Abstract
Purpose
Climate change poses risks to society and the demand for carbon literacy within small and medium-sized enterprises is increasing. Skills and knowledge are required for organizational greenhouse gas accounting and science-based decisions to help businesses reduce transitional risks. At the University of Copenhagen and the University of Northern British Columbia, two carbon management courses have been developed to respond to this growing need. Using an action-based co-learning model, students and business are paired to quantify and report emissions and develop climate plans and communication strategies.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper draws on surveys of businesses that have partnered with the co-learning model, designed to provide insight on carbon reductions and the impacts of co-learning. Data collected from 12 respondents in Denmark and 19 respondents in Canada allow for cross-institutional and international comparison in a Global North context.
Findings
Results show that while co-learning for carbon literacy is welcomed, companies identify limitations: time and resources; solution feasibility; governance and reporting structures; and communication methods. Findings reveal a need for extension, both forwards and backwards in time, indicating that the collaborations need to be lengthened and/or intensified. Balancing academic requirements detracts from usability for businesses, and while municipal and national policy and emission targets help generate a general societal understanding of the issue, there is no concrete guidance on how businesses can implement operational changes based on inventory results.
Originality/value
The research brings new knowledge to the field of transitional climate risks and does so with a focus on both small businesses and universities as important co-learning actors in low-carbon transitions. The comparison across geographies and institutions contributes an international solution perspective to climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Keywords
Citation
Earley, S., Stridsland, T.D., Korn, S. and Lysák, M. (2024), "Co-learning partnerships and carbon management in Denmark and Canada", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 40-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2023-0212
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Sinead Earley, Thomas Daae Stridsland, Sarah Korn and Marin Lysák.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Students, faculty and staff working in higher education institutions (HEIs) are re-evaluating their purpose as the urgency of responding to climate change has intensified. Over 11,000 scientists in the world have acknowledged a moral obligation to respond to climate change (Ripple et al., 2020), and 7,000 universities have declared a state of climate emergency (O’Malley, 2019). This action-oriented turn was also reflected in the theme for the Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) 2022 conference, The Urgency of Now! Educators are looking for curricular innovations that go beyond conceptual learning and engage directly with climate solutions. Connecting these trends in higher education to economic and social actors beyond classrooms will be an important aspect of low-carbon transitions.
The private sector is an arena where significant transformation will occur through decarbonization. Much attention has been paid to the environmental impact of powerful transnational and multinational companies (Finger and Svarin, 2018), and sustainability scholars are now starting to focus on the collective impact of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [1]. Studies estimate that collective global pollution and emissions from SMEs are greater than those of large firms, yet there are characteristics unique to small firms that allow them to implement proactive environmental strategies (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008; Martín-Tapia et al., 2010). Despite this, SMEs are not participating enough in this arena and require higher levels of support from facilitative partners to fulfill their roles as significant actors in low-carbon transitions (Quintás et al., 2018).
These shifts in education and business have led to the creation of two action-based, co-learning carbon management courses: Climate Solutions (CS) at Copenhagen University (UCPH) in Denmark and Low-Carbon Transitions (LCT) at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) in Prince George, Canada. The courses evolved independently of each other (ongoing at UCPH since 2011 and at UNBC since 2015), but have similar objectives and learning methods. Students are taught carbon inventory and reporting skills using ISO 14064 and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) as primary tools. They partner with local businesses to conduct corporate carbon inventories through a collaborative, experiential, hands-on experience.
The impact of the course at UNBC has been documented by way of service-learning dynamics (Booth et al., 2020a) and student experience (Booth et al., 2020b). This study aims to better understand the business perspective. A survey of former business partners in Copenhagen and Prince George has allowed us to identify the challenges and successes in each context, compare our learnings and entertain adaptations to our curricula as important pedagogical outcomes. The comparative approach has allowed for inter-university and international learning at a time when climate change requires us to think and act with global concerns in mind. The study is situated, however, within a Global North context with Danish and Canadian particularities to consider.
We start with a review of the literature on climate-related risks, opportunities and co-learning. We then present a detailed description of the courses and survey results. With the objective of better understanding how universities can work alongside SMEs to address the risks associated with low-carbon transition, we have pursued two research questions:
How can universities increase the capacity for SMEs to use carbon accounting and reporting as a tool to reduce transitional risks and take advantage of opportunities?
What are the outcomes of the co-learning approach used in each course, and what can be learned through comparison?
We conclude the article with a discussion of how climate risks can be translated into carbon reductions, essential skills for co-learning, modes of governance (i.e. reporting frameworks) and policy contexts in which carbon management systems are situated.
Climate risks and opportunities
Our courses seek to help SMEs navigate the risks associated with climate change and turn them into opportunities. We first need to know what those risks and opportunities are, recognizing that they will be specific to each enterprise and geographical context. Such risks have been broadly broken down in the literature into two categories: transitional and physical (Daumas, 2023; Ojea Ferreiro et al., 2022; Sanderson and Stridsland, 2022).
The physical risks of climate change cannot be understated, as they pose real threats to how we interact with the natural world. Climate-related phenomena, such as sea level rise, extreme weather and other physical risks, are co-dependent with transitional risks; the transitional risks that society mitigates now will influence the long-term physical risks in the future (Gambhir et al., 2022). The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) has outlined three main types of transitional risks for businesses: market and technology shifts; reputation; and policy and legal. The TCFD addresses risks but also examines opportunities associated with transitioning to a low-carbon economy, which are expected to influence most economic sectors and industries (TCFD, 2017). At their core, the TCFD recommendations are tools to price climate risks and opportunities for financial actors, with risk monitoring as an additional objective. While the TCFD is directed at the financial world, the recommendations remain valuable and relevant to all sustainably minded companies, regardless of size.
Understanding the direct and indirect emission impacts of an organization is fundamental to transforming transitional risks into opportunities. Like the concept of financial literacy, carbon literacy increases awareness of emissions reductions at individual, organizational and community levels (Srkoc et al., 2021; The Carbon Literacy Project, 2023). An important application of carbon literacy at the organizational level is the development and utilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, most often following the GHGP framework (Sundin and Ranganathan, 2002). These inventories are important internally, as tools for making science-based, climate-resilient decisions, and externally, as means to enhance transparency, create market advantages and augment environmental value for the company. By embedding carbon literacy within an organization’s ethos, it effectively addresses transitional risks and uncovers new opportunities (Sanderson and Stridsland, 2022).
