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

4.1.1 Pre-formation phase (1990–2001).

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

4.1.2 Formation phase (2001–2017).

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

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

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

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

4.1.3 Institutionalisation phase (2017–2022).

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

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

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

4.2.1 Consolidated visions and action plans but lack of implementation.

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

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

4.2.2 Unsustainable practices continue despite consolidated targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.6 Lack of administration support.

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

4.2.7 Lack of student engagement.

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

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

4.2.8 Lack of funding and resources.

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

4.2.9 Risks.

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

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

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