attention to local, regional, and global issues. Domesticated SDGs, Paris Climate Agreement, Nationally Determined Contribution should be taken into consideration. In this regard, it is to be noted that many sustainable practices focus on environmental or eco-efficiency (Fonseca et al., 2011; Lozano, 2006) while neglecting the social and cultural aspects of sustainability (Wright, 2010). Zhao and Zou (2015) point out that there can be a bias towards environmental sustainability. They further point out that holistic sustainability practices among the environment, economy, and society are required in a green university. Having traded off the three pillars, a green university enables carrying on its sustainable practices with green education, green research, green internal operations, and green community outreach to produce glocal green knowledge and innovation.
Requisite 04-Green Education
Green education refers to education for sustainability (Figs. 2 and 3). There is a stream of international appeal from higher education and universities to green the curriculum during the last five decades. The UNESCO’s M.A.B. program in 1962, Club of Rome Report in 1971, Belgrade Charter in 1975, Tbilisi Intergovernmental conferences in 1977, International Meeting of Experts in Environmental Education of Paris in 1982, Moscow Conference in 1987, The World Conference on Environment and Development in Rio De Janeiro first time proposed Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in 1992. Another landmark is the declaration of 2005 to 2014, the U.N. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD). The recent endorsement is in 2012 by the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development confirmed the leadership role of higher education in ESD and now SDG 04: Quality education for ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education with life-long learning for all.
Recommendation 04-Green Education
Another imperative requisite in greening a university is green education. In this regard, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “internalizing of green knowledge, green skills, and green competencies with Mode 3 and QuinHMI.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “green education” with necessary elements, green curriculum (pedagogy), and green extra curriculum (non-pedagogy). These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
Green curriculum “through which students can internalize their awareness of environmental protection” (Zhao & Zou, 2015) is the major component of education for sustainability development found in the discussion above. De Ciurana and Filho (2006) pointed out that the graduates who were taught sustainable criteria and values will carry out their professional activities, fostering sustainability. In greening the curriculum, it is recommended that the fundamental scientific understanding and sustainable development be taught mandatorily for all students until diverse, sustainable related curricula are gradually designed depending on the importance of such education (Zhao & Zou, 2015). In this regard, few compulsory modules and few optional modules can be introduced by a pedagogical innovation to disseminate common knowledge to cultivate a typical intellectual conversation across all the academic departments to foster sustainable issues. Almost all the faculties can introduce various types of special sustainable development programs for in-depth knowledge of them. Faculties like engineering could take leadership to offer specialized programs for education for sustainability.
Apart from pedagogical innovations for education for sustainability development, the policy documents should demand non-pedagogical activities such as guest lecturers, activities, and projects involving students, faculties, communities, and other university stakeholders. However, in this endeavor, the factors such as complex structure, traditional disciplinary boundaries, ineffective governance, and the absence of shared vision at the universities face difficulties in achieving the goals of sustainability (Pollock et al., 2009) although universities are now mandated by SDG 04: Quality Education.
Hence, the green scientific knowledge together with other modes of knowledge, knowledge created by the industry, by the state/government, and media-based and culture-based public enjoy the democracy of knowledge-driven by the pluralism of knowledge, and these knowledge modes co-exist, co-evolve, and co-specialize with cross integration (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). Another critical aspect of the knowledge is knowledge levels, which can be categorized from least to the highest aggregation of knowledge as local, subnational, national, supranational, transnational, and global knowledge. Even though sustainability is a global issue, it should be addressed locally. Such green knowledge is termed glocal (global local) knowledge (Carayannis et al., 2012).
Requisite 05-Green Research
Research is one of the primary tools which are used by the faculty of the university to enhance the prosperity of the country (Henkel, 2007; Mendivil, 2002; Dill, 1997 cited in Bessant et al., 2015). QuinHMI asserts the role of collaborative green research in the knowledge creation process (Carayannis, & Campbell, 2010). Mensah et al. (2017) studied the challenges of collaborative research in an African country and identified some challenges within the university, such as inadequate infrastructure, limited funding, and delay in delivering support services.
Hence, a part of the faculty and students’ researches should represent sustainable research. Another aspect of sustainability research at a university is that the faculty and students’ sustainability research is also a criterion considered by many sustainability assessment tools (Jorge et al., 2016).
Since sustainability embraces multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary characteristics, several domains are available for sustainable researchers, faculty, or students. Kajikawa (2008), who carried out content analysis of 35 research papers published in three core journals of sustainability during 2006 and 2007, developed inductively “ten domains of sustainability-related research: climate, biodiversity, agriculture, fishery, forestry, energy and resources, water, economic development, health, and lifestyles”.