Carbon literacy within companies is becoming an increasingly relevant capability (Srkoc et al., 2021), as nations are committing to net zero goals and policies are coming online to ensure such targets are met. The Canadian Net Zero Accountability Act was enshrined as legislation in 2021 to commit to net-zero emissions by 2050, with similar goals embedded in the European Union (EU) Green Deal (European Commission, 2019). Company-level contributions to these goals are described in the EU Green Deal, which plans to introduce the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to modernize and strengthen the rules about the social and environmental information that companies must report (European Commission, 2022). Informed investors are a particularly relevant audience for financing the transition (representing roughly half of the €1tn the EU Green Deal plans to mobilize in the next decade), which underpins the need for climate risk disclosure to provide the decision support for green financing (Sanderson et al., 2019).
Incoming policies meant to transition us to a low-carbon economy are emerging globally and present risks for all actors. For SMEs that are agile and proactive, significant opportunities for innovation and market share exist. In Canada, small businesses (1–99 employees) comprise 97.9% of employer businesses and contribute 41.9% to GDP (Government of Canada, 2020). In Europe, they represent more than half of the GDP, 99% of all businesses in the EU and employ around 100 million people (European Commission, 2022). Potential aggregate carbon reductions associated with these enterprises could go a long way toward achieving Paris Agreement commitments. These opportunities have been key drivers behind course design at UCPH and UNBC and have prompted us to ask what universities can do to facilitate the development of new and innovative business practices for the low-carbon transition.
Co-learning and sustainability
Co-learning has various meanings, and we engage with it here as a process of mutual learning between students, business owners and instructors who want to actively address climate change. A key element of co-learning in this case is extending the experience beyond the classroom. Advocacy for third-mission activities at post-secondary institutions has been around for several decades, arguing that service to communities and active participation in social change should be elevated alongside research and teaching activities. Pressure on universities to increase their service capacity has risen in recent years (Compagnucci and Spigarelli, 2020), particularly as climate change issues have amplified (Trencher et al., 2014) and calls for sustainability entrepreneurship have risen (Fichter and Tiemann, 2018; Nave and Franco, 2019; Wagner et al., 2021).
Trencher et al. (2014) critique the early-third mission’s focus on income generation and technology transfer. As universities pair with government, industry and other civil society actors, “a broader and more ambitious function has emerged: that of a societal transformer and co-creator” (p. 152). Co-creation and co-production are increasingly on public policymaking agendas, particularly in the European context, as participatory and deliberative methods incorporating citizen perspectives are sought to improve public services (Brandsen et al., 2018). Similar arguments are made for improving sustainability research (Norström et al., 2020; Reed and Abernethy, 2018).
Pereira and Franco (2022) look closely at what “cooperation” means when universities and SMEs work together. Their bibliometric scan leads them to conclude that the primary driver of U-SME partnerships (mostly occurring in European countries) is the desire for knowledge to assist with innovation and problem-solving, but that there needs to be improvement in communication channels. Bishop et al. (2011) studied UK university-firm partnerships and found an increase in the firms’ absorptive capacity (i.e. the ability to identify valuable knowledge, assimilate it and apply it to commercial ends). They also show that firms already committed to research and development and in close geographic proximity to the university obtained the greatest benefits [2].
Studies from the United States and Canada show that co-learning is particularly effective when students collaborate with entities that lack resources (Mosier and Ruxton, 2018) or are seeking flexible project design (Groulx et al., 2020), as small business owners often do when managing climate risks. Successful partnerships require mutual benefits and the acquisition of new knowledge. Our courses generate three co-learning outcomes: students develop skills for post-graduation; instructors learn about partner outreach and relationship building; and business partners gain carbon literacy and knowledge of climate impacts. As suggested by Turnhout et al. (2020), our research goes beyond aspirational and methodological discussions (i.e. how partnerships should be done) to examine unachieved objectives (i.e. why partnerships fail). It allows us to adapt pedagogy as we learn from what has and has not worked.
Understandably, SMEs require a wider apparatus of support that goes beyond what universities can offer. Burch and Di Bella (2021) argue that businesses need to be situated in an evolving social and environmental landscape and suggest that business models should be thought of as activity systems. Their model includes government actors, finance organizations, technology providers, clients, community organizations, competitor firms and knowledge brokers as “building blocks” that “enhance the relational capabilities of an SME to influence system leverage points” (p. 1967). Educational institutions function as knowledge brokers in a variety of ways. In our co-learning model, cost barriers are reduced; carbon literate students are introduced into the economy; and carbon literacy increases among businesses not yet required to report or disclose emissions. We discuss these and other outcomes as part of the wider systems of support that SMEs need to turn transitional risks into opportunities and promote a low-carbon transition.
Research methods and courses in context
The courses are similar in curricular vision and course design, and concurrent program review provided us with an opportunity for comparison that was too analytically fruitful to ignore. Yet, there are differences that need to be noted. Copenhagen has a population of 809,314 (Denmarks Statistik, 2023) and Prince George is significantly smaller with a population of 76,708 (Government of Canada SC, 2021). Both are situated in different geographies, infrastructures, cultures, urban ecologies, regional and national development trajectories and policy regimes.
Our surveys were delivered independently of each other, but the design was collaborative, adjusted to reflect differentiated course histories and geographic settings. Company owners, CEOs, operation/project managers and sustainability personnel at 12 CS and 19 LCT businesses completed surveys that were a mix of open-text and multiple-choice questions.
Open-text box results were coded through hybrid thematic analysis using deductive and inductive codes, establishing rigour through a combination of theoretically derived codes and those that emerged through engagement with the data (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Carbon reductions and co-learning were a priori codes developed before data collection for both cases (i.e. first-order coding), and the deductive codes that further refine our data theming (time and resources, solution feasibility, governance and reporting frameworks, communication methods and disclosure and need for extension) emerged through review of survey results (i.e. second-order coding). To align across data sets in this secondary stage, both were reviewed for latent themes; recurring themes structured the interpretive work we did to connect to broader meanings in our thematic analysis.
The novelty of the hybrid deductive-inductive approach reflects the twinned intention of the study: to improve pedagogy, which, arguably, should be data-driven if aiming to step outside of researcher/teacher preconceptions. The study is also theoretically driven. As implied by our first research question, the study aims to contribute more broadly to the field of decarbonization and transitional climate risks.
Denmark: climate solutions at Copenhagen University
Copenhagen has been considered a frontrunner in sustainability, aspiring to be the first climate-neutral city by 2025 (Københavns Kommune, 2012). Danes self-identify as “being green” and attuned to environmental and sustainable energy issues as they regard climate change as a serious problem (Glaas et al., 2015; Tampakis et al., 2013). In 2020, the Danish Climate Act was passed, committing to a 70% reduction of emissions to 1990 levels by 2030 (Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsministeriet, 2020).
Climate Solutions is a full-time master’s-level interdisciplinary elective course that has been offered at UCPH since 2011. Predefined groups of students, based on an initial background survey, apply circular economy and sustainable design principles to create climate plans based on organizational GHG inventories for their case partners across three main deliverables:
a GHG inventory and Excel document, which is intended as a tool to maintain company progress once the course is complete;
a report on major findings, and an assessment of relevant emission reduction scenarios; and
students create a multimedia communication project based on their findings, the group’s skills and ambitions, intended audience and message in collaboration with the client.
As of 2023, 60 business cases have participated in CS. While word of mouth still contributes to case generation, social media presence is beginning to play a much larger role. One-third of 2022 cases responded to a course flyer posted on various platforms. As the low-carbon transition gains momentum in Copenhagen, we see that companies are recognizing the value of such collaborations, making case finding easier, a trend expected to continue with the introduction of the CSRD. The on-boarding process prepares the companies for fluid collaboration with their students. Together with the course coordinators, they are guided through the process of collecting data, identifying additional objectives (within reason) and are briefed on expectations and requirements for the duration of the course. A large portion of the coordinator’s time is dedicated to on-boarding.
The curriculum is designed to equip students with the skills to create and implement carbon management plans. These are achieved through lecturer- and student-led workshops, along with the expertise of university and industry professionals in relevant fields such as natural science, planning, economics and human behavior. The curriculum aims to guide the students’ progress with four objectives. First, students are introduced to GHG accounting and the GHGP. Second, group dynamics, project management, human behavior and communication topics are presented and discussed through a series of lectures and workshops. Third, guest lecturers and industry experts are invited to present relevant concepts and state-of-the-art solutions. Finally, the student groups are tasked with developing and hosting a student-led workshop on a relevant topic, often problem-oriented or solution-focused, to be inspirational or relevant to their peers' cases.
Canada: low-carbon transitions at University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George is a much smaller city than Copenhagen, with different economic orientations. Health care and education are growing sectors, but the city and region remain dominated by resource and manufacturing industries (e.g. forestry, paper and wood product manufacturing, mining, oil and gas and transportation). The LCT course has been ongoing since 2015, driven by a request from the Prince George Chamber of Commerce (PGCC) to the university to help its members gain a greater understanding of climate change and lessen their environmental impact. A total of 70 inventories have been completed.
LCT is a 300-level undergraduate course with an average enrollment of seven students per year since 2015. It uses ISO 14064 and the GHGP as guiding standards for reporting and is split into two modules:
foundations, including key theories of low-carbon transition, the math of carbon accounting and inventory standards; and
GHG inventory portfolios, developed alongside the business partners.
The portfolios are group projects (typically —two to three students) and include a team charter, project management plan, company profile, final report, presentation to the partner business and a portfolio debrief. The reports, presentations and accompanying Excel tool are the primary deliverables.
The quantitative methods learned are centered on necessary climate mitigation tools, but the course is also attentive to the social and political systems in which these tools must function. The current outline takes a socio-technical transition approach (Bridge et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2013). It generates a theoretical understanding of the “co-constitution” of energy and society: resources, technologies, cultural values and social structures comprising and influencing each other. In this way, the partnership aspect of the course makes such co-constitution explicit: students devote early research to understanding the wider sectoral profiles and policy landscapes in which local businesses operate and present this alongside a quantitative technique to increase carbon literacy.
Results
The surveys focused on two pre-designated themes used to explore partnerships – carbon reductions and co-learning. Responses related to carbon reductions tell us about limitations associated with time and resources, solution feasibility and governance and reporting frameworks. The challenges and successes associated with co-learning surfaced as communication methods and disclosure and need for extension (i.e. the additional time and resources needed to trigger deeper and longer outcomes). These elements are all interrelated, as explored in our discussion.
It is notable that the reasons businesses participate in Copenhagen and Prince George differ. LCT respondents were focused on community and network dynamics and saw the “course itself as strengthening the relationship between the university and the business community.” CS responses convey similar community-based motivations, but carbon reductions and market advantages surfaced as more significant drivers. Showcasing their reductions, comparing to competitors, having transparent communication with stakeholders and responding to customer demands were priorities. A total of 27% of the LCT cases are not-for-profit organizations, whereas the CS cases are all for-profit businesses, likely driving some of these differences. Common to both courses was an overarching positive response to student efforts and professionalism.
Carbon reductions
All CS cases and 75% of LCT respondents indicated a desire for carbon management to play a bigger part in their future business plans. Some CS businesses have put results to use quickly. For example, when CS respondents were queried about the extent of learning incorporated into their business strategies, two restaurants reported no longer serving beef, one organization increased their share of local suppliers and a manufacturing company added more ground-based transport to their supply chains. 58% of CS respondents report having used the collaboration results as decision support for future business plans, with 25% developing a climate plan and 8% publishing a carbon management strategy. LCT partners have implemented lighting retrofits, heat pump installations, work-from-home options for employees, or fuel switching for company vehicles. Many of these changes might be considered low-hanging fruit, whereas CS cases had more examples that indicated a core shift in company identity or branding.
Time and resources.
Lack of staff, time, managerial and financial resources were repeatedly listed as primary reasons why businesses could not take the carbon reduction steps they wanted to. One significant barrier is data collection. One respondent noted “a lot of challenges in procuring the data needed.” Data often comes incrementally from businesses and arrives late in the inventory and research process, which has a negative impact on student learning.
Some data is simply not available, or students must work with “best estimates” for important data when suppliers are slow to respond with information. This means that students and the company resort to assumptions to fill data gaps. The CS course has been working to rectify these challenges. In 2019, they made adequate data a prerequisite for participation [3], and instructors introduced them to the inventory framework and a data collection template. This process is constantly being refined by course coordinators in both settings. Low-quality or less rigorous data sets are a significant factor in inhibiting the carbon reductions reported once the courses are complete.