Recommendation 05-Green Research
Green research is another imperative requisite of a green university found in the above discussion. In this regard, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “non-linear green research with Mode 3 and QuinHMI.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called green research with necessary elements such as green research by faculty, green research by students, research and development, science and technology, linear research, non-linear research, Mode 3, QuinHMI. These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
Linear innovation model of research in line with Mode 1 delays the application of basic research and their R&D together with the technology life cycle. The non-linear innovation model goes with Mode 2 or Mode 3. Mode 2 is characterized by the application of basic research and its R&D without delay. It possesses characteristics such as transdisciplinarity, heterogeneity, organizational diversity, social accountability, and quality control (Gibbons et al., 1994:3–4). Mode 2 can be contextualized with THMI as trilateral networks, university, industry, and government relations (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000:118, 111–112). Mode 3 is a multilateral network by adding a media-based and culture-based public (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). With the engagement of society, Mode 3 becomes high-quality democratic knowledge. QuinHMI further strengthened Mode 3 by adding the natural environment as the fifth helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010). Hence, it is recommended to create knowledge with research in terms of Mode 3 and QuinHMI. The green knowledge produced by researches together with other modes of knowledge, knowledge created by the university, by the industry, by the state/government, and media-based and culture-based public enjoy the democracy of knowledge driven by the pluralism of knowledge, and these knowledge modes co-exist, co-evolve, and co-specialize with cross integration (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). Another critical aspect of the knowledge is knowledge levels, which can be categorized from least to the highest aggregation of knowledge as local, subnational, national, supranational, transnational, and global knowledge. Since sustainability is a global issue that should be addressed locally, green knowledge is termed as glocal (global local) knowledge (Carayannis et al., 2012).
Requisite 06-Community Outreach
The university and the students cannot be further treated as mere members of media-based and culture-based public and civil society. They should play the role of active contributors to the broader social, economic, and ecological environment on which all beings are dependent on it. The universities’ timely need for engagement with media-based and culture-based public and civil society is now becoming a necessity than ever. Hogner and Kenworthy (2010) pointed out that universities can no longer exist as ivory towers of higher education, which dominated the twentieth-century university educational environment; because of the present age, a need has arisen to engage with the community at multiple levels.
The need for community outreach, the partnership between the community and university, is well described by Boyer (1997:11 cited in Bringle & Hatcher, 2000). He elaborated that “The academy must become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic, and moral problems, and must reaffirm its historic commitment to what I call the scholarship of engagement”. In ratifying the view abovementioned, Kisker (2007:239) points out that “Collaboration has become pivotal in ensuring quality post-secondary education.” Along the same vein, Florence et al. (2007) pointed out that universities, students, and communities significantly value and positively embrace the university-community collaboration in producing knowledge and innovation.
Recommendation 06-Green Community Outreach
Community outreach is the sixth imperative requisite of a green university. In this regard, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “production of green knowledge and innovation towards green knowledge society and green knowledge democracy.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “green community outreach” with necessary elements such as green community outreach by faculty, green community outreach by students, Mode 3, QuinHMI in particular media-based and culture-based public including media such as television, internet, newspapers, and culture such as traditions, values. These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
It is further recommended to collaborate for sustainable development addressing social problems, but universities are alleged that they are unaware, dated, or disorganized to address constructively for those social problems (Kellogg Commission, 1999). In agreement with the allegation, Bringle and Hatcher (2002:503–504) commented that some universities’ outreach programs think of “communities as pockets of needs, laboratories for experimentations, or passive recipients of expertise”. However, creating an effective university-community partnership is challenging even though it is an integral part of students’ community-based service learning. In meeting the challenges, there are several models now available. Among them, Rinaldi et al. (2018) propose to incorporate community outreach into the “Quadruple Helix model of innovation” developed by Carayannis and Campbell (2009) as the third mission of the university in addition to the first and second mission, teaching and research. QuadHMI recognizes media and the culture-based public and civil society as a pillar of production knowledge and innovation. Universities (even other helices) should communicate their objectives and rationale to the public and seek their legitimacy and justification (Carayannis & Campbell, 2006a, b:335).
The QuadHMI has been later extended to incorporate natural environment called QuinHMI (Carayannis, & Campbell, 2010). The QuinHMI enables collaboration with the community for a green lifestyle and learning from their green lifestyles. In this regard, media such as television, the internet, and newspapers could create the capital of information for learning and unlearning traditions and values, as social capital as necessary for sustainable development (Carayannis et al., 2012). When adopting a model, the guiding principle for community outreach is that both parties of the collaboration, university, and the community should work for common interests, responsibilities, privileges, and power to achieve synergies of the partnership (Jacoby, 2003).
Requisite 07-Green Internal Operations/Green Campus
Universities operate in an internal ecological environment. Its operations in the internal environment have a direct impact on the ecology. The internal ecology of campus for operations contains lands, buildings, vehicles, office equipment, furniture and fittings, tools, and other resources consumed during the operations such as water, electricity, air, and stationery. When consuming these resources in a university’s operation, there is a significant impact on the ecology. Sharp (2002), citing Green Building Design Workshop at the University of Michigan, stated buildings globally use 25% of the global wood harvest, 40% of the material entering the global economy, 35% of the total energy consumption, 25% of the landfill space, and generation of 50% of the global greenhouse gases and agents of acid rains.