Time limitations are also persistent. Businesses are unable to incorporate climate data into their management systems because of a lack of staff, time and managerial resources. One LCT respondent simply stated: “because the business is struggling, every minute counts,” and carbon accounting is deprioritized in tough economic times. For example, for one company, a waste diversion solution was appealing, but they could not find the time to distribute materials to multiple sites, resulting in a corresponding rise in time-consuming client encounters; “the industry is so competitive that if I take some of these steps it makes me less competitive.” Many of the primary business contacts are owners, and their roles cannot support the time needed for inventory work. The partners that conveyed continued engagement had designated sustainability roles within the company.
Solution feasibility.
Comments related to feasibility surfaced for CS and LCT, referring to the cost of interventions, access to lower carbon technologies and company alignment with customer preference. Businesses expressed that they needed workable ideas and strategies. An LCT partner cited economic barriers (e.g. not having the budget for a lighting retrofit), and a CS partner indicated that implementing a proposed solution would dissuade their customers.
Affordable and accessible clean technology was one of the most frequent subjects in the LCT survey and was often mentioned in the CS survey. LCT respondents pointed to solution technologies, such as electrification, which are not developed enough to fill the required role (e.g. city-wide charging stations, industrial-scale woodchippers, etc.). CS results indicate that recommendations such as solar PV solutions or major shifts in production methods, are not economically or physically feasible. Some solutions are not available locally or are not yet on a sufficient scale. Affordability challenges are accentuated in small businesses: “We are a non-profit organization and do not have room in our budget.” They recognize a need for external funding for reduction initiatives or new technology purchases but cannot find the time to research funders and pursue applications.
Finding feasible solutions goes beyond identifying economic and technical needs. Aligning the values and ambitions between companies and students was a common theme. Respondents referred to student enthusiasm for emerging technologies or theoretical solutions, but said that they did not align with the company’s current capacities. The courses promote solution literacy as a learning objective, but some companies are hesitant to implement solutions proposed by students. This points to a misalignment of intentions and values between students and partnering businesses.
Governance and reporting frameworks.
The governance systems in which carbon reductions are expected to occur were a source of frustration among respondents to both surveys. Several LCT cases call for legislative guidance, and most CS cases wish for more common and pervasive frameworks to support comparisons from one business to another.
One LCT respondent noted a “lack of authority to require reductions and reliance on voluntary measures,” with two businesses asking for greater support from government actors. There were calls for closer ties between the singular business inventories and city-wide emission reduction targets in Prince George. The surveys also exposed the cultural and environmental values that underpin governance systems in the two geographies. A barrier to reductions noted by an LCT case was that “Prince George is a tree cutting culture rather than a tree planting and caring culture.” On the contrary, CS respondents mentioned the timely opportunity of a carbon inventory as more customers are inquiring about emissions.
A common question for businesses once the inventory is complete, is “how did we do?” Businesses want to be able to compare their activities to others. Because of the lack of consistent methodology in reports, in addition to the lack of standardized, sector-wide reporting frameworks, providing a meaningful answer to this question is hard. Criticism in the CS survey was directed toward different measurement methods [4], levels of detail, varied emission factor sources and frustration about the lack of university-validated results. Partners were frustrated with the lack of structure; the methodology lacked the rigor that is expected in the professional community, requiring them to seek assistance from external practitioners or the university. These frustrations limit carbon reduction activities, but they are also indicators that the co-learning model can be strengthened if these needs are addressed. We acknowledge the crossover in survey results between the two core themes that emerged.
Co-learning
The positive effects of a co-learning approach are clear throughout the results. Companies noted that the partnerships prompted a welcomed and intriguing change in mindset; they were approaching how they do business differently as a result. For one LCT business, “it helped us both live our values and reduce our operating costs.” Still, the surveys were an opportunity for respondents to suggest improvements.
Communication methods and disclosure.
Many companies have used the results for internal communication (e.g. presentations and employee seminars), while few have developed an external communications plan. The internal reflection is valuable: “the bottom line is that we are all responsible to reduce our carbon footprint, and this was offered as a tool to illuminate areas where that might occur. That kind of clarity is not available otherwise.” Yet, despite the value of internal review, businesses still need to compare their activities to others. Respondents that have not yet communicated their results to wider audiences also responded lower in their satisfaction of the partnership.
For those companies that have engaged in outward-facing communication campaigns using the data and analysis, the reports have been useful promotional tools. For CS, companies valued the multimedia component and felt confident in the report when communicating with stakeholders. In both courses, results have been used to conduct public surveys and build social media content. Yet, there may be something lost in academic reporting styles. One of the challenges of co-learning is balancing readability across a wide variety of businesses while upholding university assessment requirements. The surveys show a trend toward multimedia communications as preferred deliverables.
Another outcome of these collaborations is to show what would be required of a sustainability-focused position in the company. Two CS partners and one LCT partner described seeking professional consultants to re-assess their companies or complete a product life cycle assessment. The companies that seek further assessment are “cases in point”: the reports that students offer are providing a service that needs to be filled on a permanent basis once the courses are complete.
Need for extension.
The surveys included commentary on extension, both backwards and forwards in time, and alluding to the quality and depth of the partnerships. The results of the CS and LCT surveys on this theme are harder to compare and show greater variation, given the differences in course level and scheduling. CS is run over 10 weeks with 18 contact hours per week, and LCT over 13 weeks with 3 contact hours per week. Differing competencies for undergraduate and graduate students should also be accounted for. Regardless, both surveys suggest the need for longer and deeper collaborations.
In general, the results show that one-time, short-term (e.g. two to four months) partnerships were not enough. CS respondents described higher levels of climate literacy in recent years, yet the survey still indicated that both courses did not result in adequate knowledge transfer to allow for self-directed continuation by the companies. One owner called for “designated expertise to track and manage data every quarter,” and another asked for a checklist of considerations for them to return to regularly. Businesses are looking for ongoing feedback and “regular follow-up to remind the organization of simple steps to support carbon reduction.” CS has expanded their onboarding process. Respondents who received greater front-end support indicated less need for extension and better time management.
Students provide Excel spreadsheets that are adapted to each business in their deliverables, but these are often not used after the collaborations are over. The carbon profiles created were illuminating and something new, but there was an expressed need for extension – to embed this tool more fully in their business and to keep it going over time. Lastly, respondents also noted that the report should be accompanied by other outreach activities. There should be more “opportunities for interactive learning and exchange, such as lunches or presentations, local businesses [showcased] as examples.” This indicates a desire to network, to use the tools developed during the co-learning model to foster business-to-business relationships.
Discussion
Turning climate risks into carbon reductions
Our first research question asked us to assess GHG accounting as a tool to reduce climate risks and increase opportunities for businesses. The surveys confirmed that the courses provide access to the GHG accounting community by lowering the barriers that traditionally prevent SMEs from engaging (Quintás et al., 2018). Through these partnerships, some of the time and human resource barriers identified in both surveys are removed. This, however, is where the intended co-learning outcomes fail. Once students are no longer available, businesses cannot devote the time or resources necessary for regular reporting or emissions reduction initiatives, common constraints among SMEs in co-learning settings (Mosier and Ruxton, 2018). While new graduates of the course are equipped with the industry-ready skills needed to fill these organizational gaps, our study suggests that co-learning must be sustained over longer periods of time or intensified.
Recognizing that single-semester collaborations are not enough, the need for extension can be addressed in a few ways. The only companies that have been able to quantify emission reductions have resorted to paid practitioners to maintain the assessments’ value and manage successive reporting. This is not desirable, as many SMEs cannot budget for external consulting expertise. A greater focus on aligning the GHG inventory with the businesses’ data management systems can help the longer-term usability of the students work.
Another option is to work with the same partners each year. This would address the calls for ongoing feedback and regular follow-up in the surveys and has the potential to establish more robust annual reporting regimes and target-setting. Businesses may then be able to weave solutions into deeper and more complex aspects of operations, a holistic mindset called for in SME sustainability (Løkke and Madsen, 2023). At UCPH, the student groups working on repeat cases have not had access to the previous reports to reinforce the pedagogic aspect of student interpretation and the creation of an original report. This may hinder the comparability between years for repeat cases, however, and can be easily rectified with a deeper understanding of GHG accounting and clearer objective setting by the business partners.
Another way for the university to extend its impact is to facilitate enterprise-to-enterprise relationship building and exchange. Kundurpi et al. (2021) identify a wide range of intermediaries (e.g. innovation centers, local governments, community groups) that assist and support SMEs in urban sustainability transitions but argue that networking with other businesses is most important. Introducing this kind of network across cases, between years and with the extended peer community could offer the businesses the support they need to make the co-learning experience more successful through events, workshops or public presentations.
Essential skills for co-learning
It is evident that higher levels of support are needed for SME’s, and universities can be facilitative partners. This is where the intellectual capital debt inherent to publicly funded universities encounters an opportunity for repayment through the action-based co-learning courses offered at UNBC and UCPH [5]. Many of the challenges that are identified here are common across methods in community-engaged scholarship, such as experiential learning, service learning and community-based research. The concerns that surface here can be placed alongside the benefits and burdens explored by others (Blouin and Perry, 2009; Rinaldo et al., 2015). Strong communication channels are essential for successful co-learning partnerships (Pereira and Franco, 2022), but our surveys revealed communication methods as weak points. Front-end (initial outreach and onboarding) and back-end (communication of results) activities need improvement. Ultimately, a balance needs to be found between academic requirements and absorptive capacity across diverse businesses with diverse consumers and clients.
Recent CS partners that have had a more in-depth onboarding experience report a more successful co-learning experience. This highlights the importance of business recruitment and front-end relationship building. Recruitment has proved difficult for LCT, not attributed to a lack of interest in the business community but to limited organizational capacity on the part of the university. The PGCC used to function as a highly valued intermediary, using its established reputation within the business community to attract new partners, set expectations and start the data collection process far in advance of the course start date. With this loss, recruitment activities have been placed solely on the course instructor [6]. The onboarding process has been simplified and shortened, rather than extended, and university-business relations have been strained.
In Copenhagen, as businesses accumulate more GHG accounting knowledge prior to participation, they gain more from the collaboration. This suggests that learning before the course, in a group setting for all businesses each semester, could add to the success of the partnerships. Intensifying the on-boarding phase requires additional work and furthers our advocacy for a team approach. Increasing institutional capacities can happen in a variety of ways: co-instruction in the classroom, hiring community relations coordinators, involving more climate-literate business staff, and fostering links with city networks and advocacy groups that are disclosing emission reduction activities.
Following Bishop et al. (2011), we want our courses to increase the partners’ absorptive capacity. The deliverables the students produce should match the businesses’ ability to identify valuable knowledge, integrate it into their business model and use the information to make their enterprises more successful. Several CS cases mention the multimedia communications project as more valuable than the report, suggesting that we rethink conventional academic assessments and choose communication mediums that will best contribute to transformative change. There may also be advantages to increasing the disciplinary background of the student body. If we can create classrooms with a greater diversity of interests and skill sets (in particular, those from business or environmental engineering programs), reporting may better match the transdisciplinary nature of sustainability in practice.
Small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and climate governance
Numerous scholars studying global environmental politics have charted the shift from multilateral to multilevel governance (O’Neill, 2017). Less state-centric, governance now includes non-traditional actors (i.e. activists, multinational corporations, municipal and subnational governments, etc.) and modes (i.e. standards and certification schemes, financial mechanisms, etc.). The opportunities for experimentation and learning through this diversity of sites and modes are unprecedented (Abbott, 2017). This is apparent in the carbon management world with the increasing prevalence of voluntary reporting and disclosure frameworks. Our study confirms that SMEs want to be relevant actors, but their capacities to engage meaningfully in sustainability entrepreneurship are contingent upon reporting frameworks and climate policy.
The marketability of data-driven sustainability is apparent. To engage more fully in sectoral-scale shifts, businesses need to be able to compare their operations to others, which may push innovation (Borsatto and Bazani, 2021). This requires more standardized reporting frameworks, which the European CSRD is expected to facilitate. In the interim, less rigid SME guidelines from voluntary frameworks are being released; however, there is a slow uptake, and questions remain as to how they interact with existing and emerging policies (Bjørn et al., 2022).