Recommendation 07-Green Internal Operations/Green Campus
Another imperative requisite of the green university is the green campus/internal operations, which makes greenhouse gas emissions by their operations. In other words, they are also contributors to global environmental issues. Therefore, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “green living internal operations for quality of life.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “green internal operations” with necessary elements such as efficient use of resources (green building, renewable energy, conservation of resources (water/stationery conservation), and internal ecology (green spaces, tree planting). These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence. Hence, it is further recommended to have best practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and resource conservation in their internal environment by setting an example for their students and other stakeholders. Zhao and Zou (2015) point out that green campus provides “a living environment to help students strengthen their awareness of sustainable development in their daily lives”.
Requisite 08-Green (Sustainability) Reporting
Measuring and reporting sustainable practices is essential to ascertain the progress of performance of goals and objectives set in the strategic plan for the sustainable university’s mission and vision. However, measurement is a complex and challenging process for a university, particularly in the early stages of a sustainable university (Gomez et al., 2014). There are many types of tools available for measuring the progress of sustainability. In choosing a tool, the tool’s measurement approach is essential for a university, depending on its strategic direction. In general, the approaches used by the tools fall into one of three approaches, namely, account assessments, narrative assessments, and indicator-based assessments. Accounts assessments quantify the university’s sustainable practices into monetary values, such as saving energy as a percentage, the payback period of investment in sustainable initiatives. Even though these assessments are useful for financial strategy, they do not represent the main perspectives of the sustainable university (Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002:133). Narrative assessments use texts, maps, graphics, and data specific to the university’s sustainable practices. They may use indicators also but not dependent on specifically around the indicators. The major criticism against the narrative assessment is that these assessments lack transparency and consistency, therefore less useful in decision-making and strategy making (Alghamdi et al., 2017). The most widely used sustainability assessment is the indicator-based assessment tools because of their comprehensive nature and representative nature of measuring sustainability despite the diversity of indicators of the tool and various tools used for measuring sustainability (Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002).
Recommendation 08-Sustainability Reporting
The eighth and last mandatory requisite of the green university is the sustainability reporting. In this regard, it is recommended to set the self-rationale and innovation network as “The quality assurance and feedback mechanism for continuous improvement of the green university system.” In this respect, it is required to develop a knowledge cluster called “sustainable reporting” with necessary elements such as green corporate governance, green corporate culture, green education, green research, green community outreach, and green internal operations. These knowledge cluster elements interact with themselves, and the knowledge cluster interacts with other knowledge clusters creating interdependence.
It is required to measure the production of green knowledge and innovation, including evaluating the knowledge production process for corrective measures. However, a common weakness of many tools used to measure sustainability is the measure of green organizational structure such as green corporate governance, green corporate culture, green education, green research, green internal operations, green community outreach, and green corporate culture. The values of the culture, such as trustworthiness, equality, respect, and justice, are emerging as the fourth pillar of sustainability (Ribeiro et al., 2016). These kinds of values and beliefs of the sustainability culture could make necessary behavioral changes in the university community by integrating them to achieve sustainable university goals and objectives. Therefore, it is recommended to assess, among other things, the behavioral changes of the university community by pro-sustainability value-based indicators at universities that help to understand their integrity with the sustainable practices of the university relevant (Ribeiro et al., 2016). Levy and Marans (2012) point out that even though universities have published several sustainability reports with selected indicators, none of them had given due attention to cultural issues.
The Integration of Eight Requisites
As uncovered in the discussion above, what is required is to enable universities to produce glocal green knowledge and innovation in their mainstream knowledge and innovation production system. Since the green knowledge and innovation could be produced with six types of knowledge systems, Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3, THMI, QuadHMI, or superior-quality QuinHMI, the conventional structure of the university should be reconfigured accordingly. In other words, the proposed green university system should enable the contextualization of other knowledge systems. In this regard, eight requisites for reconfiguration were identified as green corporate governance, green corporate culture, three pillars of sustainability, green curriculum, green research, green community outreach, green internal environment, and green reporting.
The integration enables facilitating coexistence and co-evolution of other knowledge paradigms honoring pluralism, knowledge democracy in a KBE. Figure 1 depicts how these eight elements are structured. It is first required to design the green corporate governance structure as the foundation. It is the requisite that provides legitimacy to all other requisites and produces green knowledge with six knowledge production systems. After that, green corporate culture is founded. It is because the green corporate culture can be implanted by the top-down approach, namely, by the diligent efforts of strategic management, which should be complemented by the bottom-up (Schein, 2010). It is then required to design the necessary reconciliation among the three pillars of sustainability (Larson et al., 2013), focusing on local, regional, and global sustainability issues. The reconciliation is, therefore, focused on glocal green knowledge and innovation. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh components, green curriculum, green research, green community outreach, and the green internal ecology, are the four battlefields at the beginning in which diverse sustainability practices can be carried out as stipulated by the green governance system. These are battlefields until the university enables producing green knowledge and innovation in its mainstream. The eighth element is to structure the green reporting system to measure if green knowledge and innovation are produced as stipulated by the green governance system through the structure, strategy, and leadership. These eight requisites are interdependent and interact with each other.