Comparing the two courses has also shown that national, provincial and municipal policy contexts matter. The longer history and more consistently progressive climate policy in Copenhagen (Københavns Kommune, 2012) and Denmark (Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsministeriet, 2020) have meant that economic actors are more exposed to climate-related information. The more recent cases in the Danish example suggest a higher level of carbon literacy prior to the course and are prioritizing and “making time” for climate mitigation and adaptation plans. Normalization is one of three political mechanisms (alongside capacity building and coalition building) that Bernstein and Hoffmann (2018) suggest contribute to the scaling and entrenchment of decarbonization initiatives. Copenhagen’s established social, political and cultural proclivity for “greening” may be a significant factor influencing what “standard practice” is for the city, and the bar still needs to be raised in the Canadian case via local and national-level policy. The hesitancy expressed by one Prince George business around client preference for greener goods and practices is a case in point.
Pedagogical outcomes and future research
Our second research question revolves around comparison. What are the co-learning impacts in each case, and what have we learned from each other, ultimately, to improve our courses and our approach to teaching? In this regard, the positive outcomes far surpassed expectations. It was illuminating to share our experiences and survey results with each other across continents and educational institutions. The key learnings and the extensive list of improvements and adaptations that we will integrate into future course delivery (some already underway) are evidence that co-learning between HEIs is an evolutionary step. To conclude our discussion, we summarize the pedagogical outcomes that have surfaced through this research (Figure 1). We chart these as future changes prompted by what we learned through our surveys. These are of use to us, as we reflect on our own method and practice of teaching. We also intend for them to be useful to universities and business entities that are interested in pursuing similar lines of action-oriented co-learning in the name of climate action.
Pedagogy involves learners and teachers, and refining the co-learning model based on this research might improve the classroom experience. Participatory pedagogy and project-based learning, especially in an action-based setting, are useful as demonstrations of civic engagement (Andersen and Ponti, 2014; Booth et al., 2020a; Leal Filho et al., 2016, 2019). What we learned about business experiences through this study also serves as an opportunity to improve and expand industry-ready skills gained by students, orienting them toward life beyond the university. Both courses establish carbon literacy and the ability to communicate complex emission issues among future graduates, which will become increasingly relevant as policies such as the CSRD come into effect. Working directly with businesses requires students to gain proficiency in professional communication skills, which can be further refined by prioritizing consultancy-style reports and greater interdisciplinarity within student groups. Diversifying the disciplinary background of students may contribute to the overall success of the collaborations, with greater potential for solution feasibility.
As businesses gain higher levels of climate literacy, courses like ours will be able to provide valuable decision support and allow businesses to effectively put results to use. This, as we caution, is reliant on a thorough onboarding process that deepens the relationship between the university and the business partner. Success is also reliant on careful choices in communication methods and skills.
We also predict that some of these changes will help us to manage business expectations as to what they can and cannot use GHG inventories for and will generate a much-needed focus on value-chain and Scope 3 emissions. Finally, the ideal goal would be to permanently embed carbon accounting and climate plans into business strategies, much like financial budgets. Once these tools enter the realm of standard business operations, the “overcoming barriers” service that both of our courses provide is no longer necessary.
While positive pedagogical outcomes emerged, we also acknowledged limitations and the wider “activity systems” of support that are still needed for transformative change (Burch and Di Bella, 2021). An important aspect of the courses at UCPH and UNBC is that they are iterative; instructors have revised content and approach every year in response to changing student, business and institutional factors. The iterative nature of course design means that each year there are new variables influencing business experience, which were difficult to identify given our research design. We also know that our survey participants are associated with businesses that are proactively seeking climate solutions. If we aim to provide a service to businesses having to navigate transitional climate risks, we need to hear from enterprises that have limited interest or capacity, facilitating higher levels of accessibility and inclusion in the low-carbon transition.
As carbon management occupies more of the sustainable company profile, inaccuracies will have detrimental consequences for companies considering emerging policies, such as the CSRD. Further research is needed to provide clarity on company-level challenges, providing the knowledge needed to improve quantification and reporting standards, and in turn, reinforcing the quality of service offered through courses such as ours. Further, as carbon literacy increases, companies will benefit from research on comparative decision support, where systems thinking and consequential LCA must be considered and developed for truer decarbonization (Brander and Ascui, 2015; Weidema et al., 2018). Finally, emissions share the sustainability space with a variety of other environmental and social governance goals. There is potential to apply the co-learning model to other facets of sustainability performance through next-generation climate services (Hewitt and Stone, 2021; Jacobs and Street, 2020).
Conclusion
SMEs want to become innovative actors in climate change mitigation and adaptation, as evidenced by the businesses that have participated in the UCHP and UNBC partnerships. Collectively, SMEs have the potential to make a significant contribution to global emissions reductions, but they require greater carbon literacy and understanding of the risks and opportunities associated with low-carbon transitions. Universities are in a unique position to offer such services to their communities through courses that adopt a co-learning approach.
The action-oriented courses examined in this article highlight the benefits that have been accrued by students, teachers and business owners alike. Despite being developed independently, comparing key elements and objectives has been a highly constructive experience. Our survey results and discussion have helped us identify what is working and what is not, in turn shaping future iterations of our respective courses. The results confirm that co-learning is welcomed by companies, but they identify limitations related to company time and resources, solution feasibility, governance and reporting structures and communication methods. These barriers suggest that the co-learning experience needs to be lengthened and/or intensified. Overly academic deliverables detract from usability, calling for communication methods that are accessible to diverse audiences while still achieving scientific transparency. Action by the company is also slowed because of a lack of municipal or regional guidance.
In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights for businesses interested in being proactive about climate change and for anyone engaged in university-community partnerships. The university has a unique role to play in providing support to businesses that want to become innovative actors in climate change mitigation and adaptation. The study highlights the benefits and limitations of co-learning, action-oriented courses and provides useful information for educators who may be interested in implementing similar programs.
Figures
Notes
We use the OECD business size category for SMEs as employing fewer than 250 people. “Enterprise” and “business” are the most common terms used throughout the article, though we consider these inclusive of the profit and non-profit organizations that are under consideration in this research.
The proximity question is an interesting one, particularly given the virtual technologies the world turned to during the COVID-19 pandemic. CS, for example, has gained positive feedback on their remote partnerships, and there are many ways in which virtual delivery and engagement can increase access for SMEs.
Some cases still mentioned time constraints for data collection as a barrier after the prerequisite was introduced.
Life cycle assessments can employ different methodological approaches, including consequential and attributional approaches. For more information, see Brander and Ascui (2015) and Weidema et al. (2018).
We introduce the concept of “intellectual capital debt” as a service representation of dues owed, in a national context where universities are publicly funded, to support third mission narratives. The literature suggests intellectual capital as useful for managing third-mission variables in the university (Brander and Ascui, 2015; Weidema et al., 2018), and by adding a debt perspective, it enhances the societal linkages of the entrepreneurial university.
This essentially adds a time-intensive community relations component to a faculty workload where service continues to be undervalued in tenure and promotion processes.
References
Abbott, K.W. (2017), “Orchestrating experimentation in non-state environmental commitments”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 738-763.
Andersen, R. and Ponti, M. (2014), “Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: challenges and opportunities”, Distance Education, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 234-249.
Aragón-Correa, J.A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S. and García-Morales, V.J. (2008), “Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 88-103.
Bernstein, S. and Hoffmann, M. (2018), “The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 189-211.
Bishop, K., D’Este, P. and Neely, A. (2011), “Gaining from interactions with universities: multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity”, Research Policy, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 30-40.
Bjørn, A., Tilsted, J.P., Addas, A. and Lloyd, S.M. (2022), “Can science-based targets make the private sector Paris-aligned? A review of the emerging evidence”, Current Climate Change Reports, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 53-69.
Blouin, D.D. and Perry, E.M. (2009), “Whom does service learning really serve? Community-based organizations’ perspectives on service learning”, Teaching Sociology, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 120-135.
Booth, A.L., Aben, K., Otter, B., Corrigall, T., Ray, C. and Earley, S. (2020a), “Carbon management and community-based action learning: a theory to work experience”, Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 62-71.
Booth, A., Earley, S., Aben, K., Otter, B., Corrigal, T. and Ray, C. (2020b), “Action learning partnerships: carbon, commerce and community co-learning at a Canadian university”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 943-957.
Borsatto, J.M.L.S. and Bazani, C.L. (2021), “Green innovation and environmental regulations: a systematic review of international academic works”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28 No. 45, pp. 63751-63768.
Brander, M. and Ascui, F. (2015), “The attributional-consequential distinction and its applicability to corporate carbon accounting”, in Schaltegger, S., Zvezdov, D., Alvarez Etxeberria, I., Csutora, M. and Günther, E. (Eds), Corporate Carbon and Climate Accounting, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 99-120, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_5 (accessed 3 May 2023).
Brandsen, T., Steen, T. and Verschuere, B. (Eds) (2018), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services, Taylor and Francis, available at: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25001 (accessed 5 July 2022).
Bridge, G., Barr, S., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., Brown, E., Bulkeley, H. and Walker, G. (2018), Energy and Society: A Critical Perspective, Routledge, New York, NY, available at: www.routledge.com/Energy-and-Society-A-Critical-Perspective/Bridge-Barr-Bouzarovski-Bradshaw-Brown-Bulkeley-Walker/p/book/9780415740746 (accessed 8 June 2022).
Burch, S. and Di Bella, J. (2021), “Business models for the anthropocene: accelerating sustainability transformations in the private sector”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1963-1976.
Compagnucci, L. and Spigarelli, F. (2020), “The third mission of the university: a systematic literature review on potentials and constraints”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 161, p. 120284.
Daumas, L. (2023), “Financial stability, stranded assets and the low-carbon transition – a critical review of the theoretical and applied literatures”, Journal of Economic Surveys,
Denmarks Statistik (2023), “Befolkningstal”, available at: www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/befolkningstal (accessed 10 May 2023).
European Commission (2019), “EU green deal”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed 27 July 2022).
European Commission (2022), “Corporate sustainability reporting directive proposal”, available at: https://finance.ec/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en (accessed 30 August 2022).
Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006), “Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Fichter, K. and Tiemann, I. (2018), “Factors influencing university support for sustainable entrepreneurship: insights from explorative case studies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 175, pp. 512-524.
Finger, M. and Svarin, D. (2018), Transnational Corporations and the Global Environment, Oxford University Press, available at: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-489
Gambhir, A., George, M., McJeon, H., Arnell, N.W., Bernie, D., Mittal, S., Köberle, A.C., Lowe, J., Rogelj, J. and Monteith, S. (2022), “Near-term transition and longer-term physical climate risks of greenhouse gas emissions pathways”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 88-96.
Glaas, E., Gammelgaard Ballantyne, A., Neset, T.-S., Linnér, B.O., Navarra, C., Johansson, J., Opach, T., Rød, J.K. and Goodsite, M.E. (2015), “Facilitating climate change adaptation through communication: insights from the development of a visualization tool”, Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 10, pp. 57-61.
Government of Canada (2020), “Key small business statistics 2020”, Reports;Related Links;Statistical Reports. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, available at: www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/h_03126.html#definition (accessed 18 October 2021).
Government of Canada SC (2021), “Census of population, prince George”, available at: www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed 4 May 2023).
Groulx, M., Nowak, N., Levy, K. and Booth, A. (2020), “Community needs and interests in university–community partnerships for sustainable development”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 274-290.
Hewitt, C.D. and Stone, R. (2021), “Climate services for managing societal risks and opportunities”, Climate Services, Vol. 23, p. 100240.
Jacobs, K.L. and Street, R.B. (2020), “The next generation of climate services”, Climate Services, Vol. 20, p. 100199.
Klima-, Energi- og Forsyningsministeriet (2020), “Lov om klima”, available at: www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/965 (accessed 27 July 2022).
Københavns Kommune (2012), “KBH 2025 klimaplanen”, available at: www.kk.dk/politik/politikker-og-indsatser/klima-og-miljoe/klimaplan-co2-neutral-hovedstad (accessed 10 May 2023).
Kundurpi, A., Westman, L., Luederitz, C., Burch, S. and Mercado, A. (2021), “Navigating between adaptation and transformation: how intermediaries support businesses in sustainability transitions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 283, p. 125366.
Leal Filho, W., Shiel, C. and Paço, A. (2016), “Implementing and operationalising integrative approaches to sustainability in higher education: the role of project-oriented learning”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 133, pp. 126-135.
Leal Filho, W., Vargas, V.R., Salvia, A.L., Brandli, L.L., Pallant, E., Klavins, M., Ray, S., Moggi, S., Maruna, M., Conticelli, E. and Ayanore, M.A. (2019), “The role of higher education institutions in sustainability initiatives at the local level”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 233, pp. 1004-1015.
Løkke, S. and Madsen, O. (2023), “SMEs and the sustainability challenge: digital shadow enabling smart decision making”, in Madsen, O., Berger, U., Møller, C., Heidemann Lassen, A., Vejrum Waehrens, B. and Schou, C. (Eds), The Future of Smart Production for SMEs: A Methodological and Practical Approach towards Digitalization in SMEs, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 281-295, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15428-7_23 (accessed 3 May 2023).
Martín-Tapia, I., Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2010), “Environmental strategy and exports in medium, small and micro-enterprises”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 266-275.
Miller, C.A., Iles, A. and Jones, C.F. (2013), “The social dimensions of energy transitions”, Science as Culture, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 135-148.
Mosier, S. and Ruxton, M. (2018), “Sustainability university–community partnerships: lessons for practitioners and scholars from highly sustainable communities”, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 479-495.
Nave, A. and Franco, M. (2019), “University-Firm cooperation as a way to promote sustainability practices: a sustainable entrepreneurship perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 230, pp. 1188-1196.
Norström, A.V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M.F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A.T., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A. and Campbell, B.M. (2020), “Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 182-190.
O’Malley, B. (2019), “Networks of 7,000 universities declare climate emergency”, University World News, available at: www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190710141435609 (accessed 10 May 2023).
O’Neill, K. (2017), “The environment and international relations”, Cambridge University Press, available at: www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/the-environment-and-international-relations/81A21583C445BF4EF25B79A236A7A4D0 (accessed 22 June 2022).
Ojea Ferreiro, J., Reboredo, J.C. and Ugolini, A. (2022), “The impact of climate transition risks on financial stability. A systemic risk approach”, SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, New York, NY, 4203373, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4203373 (accessed 3 May 2023).
Pereira, R. and Franco, M. (2022), “Cooperation between universities and SMEs: a systematic literature review”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Quintás, M.A., Martínez-Senra, A.I. and Sartal, A. (2018), “The role of SMEs’ green business models in the transition to a low-carbon economy: differences in their design and degree of adoption stemming from business size”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 2109.
Reed, M.G. and Abernethy, P. (2018), “Facilitating co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with Canadian biosphere reserve practitioners”, Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Rinaldo, S., Davis, D. and Josh, B. (2015), “Delivering value to community partners in service-learning projects”, Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 115-124.
Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Barnard, P. and Moomaw, W.R. (2020), “World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency”, BioScience, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 8-12.
Sanderson, H. and Stridsland, T. (2022), “Cascading transitional climate risks in the private sector–risks and opportunities”, in Kondrup, C., Mercogliano, P., Bosello, F., Mysiak, J., Scoccimarro, E., Rizzo, A., Ebrey, R., Ad Jeuken, M.R. and Watkiss, P. (Eds), Climate Adaptation Modelling, Springer Climate. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 179-186.
Sanderson, H., Irato, D.M., Cerezo, N.P., Duel, H., Faria, P. and Torres, E.F. (2019), “How do climate risks affect corporations and how could they address these risks?”, SN Applied Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 12, p. 1720.
Srkoc, M.M.M., Pontoppidan, C.A., Molthan-Hill, P. and Korbel, P. (2021), “Exploring carbon education for all: the carbon literacy project”, in Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Springer, available at: https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/exploring-carbon-education-for-all-the-carbon-literacy-project (accessed 3 May 2023).
Sundin, H. and Ranganathan, J. (2002), “Managing business greenhouse gas emissions: the greenhouse gas protocol – a strategic and operational tool”, Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 137-144.
Tampakis, S., Τsantopoulos, G., Arabatzis, G. and Rerras, I. (2013), “Citizens’ views on various forms of energy and their contribution to the environment”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 20, pp. 473-482.
TCFD (2017), Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, Basel.
The Carbon Literacy Project (2023), “What on earth is carbon literacy?”, available at: https://carbonliteracy.com/what-on-earth-is-carbon-literacy/ (accessed 11 November 2023).
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, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 151-179.
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. and Louder, E. (2020), “The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 42, pp. 15-21.
Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G. and Fichter, K. (2021), “University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what impact?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 1141-1158.
Weidema, B.P., Pizzol, M., Schmidt, J. and Thoma, G. (2018), “Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 305-314.
Further reading
Frondizi, R., Fantauzzi, C., Colasanti, N. and Fiorani, G. (2019), “The evaluation of universities’ third mission and intellectual capital: theoretical analysis and application to Italy”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. 3455.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Christian Bugge Henriksen, who co-created the Climate Solutions course with Dr Lysák in 2011 at the University of Copenhagen. The authors also acknowledge Kyle Aben and Kyrke Gaudreau as former instructors and Dr Annie Booth as coordinator of the course at the University of Northern British Columbia, alongside Barbara Otter and Todd Corrigall of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, who were instrumental in establishing the partnership in 2015.
Funding: UNBC research was funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insitutional Explore Grant (SIG) coordinated by the UNBC Office of Research and Innovation.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Sinead Earley is an Assistant Professor in the School of Planning and Sustainability at the University of Northern British Columbia, with a research focus on critical policy studies and low-carbon transitions. Her approach to scholarship is highly interdisciplinary, integrating ideas from the fields of critical resource geography, environmental justice, carbon management and energy studies. Teaching interests parallel research activities, with importance placed on publicly engaged education and experiential/service learning. Dr Earley has been a course instructor for Low-Carbon Transitions: Theory and Practice since 2019.
Thomas Daae Stridsland is a PhD student at Aarhus University’s Department of Environmental Science. His research focuses on the risks and opportunities of the green transition, specifically the role of universities as organizations and knowledge centers. With a goal of promoting change and advancing sustainable progress, Thomas is dedicated to understanding the dynamic interactions between universities and society. He participated in the Climate Solutions program and now serves as an instructor, bringing practical expertise to his teaching.
Sarah Korn is a graduate of the B.A. Environmental and Sustainability Studies program at the University of Northern British Columbia. Her past research experience includes decarbonization and food security in the North. Sarah is currently a research assistant working with Dr Earley with a focus on climate action and networked climate governance in northern British Columbia. Sarah was a student in the Low Carbon Transitions course in 2022.
Marin Lysák is an Assistant Professor in the Climate and Food Security group at the University of Copenhagen. Since 2009, she has engaged in designing, developing and implementing innovative pedagogical approaches in online courses and physical classroom courses on topics related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Her current research is highly interdisciplinary, with a systems approach to sustainable food system transformation that works toward a fair, healthy, sustainable, circular and more plant-based food system.